Diver Death Virginia Beach

[CaptJT]

When these things happen there is no winner. Most of us who knew Kevin were already clued in to his diving problems. The Captain in this case did not know about him. I think this verdict is a railroad job by the USCG because I do know everything and everyone involved. I was one of the Captains called by the USCG and because I did not give them the answers they wanted, just like the other Captains they called and subpoenaed then told us not to come to the hearing at the last minute because our testimony would help the defense. They were only able to find one that would testify and say what they needed them to say. The Captain they used is a part time Captain who has not ran a dive boat in more than a year if my memory is correct and according to the transcript I'm reading he could not remember the years he ran the dive boats. I can only say what I'm reading is very questionable IMO. I have not completed the reading yet as it is more than 1400 pages. Some of the questions asked could not be answered but one way and the judge would not let the defense ask questions that could change this in the redirect. In reading it sounds very rehearsed in the prosecutor side of things with the door shut for the defense. The defense lawyer should have done a better job and had several Captains like myself ready to be called to debunk some of the testimony given.

The problem here is that you have a court that is prosecutor, judge, and jury in the same bed. None had any diving experience or true understanding of it. Then you throw in a witness who has an axe to grind(and everyone who knows the players in this knows the deal)it became a case that was fixed from the start.

I do not know if the appeal will happen as it as become a money thing but it is in the best interest of the operators, dive community,and agencies to fight this because if you don't like the rules on a lot dive boats right now you sure as hell ain't gonna like the new ones coming.

 

[Phil_C]

I think it is sad when cases like this happen, I have no knowledge of the persons or operations involved in this case, and my comments are personal ones based on a critical reading of the court citations and rulings. I am aware that events like this remain current for family and friends long after the event, so I apologies in advance if anything I say does not fit their understanding of the outcomes.

Having read through the court citation and the decisions one thing comes across quite clearly, and that is that the whole case was not about the cause of death, or circumstances leading up to the accident, but are effectively administrative issues relating to the overall management of the dive charter boat, and the training and training records in respect of the dive operation.

None of the four citations relate to the cause of the accident or death, and there is no evidence that the death would have had a different outcome had the issues subject to the four citations been addressed prior to the dive.

In many respects I find this a little sad - although I can fully understand why the prosecution took place.

The dive boat crew and master were just as much 'victims' in this case as were the others divers who were in all likelihood affected to some (probably considerable) degree by the events they witnessed and were part of. Part of the process of coming to terms with a tragedy or traumatic experience involves a period of self analysis and blame, what did I do wrong, would things have been different if I had done x instead of y and so on. This can be a most damaging experience long term if things are not kept in perspective.

Having to go through a court case will not have helped the master and crew come to terms with what has happened. Nor in this case does it appear to give the family the real closure they want.

There is nothing in the citation or file to say that these failings led to the divers death, made the response less effective, or that the outcome would have been different if a different response had been made.

On the (summarised) evidence presented there is no indication of what happened to the diver to cause him to surface and then fail to inflate his BC to remain on the surface. Some posts have suggested a stroke or heart attack, but there was no indication of myocardial infarction or other scarring at the post mortem so this is a suspect theory at best. Diver stress and panic seems a possible scenario, leading to a breakdown of trained responses and the diver sinking because the BC was not inflated and suffering a drowning event.

We may never know.

But one thing that seems clear is that the citations and court case was as a incidental result of the accident when USCG found that standards and requirements had not been adhered to.

An analogy might be a road accident I dealt with many years ago, a car had broken down beside the road, it was off the carriageway, and waiting recovery with the driver sat in it. A second vehicle then drove into the parked car, killing the driver of the second car. Both cars were examined and the parked car found to have a defective braking system along with other defects. The surviving driver was prosecuted for these offences and convicted. But the car was stationary and the defective brakes had absolutely no bearing on the accident.

That is the case here. The sub-standard, according to USCG, procedures were discovered as the result of the incident, and were not a cause of it. I suspect that if you wanted to look at any dive boat and really "throw the book" at it you could find similar shortcomings on most of them if you really tried.

If incidents like this led to a tightening of dive boat rules to the point where commercial boat diving was effectively no longer commercially viable and was therefore prevented I think that would be a sad day. - Phil

 

[Shasta_man]

FWIW, I learned to bring a flotation device if I'm trying to rescue someone.

 

[Wookie]

For whom? I got with my CG Inspector today. She did approve the use of a wetsuit (in writing) as a buoyant aid in the event that a wetsuit provides 15.5 lbs of buoyant lift.

FTR, a 3mm wetsuit, suitable for tropical diving, provides roughly 5% of the weight of the wearer in lift, so my 3 mil will provide 15.5 lbs, which is about right. I wear 14 lbs of lead in a wetsuit, and none when diving in my altogether. My lovely bride, OTOH, would need to wear a 5 mil to get enough buoyancy from her wetsuit.

A CG rescue swimmer is required to wear a beanie hat, wetsuit or drysuit, and may wear a floatation collar, like a horsecollar BC, or snorkel vest. They are manually inflated so they don't have inherent buoyancy, they must be manipulated to be buoyant.

 

[RAD Diver]

Read here in Kevin's own words what happened to him when he got in the water....

Wow how did you find that.
That report was given to the CG to let them know Kevin (and I really liked Kevin) had some issues. On a certain boat I work on he was only allowed in the water with someone & that someone stuck with him like glue period. I believe that is why the incident in that report came out in a positive note.
The crew on the Lindsey had NO idea of any of this.
I typically wear a 5mm wetsuit off the Hatteras coast and had to make a big swim to recover a diver who popped up way behind the anchored boat. I did not wear or take a pfd with me. With the boat being anchored & the current flowing I would have never reached the diver wearing something that compromised my swimming. But thanks to this ruling it will never happen again. There is already a revised swim rescue plan being drawn up & hopefully the CG will approve. So for all you divers go down the line & come back up the line hand over hand please.