Diver dies at Molokai on Maui dive boat

[BFRedrocks]

I didn't see this in the 20 pages of posts, but I still find it curious that the diver and his buddy apparently asked to go up (or at least went up) early from the dive, so one would wonder why that was? Perhaps it was a low air situation, or perhaps it was a medical reason, but I think that's a critical part of this story and possibly the real reason that the diver died. It is likely that this was a medical accident that occurred without any way, unfortunately, for it to end differently regardless of the valiant attempts by the parties who were there.

 

[archer1960]

I didn't see this in the 20 pages of posts, but I still find it curious that the diver and his buddy apparently asked to go up (or at least went up) early from the dive, so one would wonder why that was? Perhaps it was a low air situation, or perhaps it was a medical reason, but I think that's a critical part of this story and possibly the real reason that the diver died. It is likely that this was a medical accident that occurred without any way, unfortunately, for it to end differently regardless of the valiant attempts by the parties who were there.

Feeling crappy due to CO poisoning could have been the reason they wanted to go up.

 

[Steelyeyes]

Feeling crappy due to CO poisoning could have been the reason they wanted to go up.

Seems like that would be tested for in an autopsy. Not that we'd hear about it one way or the other.

 

[sea_ledford]

I'm not super familiar with the requirements, but I'm guessing they'd probably require a 100 ton Master's license.

None of the dive boats in Maui require a 100 ton Master (there are a couple snorkel boats out of Ma'alea that might require a one though, Prince Kuhio comes to mind if they are still around). I'm fairly sure the LD boats are both under 25, if not they are just barely over. I have a 100 ton Master, but the only reason for that is that I worked on 100 meter+ seismic boats when I was accruing my sea time. Most Captains on Maui will have either a 6 pax or 25 ton license because there are so few boats over 25 to get the required sea time to get a 50 ton.

Regarding LDs lack of response on scubaboard, I would think that they would have absolutely nothing to gain by saying anything to anyone while any lawsuit is in the works. Might they lose a few ardent SB readers because of it? Maybe, but it won't matter since they'll just take out a few more people that have never heard of Scubaboard instead. People here tend to have an over-inflated sense of self importance when it comes to getting information on diving fatalities. It's frustrating to not get any information, but there really is no reason for anyone involved to post anything here.

-Chris

 

[Herb-alaska]

Browsing this thread and the news, I find Lahaina Divers lack of response to be troubling. A diver perished on their boat and this alone should have triggered a public response from a well-established dive charter operation. Litigation aside, an acknowledgment of the event, condolences to all involved and a wait-and-see until all investigations are complete would - in some form - would have been in order and the right thing to do.

It would seem that LD missed the boat by not having a crisis management plan in place. The flow chart for crisis management is simple, have a plan in place, litigation aware, accountability, single point of contact (staff does not comment individually), organizational buy-in, open with the public and media (bad news always gets out), and tell everyone what you are doing to make sure your operation is as safe as possible. LD's staff text messages - which they had to know would become public - surely didn't help their cause.

LD seems to have followed the "ostrich" approach, while their employees spoke up on the web. Post something once and its persistence negates deletion, without regard to the communication being public or private. To some extent, it seems to have been superficially successful. The original TA posting - "Diver Death on Molokai Hammerhead Charter" - as of today is alive as a Google search, but returns a 404 error on TA. A quick search of MauiNow and Maui News - nothing found - perhaps the Maui journalists are waiting for official reports.

I'm curious as to the USCG reporting requirements for the incident. Someone with more knowledge would have to advise on the relationship of tonnage, passengers, charter operation, and uninspected passenger vessel status. LD's website states that their boats, "Dominion and Dauntless are 46 feet in length and were built ... by Newton Boats. Each vessel ... is USCG certified. We take a max of 24 divers on each vessel." What tonnage are the boats? As I read the regs, the boats can't be UPV as they carry more than 12 passengers. Are the reporting standards related to the captains' license requirements? In this case, it would seem a Masters License would be required as there are more than 6 passengers? Near coastal or inland license for Hawaiian waters? Does the status of a captain's license or operational area dictate reporting requirements or just the size of the boat?

A quick search of Layman v Lahaina Divers reveals, “Both the Dauntless and the Dominion are required to have a Coast Guard certificate of inspection indicating that they are certified to carry passengers for hire.”, Layman v. Lahaina Divers, Inc., Civ. No. 12-00602 ACK-BMK (D. Haw. May. 28, 2014). Is this significant to USCG reporting requirements? Does it trigger a CG-2692 filing?

Does this event reach the threshold reporting requirements outlined in the USCG's publication, "How do I report a Marine Casualty?" What is the significance of 50 and 100 tonnage measures to the incident? The death would trigger the reporting requirement if it does. Drug and alcohol testing would also be required within a tight time frame.

"Verify that you have been involved in a “Reportable” Marine Casualty as listed on the front of this brochure or 46 CFR 4.05-1. Determine if it is a Serious Marine Incident as listed in this brochure or 46 CFR 4.03-2"

"Submit a written report in Form CG-2692 (Report of Marine Accident, Injury or Death)"

"Bottom line: Reporting of Marine Casualties should be within minutes of stabilizing the emergency situation onboard."​

"Coast Guard regulations currently require marine employers to take all practical steps after a Serious Marine Incident to have each individual engaged or employed on board a vessel in commercial service, who is directly involved in the incident, chemically tested for evidence of drug and alcohol use."

"CG-2692. Some of the casualty information collected on this form may be made available for public inspection; however, information collected is protected from use in civil litigation per 46 U.S.C. §6308."
​

UP thread some have opined that waiting for governmental agency reports is the best course of action. Perhaps a valid comment, if the reports are ever to become publically available. Perhaps there isn't a reporting requirement? While this undoubtedly fails in light of the 24-hour news cycle, it surely fails the reality test that individual speculation will run rampant in absence of hard information. LD's silence has reinforced speculation. Divers have no doubt benefited from discussions of mixed rec/tec charters and remote dive location risks raised in this thread. The, "let's wait and see what comes out officially", perhaps will never yield information.

In addition to a possible USCG report, there may be police reports, HI state agency reporting requirements, and coroner reports. In Colorado, corner reports are public records, HI?

Crisis Management, anyone?

If LD is required to file USCG reports they should discoverable under the 1966 Freedom of Information Act. Requests may be addressed to,

• 
  
  
  • 
    COMMANDANT (CG-611)
    ATTN FOIA OFFICER
    US COAST GUARD STOP 7710
    2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE
    WASHINGTON DC 20593-7710.

**********************
CFR Title 46

http://tinyurl.com/j3rhkgl​

CG-2692

http://tinyurl.com/grnbay3​

I am guessing you have never been in civil litigation before. The first thing your attorney and your insurance company would say it SHUT UP. let us to the talking and when you get the subpoena call us and we will help you talk. The fact that the LDS is silent should not ever be construed as a negative it is simply product of our litigious society .

 

[Cert1967]

I am guessing you have never been in civil litigation before. The first thing your attorney and your insurance company would say it SHUT UP. let us to the talking and when you get the subpoena call us and we will help you talk. The fact that the LDS is silent should not ever be construed as a negative it is simply product of our litigious society .

Well, your wrong about my being involved in civil litigation. I've seen my share. As to your claim that "your attorney and insurance company would say it SHUT UP", that's simply wrong. Below find an example of a large cap corporation's response to a series of incidents that have lead to litigation.

Your legal counsel may make recommendations as to public statements, insurance companies do not. Your insurance company may reimburse you for legal expenses, but they don't give legal advice - they write insurance contracts. Seldom does an insurance company represent a contract holder with in-house counsel.

http://tinyurl.com/h337qr8
Chipotle CEO Says Sorry For Food Poisoning Amid Another E. Coli Outbreak

"CMG co-CEO and founder Steve Ells issued a formal apology. With tighter food safety protocols, Ells reinstated the company's guarantee that related incidents will not happen again."​

http://tinyurl.com/gtya66n
The Chipotle Outbreak: How Food Companies Respond To An Unfolding Crisis

"Planning ahead for an outbreak can eliminate some of the initial panic among staff when one does occur, and it provides an actionable framework for moving forward. Jonathan Bernstein, president of Bernstein Crisis Management, tells his clients to develop a crisis communications and operational plan that staff regularly update and rehearse."​

http://tinyurl.com/gqosuhe
Chipotle Food Poisoning Class Action Lawsuit

Link to plaintiff's firm trolling for clients​

While Lahaina Divers is a small business, the principles of crisis management are just as true for their operations as CMG. They didn't have a plan and likely would rather their employees not had communications with the TA poster. That's in the wild and may pop up unexpectedly. An event acknowledgment, condolences and awaiting further investigations, would have been the best practice, in my opinion.

Your opinion may be that silence is the best policy. In this case, it seems only to have fueled speculation as to the circumstances of the unfortunate diver's death.

 

[VirginiaScubaGuy]

Hello. I'm the one who posted the Trip Advisor review. Please feel free to ask me questions and I will respond here.

wow, i'm about to head to Maui for two weeks and was likely going to dive with LD. now i'm not sure what to do.

 

[scubadada]

wow, i'm about to head to Maui for two weeks and was likely going to dive with LD. now i'm not sure what to do.

Why would you change your plans?

 

[CuzzA]

Why would you change your plans?

Based on this thread, the consideration should be the dive and not necessarily the op.... But even if what was reported was true, I'd say now is the best time to dive with them.

It's kind of like why restaurants that were featured on local TV for "Dirty Dinning" get a big surge in business right after... You know everything has been tightened up with the inspectors crawling around the joint.

 

[VirginiaScubaGuy]

First of all, sorry you had to witness that, I'm sure it was traumatic.

I have to say, I'm a bit surprised that you attached the message from the crew member that seems to contradict much of your version of things, although you do get points for transparency there! Also, your review was very critical of the dive op, but it sounds like they responded appropriately from the crew members message. Are you saying that this site is so dangerous that you need to warn people not to do it if they aren't in great physical shape? That's really not the OPs fault, it obviously isn't so dangerous if you did it 20 times.

As far as your specific critiques, 1, 2 and 3 seem to be contradicted by the other account from the crew member who managed the situation (you did not, correct?). Maybe the other poster in this thread who was there will chime in? We can't really assess that with the limited information that we have.

As far as an AED goes, I have not seen one on a dive boat, since they really wouldn't help with the vast majority of dive emergencies. They are for shockable pulseless arrhythmia (V Fib and pulseless V tach), and it's hardly a reasonable critique of a dive op not to have one on board.

And as far as your last point, what sort of emergency recall system would you suggest for a diver with a 34 minute deco obligation? In rare cases, someone has to make the hard call to leave a decompressing diver on a mooring ball, alone in the ocean, while the dive boat leaves with an injured diver, but there are a lot of logistical implications of that, and it might have been quicker to wait for the Coast guard.

If your point was that technical diving shouldn't be allowed at this site, then make that case, but other than that, this criticism doesn't make sense. This doesn't sound like the sort of guided recreational single tank dive that would lend itself to everybody descending and surfacing together.

When you go ocean diving, especially at a remote site, you are not guaranteed immediate access to high level medical care in the event of an emergency. That's not a fault of the dive operator.

We don't know what actually happened to this diver - cardiac arrest due to exertion, immersion pulmonary edema, arterial gas embolism or decompression sickness could all be seen in the described scenario. It would be interesting from an accident analysis point of view to get any follow up that is available.

WHERE ARE THE RESPONSES BY THE CREW?