Diver Death in Cayman

[ScubaSteve]

250 dives AOW Nitrox does not prepare you for underwater CSI either.

And this thread was side tracked probably 25 pages ago

This thread is too important to let it get side tracked by some ego rush. Some new diver with less than 49 dives should not act like a certified Dive Master and sound like they know how to conduct a dive investigation, especailly since they are still learning themselves.

and, yes, I have 250 dives, AOW and nitrox.

Posted via Mobile Device

 

[pilot fish]

thank you for that

250 dives AOW Nitrox does not prepare you for underwater CSI either.
And this thread was side tracked probably 25 pages ago







Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Seanpaul]

This aimed at me?

yup, guess it was... welcome to the crowd!

It seems anyone who challenges or questions this poster is either insulted or patronized. Pity he can't seem to play his own game.

Anyway as most of these are "off topic" I assume the mod will have the thread cleaned up by tomorrow morning.

 

[Thalassamania]

250 dives AOW Nitrox does not prepare you for underwater CSI either.

As the only one here (I guess) who was at one time employed specifically to investigate diving fatalities I will tell you all that all the "facts" will never be ascertained, we will be left with a "best guess" reconstruction, even if there are videos since we will never know what people intended or thought,

... I think I've been able to distill that from this whole discussion.

As for "keeping in mind he was a very new diver" - I'm aware - and so was the DM, as stated in post #21 by the OP -

What's so hard to distill? You stipulate that the DM knew the victim as a very new diver. Despite this knowledge the DM took him on a wall dive to a planned 100 feet. The DM was unable (for what ever reason) to maintain the level of vigilance necessary to prevent this new diver from becoming separated from the DM and descending to a depth in excess of 300 feet. As a result of that descent the new diver died. What's so hard to understand? The questions that remain are:

1. Did the DM have a duty toward the new diver?
2. Was that duty breached?
3. Were the DM's actions so egregious at to be considered willful and or reckless?

I wouldn't automatically assume "iffy bouyancy" with a new diver - it depends on how well they were trained and how much emphasis was put on buoyancy in their pool and check out sessions, their knowledge of how much weight they need in fresh v salt water and for varying equipment. I've seen divers with hundreds of dives with crappy buoyancy as well as newbs with the same issue.

What I'm trying NOT to do here agree is with ASSUMPTIONS because doing so bolsters those making the assumptions and that's NOT HELPING.

Sure I too have seen divers with hundreds of dives with crappy buoyancy as well as new divers with the same problem, but that's not at issue ... I don't think I ever seen a new diver with the buoyancy control required to make a 100 foot wall dive.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Oh good....more of my posts in the digital trash where they seem to belong

Anyway as most of these are "off topic" I assume the mod will have the thread cleaned up by tomorrow morning.

Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Byte Me]

yup, guess it was... welcome to the crowd!

It seems anyone who challenges or questions this poster is either insulted or patronized. Pity he can't seem to play his own game.

Anyway as most of these are "off topic" I assume the mod will have the thread cleaned up by tomorrow morning.

And back down to only 30 pages!

What I find really hilarious about pilot fish is in the first few pages of this thread their posts had a totally different tone than they do in the last few. Seems like someone may just like to stir things up...

It's not their job to question you about that. Depth is YOUR decision. There are no depth police, but the DM should have known not to take that group to 100 ft.

One observation, based on your statement, " he wanted to go to 100 ft just once to experience it " signifies, that almost exonerates the crappy DM, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. That means, while the dive op was negligent, the diver was equally negligent. The very first mistake, as I see it, is the choice of dive site by dive op, the second is the diver agreeing to do that site while he knew it was beyond his skill and cert level. Let me quickly add, we have all done things like this, but we were lucky.

 

[InTheDrink]

Pilot Fish - you're rather not helping any points you're trying to make. Getting into name calling will just destroy the value of this thread.

From my perspective, one obvious value from this thread and perhaps the deceased's demise, is a better understanding of what a Dive Master's responsibilities are. If it is not a duty of care to new divers then blame needs to swim back upstream to training agencies.

But there's plenty of blame to go around, or so it seems from what 'facts' have been presented - as many have mentioned in this thread. But the guy trained under PADI and dived under a PADI 5 star Op and indeed died under their supervision. I do believe that somehow new divers need to enter the water better equipped than they are currently, and I include myself in this, when they 'qualify' in OW. These issues and points keep recurring but I haven't seen a particularly persuasive solution to this. Dive Ops typically don't make a great deal of cash - it's a lifestyle thing etc. - and more regulation (including more stringent training standards) will make it more difficult for Ops to survive, as less people will be willing to invest the time/money to learn.

Which raises the perhaps cold observation that the number of divers that die each year is within an acceptable range and that lax training and operating standards are just a fact of life and there's nothing that can be done to change this. I think anyone would struggle to make the case that taking a very new diver to a 100ft wall dive with no bottom could be considered acceptable standards.

 

[Web Monkey]

I wouldn't think so. One would think that the release forms would exempt them from responsibility, but maybe not.

Since the guy that signed the forms is dead, about all they're good for now is stuffing in your boots to help them dry.

Terry

 

[BlueFrog]

I have a few more than 250 dives and a little more training than basic nitrox as well as a 20 year history of diving in Grand Cayman. As Rhone Man correctly stated, nothing in these 36 pages proves that Grand Cayman is a dangerous dive destination or that (as the original poster wishes to pretend) ALL dive operators in Grand Cayman follow the one DM/Boat Captain, abandoned boat model that is against policy. As far as the presented facts, this was an isolated, unfortunate, sad accident that was completely avoidable but has nothing to do with Grand Cayman being a unsafe destination.

Our sport can kill us if we don't follow the rules and the open ocean isn't disneyland, there are consequences for poor decisions.

 

[Byte Me]

What's so hard to distill? You stipulate that the DM knew the victim as a very new diver. Despite this knowledge the DM took him on a wall dive to a planned 100 feet. The DM was unable (for what ever reason) to maintain the level of vigilance necessary to prevent this new diver from becoming separated from the DM and descending to a depth in excess of 300 feet. As a result of that descent the new diver died. What's so hard to understand? The questions that remain are:

1. Did the DM have a duty toward the new diver?
2. Was that duty breached?
3. Were the DM's actions so egregious at to be considered willful and or reckless?

Sure I too have seen divers with hundreds of dives with crappy buoyancy as well as new divers with the same problem, but that's not at issue ... I don't think I ever seen a new diver with the buoyancy control required to make a 100 foot wall dive.

Thalass, the distillation part was a bit tongue in cheek pointing out what I deemed to be pretty obvious from this whole thread - that what I assume I am paying for on a dive is different that what someone else may assume they're paying for.

The next bit I was merely responding to pilot fish's question to me "Do you think the dive op should have alerted the divemaster/dive guide to that fact? " pointing out that the DM did in fact know the diver was new, as the OP indicated early on.

In my opinion - yes the DM has a duty toward the new diver as he does to all divers on his boat. Not to baby sit but to clearly lay out the dive plan and since the boat was on a mooring line provide everyone with the sign for when they would turn back - assuming it was an out and back dive - (e.g. when someone gets to 1/2 tank), conditions, swim throughs, what they typically see, point out critters. Perhaps, since there were as many new people in the group, do a few extra "OK" checks and air checks. Was the duty breached? I believe it was, however, not until the point where he continued the dive once he knew there was a diver missing. The diver and his fiancee' did their OW checkout dives the prior day(s) with this shop from what the OP said so it would be tough to say the DM was negligent or breached duty by taking them on 100' wall dive because he or the shop would have had some idea what the couple was like in the water.

Your last question is tough - egregious? Darn close, yes. I'd be hard pressed to say otherwise when he didn't thumb the dive when someone went missing. Willful? Apparently, because he made the conscience choice to continue to the dive. But you have to take this in the context of I'm not under the impression he breached his duty until after he didn't look for the missing diver.

That last bit about buoyancy control - you've got a ton more experience in this than I do but these two did dive with the shop for their checkout dives the day(s) before so perhaps the shop thought they'd be OK? That's all I can come up with on that one. I can tell you I learned a LOT more about buoyancy control two weeks ago in Roatan thanks to a free "clinic" on proper weighting and spending a whole week on walls.