Diver Death in Cayman

[Andy077]

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, one minor issue of geology, Cayman is nearly ALL wall dives, with no bottom, or rather a bottom several thousand feet deep, the island is a mountain, and what you see is the summit.

 

[Cave Diver]

Pilot, one minor issue of geology, Cayman is nearly ALL wall dives, with no bottom, or rather a bottom several thousand feet deep, the island is a mountain, and what you see is the summit.

The main wall starts anywhere from almost right on shore, to several hundred yards out, depending on the specific site. There are literally hundreds of sites that have a hard bottom 100' or less. It's still possible from many such sites that a diver could head towards the wall and drop over to deeper dives if they so choose.

 

[Dtaine]

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.

I really have a problem with the suggestion that someone who chooses to do an aggressive dive outside of the training recommendations is only 10% responsible for his death. It's a tragic incident, but ignorance is not an excuse for poor decision making.

If the instructors completed this diver's training within standards, and weren't present on the dive, then in my opinion they have absolutely no responsibility for the incident that occurred.

As far as the facility and the DM, well the investigation should clear that up. If the DM knew he was freshly certified and took him to 100ft then he could be partially accountable, but that also depends on what discussion took place between the DM and the diver prior to entering the water, and a whole bunch of other things.

switching from "do what the instructor says" to "i'm responsible for me" is an unbelievably huge leap for brand new divers and they don't generally make it immediately after certification. Some never make leap.

It's scary really when I think about people who feel that there's always someone else responsible. Sometimes there is, and I'm not saying the DM and operator in this case aren't responsible in some way, they may be, but from what I've read I'm not so sure. However, the truth of the matter is that we've all made a conscious decision to participate in a dangerous hobby. While no one wants to scare divers away from getting certified, it needs to be hammered into people's conscious that accidents can be fatal. People need to take responsibility for their own choices and actions.

Someone earlier commented that if the group had known where the diver was, some 300+ feet deep, they could have helped. Baloney, any proper emergency response training will tell you the first thing to do is assess the scene and make sure that a rescuer doesn't become another accident victim. If someone's gone that deep on a single tank recreational dive then no one else should be expected to be able to remedy the situation and effect a rescue to that depth. While I feel bad for all involved, family friends and the like, if you accidentally descend an extra couple hundred feet then you've clearly done something wrong.

Unless the dive operator and DM slapped a ton of extra lead on your belt and gave you a faulty bc, descending to those depths is clearly your mistake, and your responsibility.

I've got a question for some of you. If the planned depth for everyone on the site was 60 feet, but this guy still descended to 300+ feet anyway, would you be so quick to blame the DM & dive operator?

 

[bsee65]

I really have a problem with the suggestion that someone who chooses to do an aggressive dive outside of the training recommendations is only 10% responsible for his death. It's a tragic incident, but ignorance is not an excuse for poor decision making.

If the instructors completed this diver's training within standards, and weren't present on the dive, then in my opinion they have absolutely no responsibility for the incident that occurred.

I have to disagree with your general statement. While I don't believe it is healthy or necessary to specifically partition blame, I would put significantly more than 10% on the diver, but the instructors absolutely bear some responsibility. The "standards" may be the legal minimum, but they don't represent what is necessary to create a safe diver in all cases. The instructor whose only goal is getting the trained monkey to perform a maneuver once or twice to meet "standards" isn't going to see that.

I've got a question for some of you. If the planned depth for everyone on the site was 60 feet, but this guy still descended to 300+ feet anyway, would you be so quick to blame the DM & dive operator?

Absolutely, because it would be the exact same scenario. Admittedly, the possibility of narcosis is greatly reduced so the diver should still be thinking clearly as he descends beyond 60' and realizes he needs to act. An OW diver should be vaguely familiar with the impact of depths between the surface and 60' on bouyancy and, while maybe unable to find the perfect trim, should be able to avoid a free fall descent. Beyond this, the DM still lost track of this diver for long enough that he was ble to get beyond visible range in very clear water. There are competing allegations about the identity of the victim's buddy, though it may have been the DM. The selection of a dive site with virtually unlimited bottom still falls on the DM/Operator as a contributing factor as well. Do I want to string them up as wholly responsible? No, but they do need to acknowledge that these acts and decisions played a part in the accident.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Beyond this, the DM still lost track of this diver for long enough that he was ble to get beyond visible range in very clear water.

But would you still feel the same if they were on a reef in 70' of water on the upper edge of a wall and while the DM was assisting a paniced diver this person had swam off? I agree that the DM and Operator should shoulder responsibility but sometimes, schit just happens and sometiomes it is while the DM is doing everything right. It really is impossible for one person to keep track of MANY people (i.e. always have eyes on them and I mean always), as well as navigate and point things out.......some part of the dive must have the DM looking forward instead of backwards. That can be enough time for things to go south quickly. I am not defending or blaming anybody here but I do know that no matter how much is done RIGHT, things still have a way of happening. As I mentioned in a previous post, nothing is foolproof.

In this case, I believe that I am missing enough information to pass judgement. From what I can see, I think everybody made a mass of mistakes, but this is with the information (questionable at best IMO) I have.

 

[Dtaine]

I have to disagree with your general statement. While I don't believe it is healthy or necessary to specifically partition blame, I would put significantly more than 10% on the diver, but the instructors absolutely bear some responsibility. The "standards" may be the legal minimum, but they don't represent what is necessary to create a safe diver in all cases. The instructor whose only goal is getting the trained monkey to perform a maneuver once or twice to meet "standards" isn't going to see that.

We'll have to agree to disagree. If a diver meets certification standards, then the instructor is right to issue that cert. That does not mean the instructor is responsible if the diver goes and does something horribly wrong. A diver is ultimately responsible for his or her own safety, I don't see how you can blame an instructor when a diver exceeds that training and gets hurt/killed. Once training is done the instructor's duty of care towards the diver is over. I would blame the instructor(s) only if they knowingly certified someone who didn't meet the standards.

Absolutely, because it would be the exact same scenario. Admittedly, the possibility of narcosis is greatly reduced so the diver should still be thinking clearly as he descends beyond 60' and realizes he needs to act. An OW diver should be vaguely familiar with the impact of depths between the surface and 60' on bouyancy and, while maybe unable to find the perfect trim, should be able to avoid a free fall descent. Beyond this, the DM still lost track of this diver for long enough that he was ble to get beyond visible range in very clear water. There are competing allegations about the identity of the victim's buddy, though it may have been the DM. The selection of a dive site with virtually unlimited bottom still falls on the DM/Operator as a contributing factor as well. Do I want to string them up as wholly responsible? No, but they do need to acknowledge that these acts and decisions played a part in the accident.

The investigation will definitely clear up the details on who was diving as a buddy with whom, and when the DM knew the diver was missing. However, you can't blame the DM for the diver's mistake in buoyancy control. Any certified diver should be able to stop a "free fall descent" at 60 feet or at 100 feet (I could start arguing about the ease of adjusting to smaller pressure changes) and if you sink like a rock and ignore the depth, I'm sorry but that's your responsibility and if you get hurt it's clearly your fault. The dive site might be a contributing factor, and I would definitely question the competence of the DM, but the ultimate factor contributing to this divers death was his inability to stop his descent. The guy was 58 for goodness sakes, not twelve.

 

[Web Monkey]

As far as the facility and the DM, well the investigation should clear that up. If the DM knew he was freshly certified and took him to 100ft then he could be partially accountable, but that also depends on what discussion took place between the DM and the diver prior to entering the water, and a whole bunch of other things.

There should be no amount of "discussion" that would get a DM to take a 2-dive OW diver on a 100' wall.

However, the truth of the matter is that we've all made a conscious decision to participate in a dangerous hobby. While no one wants to scare divers away from getting certified, it needs to be hammered into people's conscious that accidents can be fatal. People need to take responsibility for their own choices and actions.

I'd be willing to buy that if his class included a significant amount of material that sounds like: "If you do this, you could easily die and a lot of people already have. If you do something wrong, you could die. Even if you do everything right, you could die. Your dive operator might allow you to go on dives that are beyond your capabilities. You should say 'No.' If you don't say 'No.' You could die"

However recreational SCUBA training doesn't work like that. Although the training materials do mention the possibility of death or injury, it's very clinical and remote sounding. New OW divers generally don't believe SCUBA is an activity that could be dangerous to them personally because PADI's entire organization is designed to promote SCUBA as a safe mass-market recreational activity.

Unless the dive operator and DM slapped a ton of extra lead on your belt and gave you a faulty bc, descending to those depths is clearly your mistake, and your responsibility.

Both are certainly possible and only one would be necessary for this incident. Many "Caribbean" BCs offer only minimal lift, and overweighting is common; however this still gets back to the original point that if a suitable dive site was selected, the end result of overweighting, BC failure or bad judgement would be a diver standing on the bottom in 60' trying to remember how to ditch weights. It would have turned a fatality into something he could talk about at dinner and laugh about back at home.

I've got a question for some of you. If the planned depth for everyone on the site was 60 feet, but this guy still descended to 300+ feet anyway, would you be so quick to blame the DM & dive operator?

Yes. The real problem isn't that the guy had bad judgement, it's that he was taken to a location where bad judgement is fatal instead of a place where bad judgement is annoying.

Terry

 

[ScubaSteve]

Sadly, in the litigious times we live in, it's your fault, the weapon manufacturer's fault, the range owner (and all employees) fault, the ammunition manufacturer's fault, and probably the fault of the unsafe footwear that allowed the round to penetrate to the foot.

We can always count on the all wise Docc to bring it down to ground level for us. I agree with this....especially the

 

[Dtaine]

Sadly, in the litigious times we live in, it's your fault, the weapon manufacturer's fault, the range owner (and all employees) fault, the ammunition manufacturer's fault, and probably the fault of the unsafe footwear that allowed the round to penetrate to the foot.

indeed, it must be that when I said "point downrange and fire" he heard "point down and fire"

:hijackedthread:

 

[fosterboxermom]

I have decided to add some facts to this thread. I was an eye witness and these are facts of what I witnessed and I have discussed them with my husband to be sure I was being factual.

Second, I am only one person answering questions. PLEASE, don't send several questions or paragraphs for me to answer, because there are many of you doing the same thing. I can't answer all of you.

Third, PLEASE don't ask me anything about the autopsy, death or anything that is not available to the public. If you do I will tell you that it is not available to the public yet and Pam had asked me not to give that information out. I have to respect her wishes. Thank you.

OK about the "Wall"

The "Wall" as everyone is calling it and I might have called it a "Wall" as well in my previous posts, I don't know and I am not going back 500 and something posts to see, was not a "Wall" it was a sloping bottom that kept sloping in depth down and down. So it was not like a "Wall" you would descend to and dive horizontally and see an abyss if you looked down like I would call a "Wall". There was a solid bottom from where I was looking at all times, mostly sandy with reef out crops that you could swim through. Pam and I were above them at 60ft. The bottom was about 140ft. were we were diving. The other divers, meaning the DM, my husband, a couple from San Diego, Brendan and the Minor.