Cozumel Incident 9/4/11

[SalannB]

Mark:

Yes, I hesitated to use the word "deserve" and even went back to edit my post, but decided to leave it. It is a harsh word, to be sure, but I'm not sure what word I would use in its place.

I don't wish ill will on anyone. But the sheer stupidity of this incident still stuns me. I can only shake my head. I hope that Opal, Gabi and Heath will recover.

 

[redacted]

Don't quite think they "deserved" it, but was it a logical outcome of their actions, absolutely.

A good dive adventure story over a couple drinks in town might also have been a logical outcome of their actions had something not gone very wrong. I suspect a similar dive has been completed without incident in the overwhelming majority of such attempts. "Deserved" is undeserved.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Don't quite think they "deserved" it, but was it a logical outcome of their actions, absolutely.

I too do not say it to be harsh on the three and truly do wish them only full recoveries but they went into this knowing full well what the dangers were so I do not think we can say they did not deserve it. When you ignore safety and all risks then you are welcoming in whatever outcomes are possible.

 

[jswensva]

A good dive adventure story over a couple drinks in town might also have been a logical outcome of their actions had something not gone very wrong. I suspect a similar dive has been completed without incident in the overwhelming majority of such attempts. "Deserved" is undeserved.

A "good" story? Maybe you didn't mean it how you typed it, but "good" stories coming from stupid dives like this, which only don't result in injury (I won't say dives like this go right, because right is not an appropriate word for an outcome which is essentially happenstance) because of luck is *exactly* the problem with these types of dives. Even with no injury any discussion in a positive light regarding a dive like this is awful. What new or inexperienced diver hears that conversation and thinks dives like this are safe without having the knowledge to know better, or worse, has the knowledge to know better, but isn't confident in that knowledge and then becomes swayed by listening to a story like this from an "experienced" diver.

This dive and dives like it are not fodder for adventure stories. This dive, dives like it, and adventure stories regarding the same have the potential to impact many lives. That fact makes, in my opinion, talking positively about dives like this worse than doing them secretly. While the later is just stupid, the former has the potential to influence.

Hopefully a liveable recovery for all. This is sad, but self-inflicted.

 

[redacted]

A "good" story? Maybe you didn't mean it how you typed it, but "good" stories coming from stupid dives like this, which only don't result in injury (I won't say dives like this go right, because right is not an appropriate word for an outcome which is essentially happenstance) because of luck is *exactly* the problem with these types of dives. Even with no injury any discussion in a positive light regarding a dive like this is awful. What new or inexperienced diver hears that conversation and thinks dives like this are safe without having the knowledge to know better, or worse, has the knowledge to know better, but isn't confident in that knowledge and then becomes swayed by listening to a story like this from an "experienced" diver.

This dive and dives like it are not fodder for adventure stories. This dive, dives like it, and adventure stories regarding the same have the potential to impact many lives. That fact makes, in my opinion, talking positively about dives like this worse than doing them secretly. While the later is just stupid, the former has the potential to influence.

Hopefully a liveable recovery for all. This is sad, but self-inflicted.

I meant "good story" in the sense of a steel pot with a bullet hole and no wounds.

But I do think the attitude indicated in bold in the quote is counter productive to understanding what went wrong. It is not sufficient to just say, "Kids, don't do this at home." I think it is an attempt to scare folks away with absolutely no rational to make them understand the reasons this was a bad idea. This dive may very well have been planned by the group in terms of air and decompression requirements. Heck, they may well have planned this dive using the "rule of thirds" and it looks like it was
well within that "rule".

The problem is not that they did not plan enough air for a successful dive. The problem is that they apparently did not adequately address the things that could go wrong and take additional, prudent risk reduction measures.

As far as air and deco requirements, I estimate that such a bounce dive would require about 15 cu ft of air for the descent to 300 ft at 60 FPM with a SAC of .5. And the total dive air requirement of about half of an AL80 including 6 minutes of required deco stops based on Navy table. Aggressive? Sure, but...

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

since this has turned into a PADI bashing thread, I'll point out that the dive was not DIR

I don't think it's PADI-bashing, so much as a response to a comment that "We ourselves would not dive with a shop which was not PADI certified."

PADI certification does not guarantee a quality or safe experience ... nor vice versa ... it's a non-sequitur. Quality and customer service are not a function of agency-affiliation ... they're a function of people who care about their customers and who take pride in what they do. But this accident had nothing to do with the quality or safety that this dive operation provided to their clients ... these were just friends out doing their own thing. So agency or certification levels really have nothing to do with it.

But you are correct that the dive was not DIR. If it had been, these people would not today be languishing in a hospital, because they'd have been properly trained and equipped to go to those depths ... and that's really rather the point, don't you think?

My heart goes out to these people ... I wish there was some way to turn back the clock and ask for a do-over. But at this point the best we can hope for is that someone else who has been, or is contemplating, diving as they were doing will stop and reconsider based on the realization that it could happen to them.

There are no short-cuts ... there are only rationalizations. And those can get you killed ... or worse ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[SalannB]

awap:

I guess I don't see why anyone would want to do this kind of dive and take this kind of risk. What was the purpose? Just to say they'd done it? What was the benefit? To take it off their "bucket list"? To me, this is Russian Roulette with 3 people's lives. It was not just bad judgment - it was no judgment whatsoever.

I just don't get it.

 

[Garth]

Wow. Just found this one. Sad. Everyone has talked about the al 80's but has anything been said about their regs? Brand? Ip?

I would think that being that deep They might have lucky to make it back to the surface...

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

awap:

I guess I don't see why anyone would want to do this kind of dive and take this kind of risk. What was the purpose? Just to say they'd done it? What was the benefit? To take it off their "bucket list"? To me, this is Russian Roulette with 3 people's lives. It was not just bad judgment - it was no judgment whatsoever.

I just don't get it.

Is it any different than the many "bucket list" dives that people do elsewhere?

When I was a very new diver we did a trip to Belize, where they tried to sell us on doing a day trip to the Blue Hole. Cheng and I decided we were too new for the dive, and didn't go. Another couple who were even less experienced than we were did go ... the wife had less than five dives post OW. They took them to 150 feet ... and when she ran out of air the DM brought her up to a tank hanging at 20 feet, put her on that reg, and went back down for another diver. She told us later she thought it was the coolest thing she'd ever done! I think it was probably the stupidest.

I think the two biggest reasons for scuba diving accidents are ignorance and complacency. And in both cases, the accident boils down to the fact that the victim never stopped to think that something really bad could happen to them ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I meant "good story" in the sense of a steel pot with a bullet hole and no wounds.

But I do think the attitude indicated in bold in the quote is counter productive to understanding what went wrong. It is not sufficient to just say, "Kids, don't do this at home." I think it is an attempt to scare folks away with absolutely no rational to make them understand the reasons this was a bad idea. This dive may very well have been planned by the group in terms of air and decompression requirements. Heck, they may well have planned this dive using the "rule of thirds" and it looks like it was
well within that "rule".

The problem is not that they did not plan enough air for a successful dive. The problem is that they apparently did not adequately address the things that could go wrong and take additional, prudent risk reduction measures.

As far as air and deco requirements, I estimate that such a bounce dive would require about 15 cu ft of air for the descent to 300 ft at 60 FPM with a SAC of .5. And the total dive air requirement of about half of an AL80 including 6 minutes of required deco stops based on Navy table. Aggressive? Sure, but...

... and a total disregard for the effects of narcosis, which ... considering the depth ... was inevitable. When you bring your car to a racetrack you have to give some thought to more than just whether or not you have enough gas to make it to the finish line ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)