Diver Death in Cayman

[pilot fish]

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.

uh, yes, AS AN EYE WITNESS. She heard conversation between "DM" and deceased.

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

No, that would be second hand. Deceased girlfrend heard same thing OP and "DM" said to each other and agreed to.

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

yes, that is true, but she was EYE WITNESS. I am just reminding you what she said. See? It does come down to , do you believer her?

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.

But, this is important, IN THE FIRST REGARD, Dive Op, their reckless disregard for safety, caused this man's accident, of which diver is complicit

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?

No, what some of us are interested in knowing is: what was first cause of this acccident and who is most at fault. Accordding to the OP, it is the Dive Op and dive guide. Do you disagree with OP that that set things in fatal motion?

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.

The REAL problem is that once a dive fatality occurs, the first one blamed is the diver for not taking responsility for himself, while immediately exonerating Dive Shop and DM of all responsibilty.

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

Again, absent the first two mistakes, by Dive Op and DM, there is no further mistake in this incident and diver stays alive.

 

[Riger]

Thank you, you have confirmed my point exactly. I could not do it better if I tried.

Richard

 

[Web Monkey]

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

Assuming the victim died after descending to @300'+, it's pretty much 100% the DM's fault, since the victim shouldn't have been taken anywhere it was possible to get to 300'+.

Terry

 

[pilot fish]

Thank you, you have confirmed my point exactly. I could not do it better if I tried.

Richard

I'm happy you have finaly agreed with the Op, and, subsequently, me. My statements below:

pf But, this is important, IN THE FIRST REGARD, Dive Op, their reckless disregard for safety, caused this man's accident, of which diver is complicit

The REAL problem is that once a dive fatality occurs, the first one blamed is the diver for not taking responsibility for himself, while immediately exonerating Dive Shop and DM of all responsibilty.

pf Again, absent the first two mistakes, by Dive Op and DM, there is no further mistake in this incident and diver stays alive.

__________________

 

[pilot fish]

Riger, please read this post, by an experienced diver, Web Monkey and tell me, do you not agree with it? If not, why?

Assuming the victim died after descending to @300'+, it's pretty much 100% the DM's fault, since the victim shouldn't have been taken anywhere it was possible to get to 300'+.Terry

 

[Riger]

I'm happy you have finaly agreed with the Op, and, subsequently, me. My statements below:

Not quite, sadly you have taken my comment out of context again.

Regards
Richard

 

[Riger]

Riger, please read this post, by an experienced diver, Web Monkey and tell me, do you not agree with it? If not, why?

There can be no doubt that had the DM/DG selected a different site, the diver could not have reached 300'+ and therefore if the depth was the cause of death, then the statement would be 100% correct.

By the same argument, if the deceased, a 58 year old man capable of making decisions, had elected not to dive, then he would be alive.

or, If any of the other experienced divers on the boat who witnessed the open discussion about the limitations of the divers on board, had convinced the deceased not to dive, then he would be alive.

or, If the instructor(s) that oversaw his training had impressed more aggressively upon the him, the importance of diving within the recommended limitations, then he would (may) have been alive.

I am sure that we can find many factors in the sequence of events that, but for a single intervention, the man would have been alive today, that is not the point and surely we have to give the deceased a little more credit than that.

For the sake of argument, let's blame the DM 100% for the wrongful death of the deceased, it still does not explain the details of what went wrong, equipment failure, narcotic effect, disorientation, etc... and that is the point I am trying to make. Without any additional blame being handed out, what were the physical reasons for this tragedy occurring?

Regards
Richard

 

[pilot fish]

For the sake of argument, let's blame the DM 100% for the wrongful death of the deceased, it still does not explain the details of what went wrong, equipment failure, narcotic effect, disorientation, etc... and that is the point I am trying to make. Without any additional blame being handed out, what were the physical reasons for this tragedy occurring?

Giving the DM/DG a 100% of the blame might not be accurate, at this point. First we have to find out if the Dive Op told the DG/DM that he was a new diver and be mindful of him. If he was told that by the Dive Op then he is 99% to blame. If he was NOT told that by dive op then dive op is 99% to blame. Keep in mind that Op says in this thread that DM/DG was told that deceased was a BRAND NEW DIVER by deceased himself, girlfriend and OP. Also, keep in mind that Op stated in this thread that the autopsy showed deceased was otherwise healthy, no heart or drugs etc. Draw your own conclusion, riger.

 

[pilot fish]

RIGER There can be no doubt that had the DM/DG selected a different site, the diver could not have reached 300'+

OK, follow chain of events, riger. 60 ft dive, hard bottom beneath newbie diver, which PADI recommends, deceased does not die, dives again that day and gets married to his girlfriend

 

[Riger]

I give up.