diver dies off redondo beach (puget sound)

[MoonWrasse]

Really?

I mean, yeah, it is really unfortunate, but I honestly have trouble feeling sympathy for people I don't know or know someone who knows. There is an aweful lot of feigned sympathy in this world and it does no good to add to it.

From all the incident reports that have been made available, it seems as though, at the very least, we should learn that when our buddy signals some difficulty, we need to stay *very* close to him/her.

I hope that if I die in a way similar to this that people use it as an opportunity to learn, rather than to just claim sorrow and sympathy which they can't possibly feel.

Cheers,

Well, there is also empathy. Having lost several close ones to me or friends/family over the years, and having a friend now going thru the hell of chemo, I can sure empathize with the gal. I suspect that this may be less of a diving incident and something more personal to her.

I agree with the rest you post, given that so many diving accidents involve a missing buddy, and working to make it a safer sport is good. I doubt she could've done much more for him, including agree to be with him in a place he wanted to be contrary to his condition.

 

[triton94949]

Its mostly out of respect. You say you feel bad for their loss out of respect for their loss. Somebody might be reading your post, somebody who has lost that loved one, and these bereaved folks often search posts on the internet to try to understand what happened and what others think. So you need to be careful what you think, and more careful what you say and how you say it.

I have had family of victims PM me. Then I really feel their pain, in their questions. They want to know about the dive site. They want to know what you think really happened. They always have doubts of their own. They hurt.

 

[triton94949]

There are a couple of useful facts to keep in mind when evaluating CPR and CVAs
(1) If you're doing CPR you're starting with a corpse. If there's enough life left in the body to restart it you were just lucky.
(2) In most cases, the first symptom of a Cardio-Vascular Accident (CVA) is sudden death.
Hollywood aside, bringing someone back from no breathing/no pulse is a low percentage bet at best. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try... if you don't try you can't be the lucky one. What it does mean is that if your efforts don't work you have not failed... the victim was just already permanently dead when you started.
---
As for this accident... anyone got any more info?
Prayers aloft for the family.
Rick

Imagine the survivor guilt, if the person is gone and non-revivable? That has got to be a major trauma in and of itself. I know the training will kick in automatically. But I really am not sure about afterwards, about the survivor guilt. I have been lucky. Performed several "assists" and no injuries.

 

[Kim]

It has already been said a couple of times - I will now say it for the last time. Please will everyone cool down. No-one should be speculating about what they don't know, and personal attacks are completely unnecessary - as well as being against our TOS.

Thank you.

 

[MoonWrasse]

One thing I'm curious about this, is that she surfaced (with or without safety stop), then redove and performed a rescue upon her husband, followed by a surface swim and hauling him onto the shore. Question is what is the impact of doing all that on her body?

Ascent followed by a descent with a short amount of time, then ascent with stress, how close would that put a rescuer at risk of an accident?

Mind this isn't a so much a question specific to this incident, but in general.

 

[MikeFerrara]

After a quick read the only things I see that can be taken home from this regardless of what may or may not have happened in this case...stay fit for diving (don't dive if you can't) and watch your buddy during ascents/descents. Both sound like no-brainers but I often see divers that get to the bottom or the surface and then realize that their buddy isn't with them. Then, of course, it may be too late.

 

[Rick Murchison]

From time to time I need to write a little refresher on what "Accident Analysis" is, and what it is not. This thread is as good a place as any.
First of all, there is no Accident Analysis here - yet - and for the very good reason that we do not yet know what killed this diver, beyond his failure to surface alive. We can speculate all day long, and likely be wrong.
Accident analysis identifies hazards and recommends ways to avoid or mitigate those hazards. Real accident analysis specifically does not lay blame, or make judgements, or concern itself with why someone did something. It rather determines what was done and if the "what" is a hazard then accident analysis recommends ways to not do it, or to mitigate the result. Accident analysis does not say an action is "wrong" or "right" - it may say an action was not in accordance with rules or regulations or established procedures... but that may be the case whether an action resulted in an accident - or a life saved.
It is natural as humans to want to know why someone did something, but in the end that doesn't really matter, does it? It is the what someone did that matters, and what results. Accident analysis is concerned with safety - with how to avoid or mitigate the hazards; that is why we don't get wrapped around the axle trying to figure out how someone came around in their own mind to run a stop sign... whether they made a conscious decision to run it or were distracted or whatever... the hazard is running the stop sign, and the accident could be avoided by not running it.
Accident analysis also doesn't concern itself with actions that have no bearing on the accident. For example, if the accident is a fatal CVA, then nothing anyone else did or didn't do after the event had any bearing on the death and is irrelevant. (those things may not be irrelevant in the world of human relations and emotions, but they are irrelevant in accident analysis)
Just remember that Accident Analysis is all about safety through identifying hazards and recommending how to avoid or mitigate those hazards - and that all else is surplus to the process - and you'll have its essence.
Rick

 

[lamont]

First of all, there is no Accident Analysis here - yet - and for the very good reason that we do not yet know what killed this diver, beyond his failure to surface alive. We can speculate all day long, and likely be wrong.

exley's _blueprint for survival_ has speculation in it. the word "probably" has a very high frequency of occurance in the analysis section of all the incidents that he mentions. very infrequently do you have enough facts to eliminate all speculation.

Accident analysis also doesn't concern itself with actions that have no bearing on the accident. For example, if the accident is a fatal CVA, then nothing anyone else did or didn't do after the event had any bearing on the death and is irrelevant. (those things may not be irrelevant in the world of human relations and emotions, but they are irrelevant in accident analysis)

exley mentions several mistakes in passing which had no bearing on the outcome of the actual accident (e.g. failure to carry 3 lights when that had nothing to do with the incident).

 

[lamont]

identity of the diver and more info:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002267355_merritobit08.html

 

[Fireboat57]

Just got back and friends told me about this. My sympathy to the family and friends of this diver. I use to work in emergency services in that area and according to the responders I spoke with that were actually there everything possible was done by everyone involved.