Diver found missing in Laguna's Shaw's Cove

[Sam Miller III]

Sam, much as I respect your opinion and historical knowledge of our sport, I think you're making WAAAY too many leaps here and unfairly castigating these specific instructors (if they were even instructors as opposed to DMs). While I agree with you that on a very broad basis, the overall quality of dive instruction today is not the same as it was "back in the goold old days" (or even just ten years ago), by the same token, if it's as bad as we all claim it is, shouldn't we also be seeing a dramatic rise in the number of fatalities each year? And the reality is that the raw number has actually declined. (I'm not getting into a statistics battle here so don't start arguing over ratios and numbers of diver-dives and stuff like that. Just making a broad point.)



Again, an unfair leap to find fault I think. We don't know what the buddy pairing was. For all we know, Gibbs deliberately swam off in a different direction despite the best efforts of those leading the dive. I'm not saying he did, I'm simply pointing out that we don't really know WHAT casued the separation, or how far into the dive it occurred or how quickly after the separation the other three surfaced. From a guiding/leading/teaching standpoint, you can do everything "right" &/or by-the-book and things can still go south.

I'm consulting on two cases right now where the essential plaintiff's position is "He's dead and it happened on the dive so it must be your fault." There will be plenty of opportunity for baseless accusations down the road. I don't think we need to fuel those flames here.

- Ken

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken et al

A general statement - about the instruction, not directed at a particular shop or instructor, but the watering down of instructor's knowledge, abilities and experience and watermanship.

If an instructor is in charge- then he is in charge! Responsible for those whom he is leading and/or instructing ...Or are the students allowed to just wonder off?

I somehow do not recall this responsibility changing

SDM

 

[Ayisha]

Lifeguards entered the water by 11:40 a.m., according to the police log. The three-man Laguna lifeguard dive team located Gibbs by 12:40 p.m. on the ocean floor at the north end of Shaw’s Cove and stripped him of 20 pounds of diving weights to bring him to the surface, said Bond, who described water conditions as fairly calm. The water temperature was 58 degrees with a south current, noted the police log. The diver’s air tank, which generally holds 35 to 40 minutes of air, was empty, he said.

I find this statement from the last posted article disturbing and all too familiar. A diver found alone, unresponsive on the bottom with weights on and out of air.

 

[JKhazRaei]

These are some pictures I took from the roof of my house. I did not realize what was happening at the time. The yellow lifeguard boat left (very quickly to the north), and the two others followed a few moments later. A sheriff helicopter had been circling for several minutes before as well. There was also an ambulance, a few roaming firetrucks, and several cop cars.

 

[freewillie]

Just a quick update. I stopped by the dive shop mostly to chat. After a while discretely brought up the topic of the dive accident and they did receive some negative press. They (the shop owners) said that the diver involved was not part of an official class. The divers had buddies up but the shop was not responsible for the divers and they were former students but not officially on a training dive from the shop with official instructors leading a class. In fact, one of the owners put his hand over his heart and said, "thank God it wasn't a student in a class." He went on to say that they are still trying to figure out what happened that day. But, they also don't know how the buddy pairs got paired up and how they became separated during the dive.

Let's just take the facts. New diver with a camera gets separated from buddy in what was about 10-12 ft viz (which is very easy to do in those conditions, please don't question if you haven't been in those conditions and dive crystal clear 80ft viz), found with empty tank and still wearing weights.

DAN statistics state almost half of accidental drownings involve a trigger that is an out of air or low on gas situation. In addition a significant percentage of these situations involve new divers.

Lets not rush out to blame shops for poor instructors and poor training. Let's not castigate dive masters for not tending to the flock so to speak. We as divers participate in a semi dangerous sport. If you make a mistake you may pay with your life. Why is it we point the finger at everyone else but ourselves?

 

[Hatul]

Autopsy: Shaw's Cove diver drowned - Coastline Pilot

Drowning, cause of death. Every article does mention that he was in some sort of a class. In this article the implication is that the class was bigger than just him and his wife.

Also I'm wondering if something is going on legally as the law firm of Seegmiller had a web page about this and now the page no longer exists.

He was found with an empty tank, so most likely ran out of air before he drowned.

 

[Selchie in LB]

This is just so horrifying that someone runs out of air at 25 to 40 feet and drowns.

Sent from my LG-P999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[mmcdanie]

The take away I'm getting from this story as a beginner diver is, know the issues and try to not let them pile up. Poor viz, surge, inexperience, unfirmilar reef, are issues at the start of a dive. Lost buddy, then surface in rough surf, and finally a possible free flow or some other issue to OOA. Sad story but good lesson for all of us.

 

[Colliam7]

This thread is thought-provoking at a number of levels.

1. It is hard to know exactly what is 'fact', and what is assumption, surmise, or blatant inaccuracy of reporting. If the individuals reporting the incident in the newspaper are not divers, are not at all familiar familiar with diving, etc., it is quite possible that they will misinterpret comments made by officials, or 'responsible parties', or even random by-standers who happen to make a statement.

2. Depending on whether this was a 'class', or whether there were people 'leading' the dive, or whether people in the water were dive professionals, or whether any of the dive professionals were instructors, it is possible to jump to many different conclusions, none of which necessarily bear any relationship to reality, or necessarily reflect anything approaching validity.

3. Based on what I have read in this thread, I am not sure that I know much about what happened, and I am skeptical that it is possible to determine from the news reports what happened, at least with any reasonable level of confidence (other than a diver apparently drowned in relatively shallow water).

Every article does mention that he was in some sort of a class. In this article the implication is that the class was bigger than just him and his wife.

And, the original report included the statement '. . . said Bond, who added that it appears Gibbs began the dive with a full tank of oxygen.'. I really doubt that the victim was diving 100% O2, I frankly don't know if the police official being cited even used those words ('full tank of oxygen'), but that is certainly the implication from the article. So, any statements by reporters about a 'class', or the size of the group, or whether an 'instructor' was involved would appear to be equally suspect.

4. What is most interesting to me is the discussion about the responsibility of instructors, and under what circumstances they are 'in charge'.

If an instructor is in charge- then he is in charge!

That comment in the context of this incident raises a specific concern: I am teaching our shop's Divemaster course this year, with 5 DMCs in the class. This weekend there is no formal training scheduled. Two of the DMCs have posted emails to their classmates, and included me and the Assistant Instructors who are working with me in the course, that they are going to the local quarry this weekend to begin work on their mapping projects, inviting the other DMCs to join them if they wish. I replied that a) I plan to come to the quarry for part of the day to do some unrelated (to the course) exploration, and b) will probably be available to answer questions they may have about the landmarks I cited to define their mapping areas, and c) that I am even willing to get in the water with them to help identify those boundaries. It is not my intention to lead any dive, only to be available if needed. But, I am an instructor. These are students in my class. They will be working on a project assigned as part of the class. This is not a formal class session, it is not on the course schedule. But, if I happen to be in the water with them, am I 'leading' the dive? Is this a 'class'? Am I somehow 'in charge' at the quarry today? If so, maybe I will give it a pass, let them figure things out for themselves, and criticize them afterward for not knowing what the boundaries of the mapping areas were based on my written description.

Similarly, our shop coordinates an outing to this quarry once a month from May through September. We cook hotdogs, hamburgers, etc. We offer discounted gear rentals for that day. We even have various 'Specialty of the Month' opportunities (e.g. a DPV class once or twice during the season) available for interested divers. There are usually ~35-45 divers who come out to dive, and various shop staff are usually there, including Divemasters and Instructors. If I happen to get in the water with a couple of friends (not dive professionals, and not my students at any time in any course) who come out to enjoy the food and fellowship, and we swim around the quarry, am I automatically 'leading' the dive because I happen to be an instructor? If I signal them u/w that I am heading back, while they continue their dive, and later - after I am out of the water and eating a burger, one of them surfaces and says his buddy has gone missing, and that buddy is later found unresponsive / dead in 25 feet of water with an empty cylinder, am I somehow responsible, somehow guilty of negligence?

 

[Abdullah]

This thread is thought-provoking at a number of levels.

1. It is hard to know exactly what is 'fact', and what is assumption, surmise, or blatant inaccuracy of reporting. If the individuals reporting the incident in the newspaper are not divers, are not at all familiar familiar with diving, etc., it is quite possible that they will misinterpret comments made by officials, or 'responsible parties', or even random by-standers who happen to make a statement.

2. Depending on whether this was a 'class', or whether there were people 'leading' the dive, or whether people in the water were dive professionals, or whether any of the dive professionals were instructors, it is possible to jump to many different conclusions, none of which necessarily bear any relationship to reality, or necessarily reflect anything approaching validity.

3. Based on what I have read in this thread, I am not sure that I know much about what happened, and I am skeptical that it is possible to determine from the news reports what happened, at least with any reasonable level of confidence (other than a diver apparently drowned in relatively shallow water). And, the original report included the statement '. . . said Bond, who added that it appears Gibbs began the dive with a full tank of oxygen.'. I really doubt that the victim was diving 100% O2, I frankly don't know if the police official being cited even used those words ('full tank of oxygen'), but that is certainly the implication from the article. So, any statements by reporters about a 'class', or the size of the group, or whether an 'instructor' was involved would appear to be equally suspect.

4. What is most interesting to me is the discussion about the responsibility of instructors, and under what circumstances they are 'in charge'. That comment in the context of this incident raises a specific concern: I am teaching our shop's Divemaster course this year, with 5 DMCs in the class. This weekend there is no formal training scheduled. Two of the DMCs have posted emails to their classmates, and included me and the Assistant Instructors who are working with me in the course, that they are going to the local quarry this weekend to begin work on their mapping projects, inviting the other DMCs to join them if they wish. I replied that a) I plan to come to the quarry for part of the day to do some unrelated (to the course) exploration, and b) will probably be available to answer questions they may have about the landmarks I cited to define their mapping areas, and c) that I am even willing to get in the water with them to help identify those boundaries. It is not my intention to lead any dive, only to be available if needed. But, I am an instructor. These are students in my class. They will be working on a project assigned as part of the class. This is not a formal class session, it is not on the course schedule. But, if I happen to be in the water with them, am I 'leading' the dive? Is this a 'class'? Am I somehow 'in charge' at the quarry today? If so, maybe I will give it a pass, let them figure things out for themselves, and criticize them afterward for not knowing what the boundaries of the mapping areas were based on my written description.

Similarly, our shop coordinates an outing to this quarry once a month from May through September. We cook hotdogs, hamburgers, etc. We offer discounted gear rentals for that day. We even have various 'Specialty of the Month' opportunities (e.g. a DPV class once or twice during the season) available for interested divers. There are usually ~35-45 divers who come out to dive, and various shop staff are usually there, including Divemasters and Instructors. If I happen to get in the water with a couple of friends (not dive professionals, and not my students at any time in any course) who come out to enjoy the food and fellowship, and we swim around the quarry, am I automatically 'leading' the dive because I happen to be an instructor? If I signal them u/w that I am heading back, while they continue their dive, and later - after I am out of the water and eating a burger, one of them surfaces and says his buddy has gone missing, and that buddy is later found unresponsive / dead in 25 feet of water with an empty cylinder, am I somehow responsible, somehow guilty of negligence?

Rhetorical question?

 

[peterbj7]

An instructor is responsible for his students to the extent that his course is taking them into situations for which they have not been formally trained. So any instructor is 100% responsible for OW students in his charge, an instructor is responsible for the well-being of certified open-ocean divers he is taking into a confined space such as a wreck or a cave, and an instructor is responsible (to a lesser extent) for divers he is taking (not just accompanying, formally leading) into under-ice conditions. Basically an instructor is responsible whenever he is holding himself out as an expert when his charges have no formal experience of the conditions to be encountered. Just as in any professional-client relationship the "professional" has a duty of care to the client.

I don't see this as particularly thought-provoking or innovative. Although it's clear that too many diving instructors get themselves into undesirable situations they should have been able to anticipate, and their clients have every right to expect that degree of analysis and responsibility.

If by myself I take just two AOW students into a 40m-deep flooded quarry in pea-soup conditions I am being grossly irresponsible, as it is very easy and predictable for me to lose control of one or both of those divers. This was an actual case in Britain. PADI said the instructor had behaved responsibly and within Standards, and had done all he could. The Coroner strongly disagreed and I'm with the Coroner.

If your ability and experience as an instructor doesn't enable you to predict how a situation may develop such that you have informed confidence that you will be able to handle it then you have no right to masquerade as an instructor. I feel this very strongly. I see way too many ill-experienced "instructors" who patently will not be able to cope as soon as anything significant goes wrong. It is FAR too easy to become an instructor these days.