Diver Death in Cayman

[InTheDrink]

Where did we get this notion that anyone has the right to control the conversations that people are having about them or their loved ones?

So it's somehow OK to criticize the DM (DG?) and dive op, but people aren't allowed to critique the behavior of this diver, because his relatives/friends might get offended? Really? The only criteria for garnering "respect" is whether or not the person died?

With all the pissing and moaning that's gone on in this thread, IMO "Whine and Cheeze" is the perfect place for it to land.

BTW, I just checked and the "Whine and Cheeze" forum is not on the "robots" exclusion list file that tells search engines like teh evul goog what not to index (but it could be if Pete wanted it to be).

It's comments like these that don't really help the point of the thread. I fail to see anywhere where I said a critique of the diver was not ok.

And it is common practise for some respect to be shown to the dead, irrespective of whether the primary objective of the forum is education. This respect does not mean that faults or errors by the diver cannot be critiqued - far from.

It's fine that you think that this should be whine and cheese. I'm sure you're not alone.

But others think that this is an important thread regarding diver responsibility and DM/pro responsibilities and now new nuances such as dive guides. And currently I am still very unclear whether there is a universal understanding of what the basic responsibilities of a DM/DG are. That kind of fuzziness appears to have contributed to the deceased's death.

Just my $0.02 and it matters fairly little to me personally as I've enough sense to know what I know and have an understanding of what I don't. But there's a long queue of wanna be divers, vacation divers, call them what you will, that will rightly or wrongly believe that they are in the careful hands of a professional that will guide them and keep them safe (within objective limits). If this is not the case then there's sure a lot to talk about and it's not whining.

 

[Rhone Man]

I disagree. I think there is a huge reluctance to criticise the dead, especially in front of their friends and relatives. And that is not constructive at all when trying to analyse the root cause of an accident.

Most accidents are caused, to a greater or lesser degree, by diver error. I don't know if that was the case here, but clearly the deceased strayed from the group rather than sticking close to it. Everything else seemed to follow from that mistake. Many of the other criticisms chucked at the DM and operator (joking around on the boat, no bubble watcher topside) appear causally unconnected to the accident.

We had a certified diver, diving with a group and he someone left the group and ended up at 300+ feet. I just have a really hard time believing that the correct end to the preceding sentence is: "and it was entirely the DM's fault."

 

[InTheDrink]

Hi Rhone man,
To being you up to speed, on the assumption you've not read the entire thread (in the same way I've struggled to get through Ulysses ) the main issues that I and others takes issue with with respect to the conduct of the DM are:

1. The guy was newly OW minted - had done OW 2 dives
2. The DM brought them to a wall dive, 100ft and with no bottom. DM knew diver was newly OW.
3. The DM noticed that the diver was no longer with his group after X minutes into the dive but continued the dive anyway.

There's various other contended bits, like the OP stating that the DM was buddied with the deceased diver etc. etc. that aren't fully established, but I *think* the three points I've mentioned above aren't contended.

So this isn't to do with dancing DMs per se but whether DM's have any responsibility for certified divers whatsoever or whether once certified you are totally on your own. On that point there is much disagreement.

There's also a sub-discussion on a newly found category of diver, the Dive Guide, that looks and smells like a DM and in fact is called a DM but apparently isn't one. No-one seems to have the foggiest about this one.

Post script:
General consensus (kinda) is that there is blame all around:
Training
Dive Op
DM (DG?)
Diver.

 

[Steve50]

moving this to whine and cheese was stupid and cowardly.

This is an important subject, virtually every diver that reads this thread, new and old will look at personal responsibility different because of this thread, regrdless of what side of the issue they fall on.

Whine and cheese take away from the seriousness.

I don't believe the person who moved this thread is stupid or cowardly.

It's probably here because there wasn't a "Lets make up our own facts and argue illogically" forum available.

 

[InTheDrink]

I don't believe the person who moved this thread is stupid or cowardly.

It's probably here because there wasn't a "Lets make up our own facts and argue illogically" forum available.

Because A&I rarely has anything but facts? I must have missed that part in the other threads.

This thread at least has the benefit of parties that were present at the incident and parties that have hearsay knowledge of the incident from the Op in question. And as I'm sure you're aware versions of events, particularly traumatic ones, will vary greatly. That doesn't invalidate the existence of the thread.

I don't believe moving the thread was cowardly but I do think that it was an incorrect call but that's just my opinion.

 

[bsee65]

If anything, I'd say that those who wish to discuss the incident from a technical perspective should start a new thread and keep it on topic. The difficulty here is that one of the primary causes of this accident, or at least of this accident turning into a dive fatality, was the "DM" failing to meet the expectations of the victim. Discussing that issue is going to ruffle feathers moreso than talking about a failure in bouyancy control or a diver doing something beyond his/her comfort level, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of an accident discussion.

It is a conversation that is critical to have, though, since I am sure it plays a part in more fatalities than just this one. Whether you believe a DM should be responsible for diver safety or not, it is important that divers understand that many DMs don't feel they are. This fact needs to be made clear to all, especially newer divers who may have been awed in training or brain-washed by literature to believe otherwise.

What it comes down to is that awareness will save lives. If anything, such a discussion should be had in the basic scuba and new diver forums. Heck, it should almost be a sticky thread.

As far as "making up facts" goes, that is a lot of what the accident discussion forum is about. We don't often get a videotape showing every detail of an accident, so there's a lot of supposition going on. We talk about what could have happened, and if so, what could have been done to avoid the accident. That's often the best we can do, and it has value if people are thinking about possible issues and how to avoid or resolve them, whether they were actually the cause of the accident under discussion or not.

 

[pilot fish]

If anything, I'd say that those who wish to discuss the incident from a technical perspective should start a new thread and keep it on topic. The difficulty here is that one of the primary causes of this accident, or at least of this accident turning into a dive fatality, was the "DM" failing to meet the expectations of the victim.

NO, bees, the DM failed to do his job, even on a minimal level. The frst mistake, and the one that starts the downward spiral of mistakes, is the Dive Op failing to red flag the deceased as a brand new diver and convey that FACT to the DM. Second mistake, DM was in fact NOT a DM but just a DG. Third mistake, the status of the DG was not conveyed to deceased diver - please take note, as this point NONE of the other mistakes will happen if he is identified as brand new diver by dive op, they convey that FACT to the person leading the dive and then the person leading the dive is a DM, not just some DG with NO responsiblity or dive knowledge of what care should be taken with a newly minted OW dive, to wit, DO NOT TAKE A NEW DIVER TO 100 FT.

Discussing that issue is going to ruffle feathers more so than talking about a failure in bouyancy control or a diver doing something beyond his/her comfort level, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of an accident discussion.

OK, should a person leading a dive, DM or DG, agree to take a new diver WITH LESS THAT 3 OW DIVES to 100 ft? Did this "dive leader" even observe this new diver's ability before agreeing to go to 100 ft? NO! Why? Why would this dive leader even agree to go with the deceased, and put his own life in jeopardy, by taking a new diver to 100 ft? It is foolish no matter what was agreed to.

It is a conversation that is critical to have, though, since I am sure it plays a part in more fatalities than just this one. Whether you believe a DM should be responsible for diver safety or not, it is important that divers understand that many DMs don't feel they are. This fact needs to be made clear to all, especially newer divers who may have been awed in training or brain-washed by literature to believe otherwise.

Yes, that was also a probem with this accident. He was told one thing - DM, verified by OP, and given another thing- DG

What it comes down to is that awareness will save lives. If anything, such a discussion should be had in the basic scuba and new diver forums. Heck, it should almost be a sticky thread.

AND TRUTH

As far as "making up facts" goes, that is a lot of what the accident discussion forum is about. We don't often get a videotape showing every detail of an accident, so there's a lot of supposition going on. We talk about what could have happened, and if so, what could have been done to avoid the accident. That's often the best we can do, and it has value if people are thinking about possible issues and how to avoid or resolve them, whether they were actually the cause of the accident under discussion or not.

No, we have the statements of two people on that dive boat. They were there ON THE BOAT - OP and girlfiend of deceased.

One question to ask yourselves concerning the agreement between deceased and the man leading this dive. Do you think, please think about this for a minute?, the deceased planned to go to a 100 ft alone, or do you think, as is logical, he had a verbal agreement with the dive leader that they, the TWO of them, would go to 100 ft TOGETHER. Which begs the next question, did dive leader plan on taking 16 yr old teen with him to 100 ft also? In short, this "dive leader" did not perform even a minimal amount of due dilegence on this dive and because of that, a diver died.

 

[Riger]

No, we have the statements of two people on that dive boat. They were there ON THE BOAT - OP and girlfiend of deceased.

Pilot Fish, when you say we have the statements from these 2 people, could you provide a link or unedited copy/paste of them to this thread please. Also, are they sworn statements or are you referring to the OP's posts in this thread?

Best Regards
Richard

 

[pilot fish]

Richard, please reread what Op wrote. Deceased's girlfriend agrees with the Op statements. What Op wrote in this thread is what she also gave to police in sworn statments. I think you were told that by OP as well, right?

Do you believe what OP wrote in this thread? If not, what part do you think was made up? Why would she tell one version here and a differnt version to Cayman police? Do you realize, as I was told by a Cayman resident, that a person is supposed to be left on the boat when divers are ow?

OP -All I can say is the the shop was unprofessional. We did not get briefed as to saftey, there was only one person on the boat and the was the DM. He NEVER checked any of us to see if we were OK. This person had only done his 2 check out dives the day before and the DM was aware of how new to diving he was. Half way through the dive the DM knew he was missing and chose to continue the dive without looking for the missing diver. Now you tell me who is at fault here?

OP -I understand what all of you are saying about taking responsibility for yourself, however. we told this DM about 6 or 7 times that they were inexperienced and he ignored us that is why his fiance' and I buddied up ourselves. He has to have some responsibility in this as well being the EXPERIENCED DIVER. He easily could have said after we told him of the experience of the diver's on the boat that they shouldn't go that deep. These people were inexperienced that is the key. We were counting on him to keep us safe. If he doesn't then what is the point of having a DM? You might as well just rent tanks yourself and take your chances. They are there for your safety as well as a guide.

Pilot Fish, when you say we have the statements from these 2 people, could you provide a link or unedited copy/paste of them to this thread please. Also, are they sworn statements or are you referring to the OP's posts in this thread?

Best Regards
Richard

 

[Riger]

It is not about believing what the OP said or not. The OP was not diving with the deceased. Her information is based on that which she saw & heard. Nothing more nothing less.

The victims girlfriend's story is relayed to us by a 3rd person (the OP), that, by definition, is hearsay.

The facts that you mention are an extension of what has been said by the OP, which makes them hers, not yours.

So the bottom line is this, whilst it is clear that the DM/DG & Operator have some serious explanations to make, and no doubt, it sounds as though there was some misrepresentation on their part, they did not physically drown the deceased and I certainly hope nobody else did either.

What some of us in the thread are interested in finding out what happened after he left the boat? how did he become separated from his buddy and his group? what caused him to get to 105m?

The problem I find is that as soon as anyone breaches any of this kind of question you start shouting "DM failed to do his job, even on a minimal level" and other statements in that line.... we get it, we hear you, that does not make it true, or complete, or even fact .... no matter how often or loud you shout, it remains a speculative conclusion based on one person's perspective of the events on that day. We are not saying that she is not spot on, we are just exploring the whole story, to see how we, mere divers, can prevent this from happening to us and our loved ones in the future.

Is there much to learn from the DM/DG thing? Absolutely !! Is there also much to learn from this incident beyond the "care of duty" issue? yes.

To be clear, I hear you and agree that there appears to have been negligence on the part of the DM/DG and Operator. I (we?) are looking beyond that too.

Best Regards
Richard