Diver Death in Cayman

[Web Monkey]

With the new information regarding the bottom terrain, it would seem the missing diver had to work to get to 346'. He didnt just pass out and drift down the wall.

That was the big one for me.

Now that we've learned that there was a hard bottom and that the deceased had to make a real effort to get beyond recreational depths, a lot more of the blame goes to the victim.

Terry

 

[ScubaSteve]

There's a much simpler and more effective way. Have the person WRITE the statement THEMSELVES in on a blank line on the liability release. That way there's no question that they were aware of it.

Yeah but what about the person that claims they were distracted. Just like the people that sign the T&C pages but never read them...."Well how would I know that was in there? Have you ever read that? This is not fair!"

I am sorry but I believe that the DIVER is NOT solely at fault but they are definitely sharing it IMO. The problem is, everybody wants somebody else to be at fault and will say whatever to get it to happen.

"I never heard that"
"They never said that"
"Buddy? I was there with BOB but they did not say we were buddies"
"They did not tell us to do a BUDDY CHECK"
"I did not really understood what they meant by that"
"blah blah blah...."

That is the reality of what we live in today so I think going overboard (no pun intended) is the only reasonable solution.

 

[Cave Diver]

all those other words were so confusing

Actually I did read the whole post, very well thought out post. and you make several valid points, like several others have in this thread before you . . . but seems no matter what valid points people still seem to want to argue over who's fault it is. . .

Thanks.

Actually it's my fault. If my buddy and I had been there doing one of our 200'+ dives, we'd have noticed a single tank OC diver shooting past us and made him turn around.

 

[Byte Me]

byteme, please read this post? Hope it helps.

Pilot - I READ THE POST - that's what prompted me to post my thoughts on the limited usefulness of something like this. Apparently you didn't retain what you read in my post. Your lack of retention is more proof that although a diver MAY come across this document in a shop FILLED with other stimulus (BIG if) and that diver MAY read the thing are they really going to ABSORB what it says or what it means? Do you really think even if the shop in question had it posted and it was posted ON THE BOAT and the DM made everyone ON the boat sign that they had read it - do you really think anything would be different? His fiance and a new friend didn't want to do the prescribed dive and THAT STILL DIDN'T CHANGE THIS GUYS MIND. Yet some disclaimer would have? Please...

 

[Cave Diver]

you mean as DIR divers you would have helped a insert adjective here OC diver swimming by you? I thought protocol called for you to turn and run because poodle jackets are like crosses to vampires. . .
Most DIR divers feel the same way about CCR...

DISCLAIMER: I do not condone swimming away from divers in distress.

And yeah, if I saw a single tank OC diver below about 180' they will have, at the very least, a shadow with them during their dive. Actual contact or intervention will depend on what occurs next.

 

[pilot fish]

It does change things but I'd still like to know why this DM did not keep the whole group together at same depth?

That was the big one for me.

Now that we've learned that there was a hard bottom and that the deceased had to make a real effort to get beyond recreational depths, a lot more of the blame goes to the victim.

Terry

 

[ScubaSteve]

It does change things but I'd still like to know why this DM did not keep the whole group together at same depth?

Do you accept that sometimes schit just happens PF? And that that schit will sometimes remove the DM from the "at fault" equation? Not necessarily this time because there is insufficient information to say what truly happened but sometimes things happen that will take the DM's (or DG or "not liable for anything at all whatsoever" person) attention thus allowing a stupiud person to do something stupid. Again, maybe not this case but "nothing is foolproof to a sudfficiently talented fool".

 

[mrlipis]

PiFi, correct me if I am wrong and thanks for clarifying your position, weren't you the one that had a thread on diving devils throat?

 

[pilot fish]

Do you accept that sometimes schit just happens PF?

Sure, that is why DM and Dive Op should have made damn sure to take him to a site that was within his skill level and keep the whole group together at same depth.

]

And that that schit will sometimes remove the DM from the "at fault" equation? Not necessarily this time because there is insufficient information to say what truly happened but sometimes things happen that will take the DM's (or DG or "not liable for anything at all whatsoever" person) attention thus allowing a stupiud person to do something stupid. Again, maybe not this case but "nothing is foolproof to a sudfficiently talented fool".

We are talking about this incident [see my answer above ] so in this incident I fault DM and Dive Op, given what we now know. Actual facts might make things different.

 

[fosterboxermom]

The standards in regard to minors are in place for two reasons:

1) Most minors don't exhibit good judgement when left to their own devices and therefore should be monitored by an adult. There are many laws and regulations illustrating this outside of diving.

2) There has been some debate regarding the possible effects of diving on bodies that are still developing, so "acceptable" limitations are imposed.










Things I've just learned:

1) There WAS a hard bottom more or less within recreational depth.

2) Out of a group of divers that had both experienced divers and brand new, with only two dives, only two seemed to recall the concept of buddying up and doing checks themselves.

3) A diver in the deeper group had a problem, possibly splitting the DM attention between 3 groups, one at 60', one at 80' and one diving over a hard bottom. Presumably during this time is when the diver went missing.

4) One diver wasn't monitoring his gauges close enough to know what depth they hit during the dive and was relying on the max depth indicator to tell them what it was later.

I would think that if a group of people who knew each other came in to a shop and wanted to dive, that group would generally buddy themselves up since they know each other. I wouldnt expect the DM or shop to be responsible for naming the buddy pairs unless it was a boat full of strangers.

I would think that divers with only two dives post cert would still have the whole "buddy concept" fresh in their minds. Usually people don't start disregarding that until they've gotten a bit more experience and feeling confident in their abilities as individual divers.

With the new information regarding the bottom terrain, it would seem the missing diver had to work to get to 346'. He didnt just pass out and drift down the wall.

Another diver has a problem and started ascending. The DM now has 3 groups to keep track of and I would expect that his attention would be on the diver who had a problem and started an unplanned ascent.

There are 3 divers who are at a minimum 20' - 40' above the rest of the group, who would have been looking down to see the coral, fish and terrain on the bottom, yet none of them noticed the other diver go missing.

At least one other diver in the group failed to track their own depth during the dive, because they had no idea how deep they'd been since the max depth indicator needle didnt work.

IMO, a LOT of things went wrong on this dive and I have a hard time laying them all at the feet of the DM.

I have to say I tried to come back to the board and offer "some" reasonable explanation for things that happened, however due to posts like this one where someone twists my words and takes EVERYTHING out of context. I am no longer going to provide ANY more information. You are on your own with your speculations of who what, where and when. So continue to rack your brains into mush and I will sit back and just laugh. Because I know all the facts and you don't. I do have to thank a "few" and you know who you are for being kind to me and supporting me through this horrible ordeal. I appreciate it and so does Pam.