Diver Death in Cayman

[letterboy]

was it the DM's choice to dive this site, or was it the dive op owners choice?

 

[Dtaine]

Newbs? WE are not going to chase after :THEM:? What are YOU? Aren't you also a relative newb to diving? Do you have more dive experience than you've posted in your profile?

New divers with less than 49 dives sounding like old salts and making :expert: analysis of dive accidents and reminding everyone of diver self responsibilty, is making me reach for the Emitrol. I have 250 dives and still don't feel qualified to pontificate. Offer an pinion:? yeah. But let us get real here and stop sounding like Neptune risen from the foam.

There you go again. Aren't YOU new to diving as well? YOU are still getting advice, still learning, honing your skills so how are you able to GIVE advice and impart dive wisdom ?

I would like to point you to the phrase "newer divers than ourselves." I've worked with freshly minted OW divers to help them along in areas I originally struggled with and I expect to continue to help newer divers as I continue my diving career.

I'd love to know when this became personal to you, was it when people started suggesting that divers take responsibility for their own mistakes? Did it offend your view of the role of responsibility?

You clearly have not read my posts, I have never stated that the DM in this case is free from all blame. Indeed all I have stated is that a diver is mostly responsible for his or her own decisions. There may be blame to go around to others, but that is for the investigation to determine. Were you upset that I wouldn't accuse the DM and dive operator of incompetence without also hearing their sides of the story? Are you angry that I seek to be more objective in my allocation of blame?

On your high horse again to pick fights huh? So in your "opinion" when does a diver get qualified to pontificate? When they have more dives than you? When YOU decide?

Irrespective of diving skill or experience (which by the way are different) some people are more alert and attentive than others while underwater. I read what Dtaine wrote as THEIR OPINION they would be willing to assist if they saw something going on but that they aren't responsible for everyone on the dive.

Your over the top sensationalism has gone from annoying to humorous. "Neptune risen from the foam" - sounds like you read that in a comic book!

Thank you.

 

[mrlipis]

And don't get my intent wrong with this post. I'm not saying that the DM or Dive Op should be absolved of any blame or responsibility, especially in this instance. It just seems that as more facts come to light, there isn't the blatant negligence that seemed to have been implied initially.

While it had nothing to do with the accident, can you tell me that leaving a boat unattended is not blatant negligence? This clearly demonstrates the mind set of this dive op. I could name 10 different scenarios that could easily go wrong with that.

 

[Cave Diver]

That's why you don't take a newbie to that kind of site with a 140 ft bottom. Bad judgement on DM part. Again, no mistakes by dive op and DM, this guy is alive. They are first in the chain in this fatality once he is on Cayman

And if he'd stayed at 140' odds are he'd still be alive. I've done enough dives in Cayman to know that you can start off at shore and if you swim far enough (which in most cases isn't very far) you can drop past 150' in a hurry.

The DM could have taken them to a 60' site and if someone was determeined, they could swim off from the group with the same result.

 

[fosterboxermom]

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

1) Most minors don't exhibit good judgment 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 wouldn't 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 didn't 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 didn't 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.

Exactly which parts have I twisted?


I offered an analysis and recap of the information you provided with some thoughts of my own thrown in. There is nothing in there attacking you and this post gives me the impression that you're only seeking to gain the support of popular opinion.

I expressed condolences to your loss much earlier in the thread, but just because I'm sorry for you loss does not mean I'm not going to continue to form an opinion about the events as more information comes to light.

Thank you for your condolences.

It is very frustrating reading everyones posts when they just keep going back and forth on dead issues.

1. It was not a recreational dive at the bottom being 140ft.

2. The DM took the rest of the divers as a group. No one knew anyone at that point we were all new to each other except the married couple from San Diego and I don't know if they did buddy checks or not. They were part of the DM's group. Key word GROUP.

3.My husband WAS monitoring his gauges and knows he hit 100ft, however you do not have your eyes fixed on your gauge AT ALL TIMES OF YOUR DIVE, so yes at the end of his dive as I do I look to see what my max depth was so I can log that. Do not presume that he didn't monitor his depth guages. He does but he could have gone to 104 ft or 101 who knows without that needle. Is that part clear?

4. As stated previously, we were all strangers until we were on that boat. With the exception of I had a dive with the couple from San Diego on Friday before the fatal dive. So we all did not walk into the dive shop together sign papers together nothing like that.We did that all individually and did not run into each other as that was being done. We all met at the boat at different times. In fact we didn't even know how many people were going to be on our dive. The boat was docked on the beach and that is where we all met. We didn't know where our dive site was going to be we asked the DM and he said he didn't know yet. We all told him of our experience and then he decided on that particular dive site.

5. My husband had problems at the depths of 100ft breathing and ascended to 80ft, yes, he got control of his breathing within a couple of minutes and then rejoined the group. He was not a third group. And that is when the DM had stopped and turned to me and signaled "where's your buddy"? So he had a couple of mins to get control of himself and was in clear view of the DM.

6. No one was ever at 20 to 40 ft I don't know where you got that info. I never stated that. Pam and I were always at 60ft.

7. And no one knows that that Brendan had to "work" to get to the depth he ended up at. The sloping bottom as I described slopes off very fast so he could have descended very quickly without any of us noticing. No one knows and I have said this over and over except Brendan and God.

I hope that was clear enough. I can't keep going over this again. And I won't be on the boards for a few hours. I appreciate everyone wanting my input. That means a lot. I know you all are interested in this accident, but please understand that somethings you won't ever know so debating it or even speculating it is really getting to be redundant. I am over the blame issue. I have my own personal feeling and your knowledge is appreciated to give other divers perspective of what to do or not to do on a dive but rehashing this accident is not healthy for anyone. Thank you,

 

[Cave Diver]

While it had nothing to do with the accident, can you tell me that leaving a boat unattended is not blatant negligence? This clearly demonstrates the mind set of this dive op. I could name 10 different scenarios that could easily go wrong with that.

It's a pretty common occurence in Cayman from my personal observations, especially on smaller 6 pack boats. It is not something I agree with and it's not a practice restricted to just this Dive Op.

 

[Web Monkey]

That's why you don't take a newbie to that kind of site with a 140 ft bottom. Bad judgement on DM part. Again, no mistakes by dive op and DM, this guy is alive. They are first in the chain in this fatality once he is on Cayman

The guy would still be alive at 140' too. Probably really narced, but still breathing, and easy enough to find and rescue if his buddy was watching and the water was clear (which either lets the DM off the hook or makes him guilty, depending on who the guy's buddy was supposed to be).

A 140' floor is bad judgement, but not incredibly negligent, since a rescue is still more-or-less possible with recreational training and equipment. A 340' bottom is just insanity with a new diver, since before the dive even starts, it's known that a rescue isn't possible with a huge risk for the rescuer.

In this case (from what we've been told), there was a floor around 140', which makes it a bad choice, but nothing I'd be willing to ruin a dive op or DM over. The victim would have had to make a significant, concious effort to get to 340', including descending to the 140' floor, then moving on from there. This sounds more like "thrill seeking" or "didn't understand most of his OW class" than "innocent mistake"

Terry

 

[JCAT]

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.

Un-flippin-believable. I am without words. This just adds to your credibility or lack of.

 

[CDNScubaMoose]

Scuba Moose, with all due respect this is a ridiculous statement. Buddies is a symbiotic relationship. Who in this team do you think should have been watching who. We don't even know when they got separated. Brendon had a problem and his buddy (DM/instructor/Captain/spotter) wasn't aware of it. This was his 3rd dive, in his life. I have been on plenty of dives with newbies and I make a point to keep an extra eye on them. Not that it is my responsibility but as a courtesy to a fellow diver. I remember the learning curve and it doesn't take much to over task a new diver.

I too look out for new divers and other divers as well - if I see an issue developing then I try to assist where I can.

That said - you said that the buddy system is symbiotic relationship - that means it is equal parts. So if the DM was the deceased buddy then the deceased was the DM's buddy. End of story. If the deceased wanted an u/w babysitter then that is what he should have hired and requested at the dive op.

I have no issue agreeing with blame being assigned to the DM or dive op but the diver is also responsible.

And to Pilot Fish - the chain of events started before this individual arrived in Cayman. You keep claiming that it was only in Cayman where things started and I suspect it is so that it can fit your assertion that the vast majority of the fault was the DM and Dive Op. I say the majority of the fault is on the diver - the question is why did he do what he do? Was there something lacking in his training - not saying from the instructor side, perhaps the agencies have to step up and require more emphasis to be put on this.

 

[mrlipis]

t's a pretty common occurence in Cayman from my personal observations, especially on smaller 6 pack boats. It is not something I agree with and it's not a practice restricted to just this Dive Op.

Well if this a common practice in the Caymans, maybe that explains the amount of deaths down there. It has relevance to their approach to safety.