Diver Death in Cayman

[pilot fish]

I don't think we are there yet, but the circle is going round, this time with a tad more thought, from all of us. Let me answer your 5 questions:

1-yes, 40%
2-yes, 50%
3-yes -some -10%
4- no way, at this point, to know that.
5- no way, at this point, to know that

We're coming full circle:

• Does the facility bear some responsibility? Clearly yes.
• Does the DM bear some responsibility? Clearly yes.
• Does the new diver bear some responsibility? Clearly yes.
• Does the Colorado Instructor bear some responsibility? Clearly yes.
• Does the local Instructor bear some responsibility? Clearly yes.

The real question is how to partition it.

[/QUOTE]

 

[pilot fish]

Very good question, but impossible to answer, I think. I don't know but will try to find out. I will ask that question and get back to you but realize, it would be specualtion unless he expressed it. No one can read minds. My assumption, he was looking for guidance and got none, he was looking for a DM's experience and got a DG flip.

Pilot Fish, you have offered some excellent insight to this thread and for that I thank you but I disagree with your suggestion that 99% of the blame should be shouldered EITHER by the DM (sorry - I don't buy the DG argument) OR
the dive operator. As others have suggested the diver in question had the right to decline to do this dive, assuming his original instructor had taught him that (personally I think it is common sense that you have the right to say no to any activity but common sense isn't always so common) and he had retained (and understood the reasoning behind that information) that information. So my question to you, since you seem to be in contact with people that are closer to this incident - did he know he had some personal responsibility, or did he assume that the DM would look after him no matter what? If the latter then I agree with JimLap that the trail of guilt has to lead back to his original instructor.

 

[bsee65]

Pilot fish, I think you are, for whatever reason, too close to this thing. The testimony, eye witness or not, of an interested party can't be wholly relied on to be impartial. Even if the OP absolutely intended to tell it exactly as she saw it, there's no guarantee that her interpretations were complete or matched exactly what occurred. Even if they did, she still did not see everything that occurred on the boat or in the water. She apparently did not watch as the victim descended and became separated from the rest of the party. If you'll recall, she wasn't very objective toward the start of the thread nor has she answered some of the key questions that were asked of her. I believe that she told the truth as she saw it, but that doesn't amount to incontrovertable evidence.

If they have statements from everyone present, they may be able to get to the truth on GC. Really, the truth isn't important to our discussion. Whether the DM was an idiot, the diver was irresponsible, or the truth falls somewhere in between, we should still be able to discuss the issues that may have led to the tragedy and come up with some thoughts on how to prevent future occurrences.

-bob

 

[pilot fish]

A question for the board: why would dive op tell deceased he is going to be diving with a dive master but then they do not send a dive master but send a dive guide instead for a brand new diver? Why would they do that?

 

[pilot fish]

I wholly agree with your fine observation, with just a few exceptions. Oh, I am not related to Op, or deceased, nor do I know/ knew them.

Dive Op-. NO! you can't go to 100 ft!
DG/DM- No! You cannot got to 100ft and stay close to me!
DM/DG --we are ALL going to a 60 ft dive site

See what I mean?

First, dive op had a duty to clealy mark deceased as brand new diver and convey that to person leading the boat dive. Don't send out dive guide with newbie. If dive op DID tell dive guide the status of deceased, why did Dive guide take him to wall dive site with a 350 ft bottom and agree to take diver to 100 ft? That is the sine qua non.:depressed:

Pilot fish, I think you are, for whatever reason, too close to this thing. The testimony, eye witness or not, of an interested party can't be wholly relied on to be impartial. Even if the OP absolutely intended to tell it exactly as she saw it, there's no guarantee that her interpretations were complete or matched exactly what occurred. Even if they did, she still did not see everything that occurred on the boat or in the water. She apparently did not watch as the victim descended and became separated from the rest of the party. If you'll recall, she wasn't very objective toward the start of the thread nor has she answered some of the key questions that were asked of her. I believe that she told the truth as she saw it, but that doesn't amount to incontrovertable evidence.

If they have statements from everyone present, they may be able to get to the truth on GC. Really, the truth isn't important to our discussion. Whether the DM was an idiot, the diver was irresponsible, or the truth falls somewhere in between, we should still be able to discuss the issues that may have led to the tragedy and come up with some thoughts on how to prevent future occurrences.

-bob

 

[Web Monkey]

If they have statements from everyone present, they may be able to get to the truth on GC. Really, the truth isn't important to our discussion. Whether the DM was an idiot, the diver was irresponsible, or the truth falls somewhere in between, we should still be able to discuss the issues that may have led to the tragedy and come up with some thoughts on how to prevent future occurrences.

Yep. At this point, the deceased is still dead and the courts and survivors will beat out the rest.

There are at least two really good take-away points in this thread. One is for dive leaders, the other for new divers:

1. The dive leader (DG/DM/Instructor/Grand-Poohbah/whatever) needs to
   • Respect the suggested limits for the least-capable member of the group and
   • Not take brand new divers to places far outside training limits where mistakes can easily be fatal.
2. The divers need to know that it doesn't matter if the dive op tells you that your dive leader is the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz, if you don't have the training and experience for a particular dive, you shouldn't be doing it.
   • Dive leaders sometimes make bad decisions.
   • Just because someone "lets" you do a dive doesn't mean you should.
   • The dive leader can't "keep you safe" unless you're his only responsibility. And maybe not even then.

Terry

 

[Web Monkey]

A question for the board: why would dive op tell deceased he is going to be diving with a dive master but then they do not send a dive master but send a dive guide instead for a brand new diver? Why would they do that?

I think they're attempting to mix roles and certifications in an attempt to confuse liability.

Sometimes the "DM" is a real DM and sometimes he's actually an OWI or better, just performing DM duties. I'd be astonished if you could find an actual working, certified "Dive Guide" at any dive op on the island.

Terry

 

[CDNScubaMoose]

I think they're attempting to mix roles and certifications in an attempt to confuse liability.

Sometimes the "DM" is a real DM and sometimes he's actually an OWI or better, just performing DM duties. I'd be astonished if you could find an actual working, certified "Dive Guide" at any dive op on the island.

Terry

I agree - I doubt that the guide in question wasn't at least a DM and most likely an OWI (or higher). One of the roles a DM can perform is to lead certified divers on OW dives and thus act as a guide. If the dive op gave false expectations to the deceased about the level of supervision then they are going to be in for a rude awakening. However, if neither the dive op or DM/DG realized the deceased wanted/expected/required that level of supervision then there is clearly a communication breakdown.

BTW - I do agree that taking a newly certified diver to 100' with no hard bottom is not a wise decision by any stretch of the imagination. I just can't get my head around why a newly certified diver would be willing to go along with that kind of dive either.

 

[CDNScubaMoose]

I'm curious about the following hypothetical scenerio. If the OP (or another member of the group) had been a pro of some sort (has the cert but is just along for the dive) ... should they also be responsible for this outcome? I'm thinking no, since there was no exchange of value for service, so probably no legal responsibility but likely on the moral side things would be a bit more cloudy. I would like to hear what the rest of you think.

 

[pilot fish]

Gents, a discussion about what should be covered in training an OW diver is a worthy topic but the focus here, in this thread, is THAT accident and what went wrong once he finished his ow cert dives IN CAYMAN and what the diver, dive op and DM/DG did wrong. We all know that the newly minted diver is looking for guidance, is awed by it all, and assumes the man leading the dive is leading them to a safe site that is within the PADI recommendations. As I said before, the new diver is overwhelmed at that moment, HIS FIRST DIVE POST CERT, and does not REALLY even know the right questions to ask. Could we keep this discussion, in this thread, to the Cayman accident chain of events and perhaps start a different thread that addresses the worthy training aspect?

I think it's time for me to lurk in this thread and give other people, with fresh ideas, a chance to explore the range of tragic mistakes that led to this divers death.