Dive Accident on Belize Aggressor

[Mike]

So the primary blame ("a good place to start") for this incident was inadequate OW instruction.

OK, then.

The OP completed nearly 200 dives over 14 years. Could you give an estimate of how many years (or decades) of experience and how many hundreds of dives it takes a diver to overcome that OW instruction?

LOL, that made me chuckle. I'm with you. I'm pretty sure there isn't any need to pass any blame around to anyone over this, especially to the dive instruction somebody got 14 years and 200 dives ago.

 

[boulderjohn]

I think you misinterpeted my post. I believe there are many factors associated with this incident, not just the OW training. I do believe that the OW training is lacking go/no go decision making information. If I have overlooked this section in an OW manual, please point it out to me. Maybe this stuff has been updated since my training.

I am not sure what you mean by go/no go. Do you mean making a decision about whether or not the conditions are right to begin a dive?

I am not sure what the OP was taught in her OW instruction about that. I don't have any manuals from the decade when the OP was certified. I myself was certified around then, but I am afraid those details are lost in the recesses of my memory. Ever since I have been an instructor, though, the manual has clearly stated that divers should not dive in conditions for which they do not have training or experience. I am pretty sure the OP was not trained in high seas; I know I was not. In subsequent years I have had a lot of experience, so I rely on that experience to tell me whether I have the training and experience to do a specific dive under specific conditions. My experience today is different from the training I received in OW. I suspect the OP would say the same.

I will admit that the manual does not mention being sure that when you remove your weights you should remember to include any ankle weights. If that is what you mean, then I guess that is a failing.

 

[Divedaily]

I agree with most people above me (although I'm a bit stronger in my rejection of your apparent tries to blame the dive-op, even in your second update, but that might be because I'm not from the States and firmly believe in ones own responsibility). I have two questions I haven't seen answered though (apologies if I overlooked them), and in my opinion might answer some of yours.

We were doing our stop under the boat. We even saw the ladders when we were in 30 ft. We came up to 20 feet and then hung out at 20 foot for several more minutes. .....................When we realized there was no way to get back to the boat, we surfaced and signaled for help. We both inflated our BCs and waited for the rescue raft.

1. how come you are under a boat, 20 feet away from it, and you didn't send up your buoy? To me that sounds VERY dangerous, and also as the main reason the whole thing happened, as the boat probably wouldn't have moved (that far) away from you if they would have seen the buoy.

2. Had the captain any reason to assume an emergency? You wrote you "we surfaced and signaled for help". Could your signalling "for help" be seen as a call for a pick-up instead of a call for help? If so, I don't think you can assume the captain would have to send two people, just to pick up two healthy divers. How would he know you cannot get back in to the boat?

 

[DandyDon]

1. how come you are under a boat, 20 feet away from it, and you didn't send up your buoy? To me that sounds VERY dangerous, and also as the main reason the whole thing happened, as the boat probably wouldn't have moved (that far) away from you if they would have seen the buoy.

2. Had the captain any reason to assume an emergency? You wrote you "we surfaced and signaled for help". Could your signalling "for help" be seen as a call for a pick-up instead of a call for help? If so, I don't think you can assume the captain would have to send two people, just to pick up two healthy divers. How would he know you cannot get back in to the boat?

In case she does not answer, I can offer suggedstions...

1: Many divers do not carry reels to send up a SMB from a SS. In this case, skipping the SS could have worked better, but as far as sending a buoy up - many can't. Otherwise, the boat was probably moved by the waves, not on purpose.

2: I think you're right, that the captain wouldn't know that she was in distress from the signal given - just that he needed to send a dingy for pickup, which shouldn't have gone badly but did. I am still surprised that she had enough weight on her ankles to pull her below after removing her kit.

 

[Just Diving]

Reading your account of the incident I don't see any fault with the dive operator. I have seen people use ankle weights and it is the choice of the diver and the crew would not have told you not to use them..after all you are a certified diver, right? as a certified diver you are supposed to be a responsible diver able to make your own decisions on your equipment and safety... I would personally not use ankle weights when diving wet..I wear fins that are negative in the water ...today if a reg. fails it will fail in the "open" position so you would be getting too much air instead of not enough...you would probally working so hard you got yourself out of breath...even though you haven't had these problems in the past doesn't mean you won't have that problem in the future..a lot of things can effect your condition especially when traveling in tropical conditions..

I'm so glad you are ok, and I agree with others here, you need to focus on your recovery and health and maybe if the doctors clear you, you will be able to return to safe diving.

 

[theduckguru]

A go/no go decision is the divers analysis of all the known conditions, the risks, their physical abilities, and their training/experance prior to each dive. Training to make that decision requires more than instructing a diver technical information/skills and advising not to dive beyond your training and experiance. I am saying basic scuba instruction does a poor job of teaching this skill and I believe it is just one of many factors in this incident.

I am continually amazed at those who tell me how good scuba instruction is, how safe the sport is, and present me a new liability waiver to sign at the beginning of each new class.

I am not sure what you mean by go/no go. Do you mean making a decision about whether or not the conditions are right to begin a dive?

I am not sure what the OP was taught in her OW instruction about that. I don't have any manuals from the decade when the OP was certified. I myself was certified around then, but I am afraid those details are lost in the recesses of my memory. Ever since I have been an instructor, though, the manual has clearly stated that divers should not dive in conditions for which they do not have training or experience. I am pretty sure the OP was not trained in high seas; I know I was not. In subsequent years I have had a lot of experience, so I rely on that experience to tell me whether I have the training and experience to do a specific dive under specific conditions. My experience today is different from the training I received in OW. I suspect the OP would say the same.

I will admit that the manual does not mention being sure that when you remove your weights you should remember to include any ankle weights. If that is what you mean, then I guess that is a failing.

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------

 

[kevmiami]

A go/no go decision is the divers analysis of all the known conditions, the risks, their physical abilities, and their training/experance prior to each dive. Training to make that decision requires more than instructing a diver technical information/skills and advising not to dive beyond your training and experience. I am saying basic scuba instruction does a poor job of teaching this skill and I believe it is just one of many factors in this incident.

I am continually amazed at those who tell me how good scuba instruction is, how safe the sport is, and present me a new liability waiver to sign at the beginning of each new class.

Was starting to believe I was the only one who believes this. I find this to be a critical, teachable skill set that appears to be fairly well ignored. Educational material and Instructor training seems focus predominately on technical didactics and really eschews any meaningful discussion of critical thinking and risk analysis. Almost all tragedies and near tragedies are never single point failures; they are usually a situation which develops, often several failures or errors in judgement which compound out of control. The question is not so much go or no-go, but rather re-assess and re-decide; anticipate and project.

Not unlike flying, scuba is very very stimulating endeavor and unless we are trained or train ourselves to constantly evaluate our environment, our skills and our risk appetite, we put ourselves and our dive partners at risk. Cheers, Kevin.

 

[The Chairman]

I find this to be a critical, teachable skill set that appears to be fairly well ignored. Educational material and Instructor training seems focus predominately on technical didactics and really eschews any meaningful discussion of critical thinking and risk analysis.

Obviously, you have never taken a class from me. NetDoc's second rule of diving: You can call a dive at any time and for any reason: no questions asked. This is an ongoing discussion in all of my classes and includes the identification and avoidance of trust me dives.

 

[Divedaily]

Thx for your reply Don.

1: Many divers do not carry reels to send up a SMB from a SS. In this case, skipping the SS could have worked better, but as far as sending a buoy up - many can't. Otherwise, the boat was probably moved by the waves, not on purpose.

As the boat moved away I was assuming (might be my mistake) that it was a driftdive. Making a driftdive without a SM-buoy would be a big no no in my book.....

 

[vladimir]

As the boat moved away I was assuming (might be my mistake) that it was a driftdive.

Not the worst assumption, but an erroneous one in this case, I am fairly sure. If you read carefully you will notice the original poster mention that she and her buddy were waiting for the boat to "swing back." The boat was probably tied to a mooring at the bow and swung in a large arc from that pivot. That is consistent with my experience (two trips) on the vessel.