Diver lost off of Dunbar, Scotland

[DandyDon]

Police continue search for missing diver

A SEARCH is continuing for a missing diver, who was last seen off the Dunbar coast.

The town’s RNLI lifeboat team was busy with their annual lifeboat fete on Saturday afternoon when they received the call.

After demonstrating training exercises, both the all-weather (ALB) and inshore (ILB) lifeboats were launched for real when the diver was reported missing three-and-a-half miles north of Dunbar.

At the request of UK Coastguard, both boats, a Search and Rescue helicopter and the vessel Conserver conducted an extensive search of the area near the wreck of a First World War U-boat where the diver had last been seen.

However, after three hours and with no sign of the missing man, all assets were stood down and both lifeboats returned to Dunbar.

Gary Fairbairn, Dunbar RNLI coxswain, said: “Our thoughts are with everyone involved in this incident.

“Even though it was Lifeboat Day, we were still on call and it highlighted just why we are dependent on the huge support we get from people in Dunbar.”

A spokeswoman for Police Scotland confirmed searches were still taking place.

She said: “Police in East Lothian were alerted by the Coastguard around 4.40pm on Saturday after a diver failed to resurface following an organised dive off the coast of Dunbar.

“Specially trained officers are now leading the search for the man and we are continuing to liaise with his family to keep them fully updated on the progress of this operation."

 

[LloydPickering]

I might have some info to add here, though it may be considered (at best) hearsay.

I was getting fills last night and was chatting with my rec instructor, who is himself a Mod2 CCR diver (I'm about to start my Mod1 with the same instructor who taught him).

He was not present himself, but had heard the following from someone present (all comments in brackets are my perspective/info).

An unamed CCR/OC Instructor (not mine!) was taking 2 CCR divers for a Mod2 course dive along with an OC diver doing some form of trimix training to a uboat at about 45m (I was told the number, I believe it was the U74, but can't recall for certain).

Apparently the OC diver signalled his intent to abort the dive. He and the instructor became separated from the 2 CCR divers while the instructor assisted the OC diver to return to the surface in a buddy pair. The Instructor then returned to the wreck, couldn't find his 2 CCR students, so aborted the dive and returned to boat.

In the meanwhile, the 2 CCR students had also become separated form each other. The surviving student did manage to locate the 2nd student, however on discovery he was unconscious with his loop out. The surviving CCR student was unable to lift the unconscious diver, so sent up a DSMB which was clipped to the unconscious diver. After returning to the boat, the instructor went back in to attempt to retrieve the unconscious student. Upon reaching the bottom of the DSMB line, the unconscious student was not attached and a search of the vicinty failed to locate the unconscious student.

 

[wgw04024]

Two missing-diver searches extended

It looks like the missing divers name was released.

 

[Dan]

Sad situation. RIP Willie Peace. Condolences to his family & friends.

This A&I case makes me wonder whether it is wise to mix CCR & OC students in one trip.

 

[LloydPickering]

RIP

In terms of the A&I (and assuming the hearsay is factually correct) I agree that it may not be wise to mix CCR/OC divers. I know that some CCR training agencies mandate a max ratio of 1:2, so that could be awkward too.

It is likely the Instructor will also end up with extra scrutiny with this taking place in the UK. Recreational scuba here (along with other forms of diving) are covered by the Diving At Work regulations which are enforced by the HSE (Health and Safety Executive). This states that even rec training dives must include a support/rescue diver (mainly to cover the instructor). That support diver needs to be rescue training to an appropriate level (PADI Rescue Diver is allowed for example), and also must have a valid HSE Medical clearance which requires a battery of tests every year.

While it is likely that at least one of the 3 divers with the instructor were Rescue trained, unless they were themselves Instructors, Divemasters or commercial divers etc then it is unlikely they had gone through a HSE medical. If they hadn't, then the instructor can expect the HSE to be less than pleased.

(Incidently I suspect this is one reason why we don't have Divemasters doing guided dives over here, as they would require a suitable support diver because they would be covered by the above regulations too)

Having said all that, to be fair to the instructor, all 3 students were experienced divers, and the CCR divers would have been already qualified to 40m (the u74 is 45m, which matches the depth I was told), and must have completed min 50h on the unit before Mod2. I can understand why leaving them for a few minutes to get the OC diver to the surface might have appeared the smartest decision. It's an unenviable situation. Either abort the dive with all divers because one person isn't comfortable (I don't know the reason why the OC diver wished to abort) and 'waste' the training dive they will have paid extra boat fees for, or escort OC diver to surface leaving 2 trainees, albeit experienced ones, behind to try and complete the dive on return.

In the end, it might not have made any difference. It is possible an unknown medical condition caused the death.

I hope, for the instructors sake, he keeps good records.

 

[Dan]

...In the meanwhile, the 2 CCR students had also become separated form each other. The surviving student did manage to locate the 2nd student, however on discovery he was unconscious with his loop out....

So, no gag strap on mouthpiece was used?

 

[LloydPickering]

So, no gag strap on mouthpiece was used?

Unknown.

The fact the loop was out indicates a few possibilities a) no gag strap, loop fell out due to lack of consciousness, b) panic leading to the diver removing loop despite strap, c) failed attmept to bailout leading to removal of loop/strap.

In my limited diving experience, I have never seen gag straps used in UK CCR diving despite being around a fair few CCR divers. Doesn't mean they aren't, just I haven't seen them. I also note that CCRs are supposed to be CE approved in order to be sold in the UK (and rest of EU). I believe a gag strap would normally be paired with BOV, and that means CE approval of the BOV is needed in conjunction with the unit. I'm about to start my Mod1 on JJ and they currently don't have a CE approved BOV (though my understanding is one is under development).

 

[DandyDon]

Body recovered from sea thought to be missing Fife diver

 

[DandyDon]

Instructor fined: Man dies in 'highly traumatic' submarine wreck tragedy

A Huddersfield diving instructor has been fined after a trainee tragically died while searching a submarine wreck in Scotland.

William Peace and another pupil were due to take part in a 45m dive off the coast of Dunbar to the wreck of the U74E – a 755-tonne German mine laying submarine, which sank in 1916.

The men were taking part in closed-circuit rebreather diving, which is more technical than scuba diving and enables divers to go greater depths.

They had joined technical diving instructor Ashley Roberts, sole director of Ash Roberts Technical Limited, to complete their Technical Diving International (TDI) mixed gas closed-circuit rebreather course.

They were also accompanied by a friend of Mr Roberts when tragedy struck on July 8 in 2017.

As the students had not completed all of the online course pre-requisites, Mr Roberts said it would be a free diving session and fun dive, rather than a training dive where he would check the students abilities in water and provide feedback to them prior to enrolling them on the course and starting the training the following day.

Mr Roberts said they would complete an assessment dive to a maximum depth of 45 metres to see how competent they were in the water.

After entering the water, they descended a shotline slowly to 13 metres, when Mr Roberts’ friend disappeared from view.

Mr Roberts travelled back up the line to the surface to check on his friend to find he had abandoned the dive as his dry suit was leaking water.

When Mr Roberts returned down the line to a depth of 13 metres, the two students were out of sight, having continued to the seabed. Mr Roberts travelled down the line, but couldn’t find them.

Once they had reached the seabed, they encountered difficulties and Mr Peace became unresponsive. His dive buddy made several attempts to rescue Mr Peace, but was forced to return to the surface for his own safety.

Mr Peace’s body was later recovered by police divers using a sonar search.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found Mr Roberts did not conduct a suitable assessment of the competence of the pupils prior to commencement of the dive.

Although an assessment dive was carried out, it was not sufficient to measure the capability of the divers and should have been carried out at a depth much shallower than 45m.

There was also a failure to verify the number of rebreather hours Mr Peace had completed during his previous dives or to check each diver’s rescue ability.

The men should have been under the supervision of an instructor at all times and particularly during an assessment.

Mr Roberts pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) and Section 37(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was fined £2,300 at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.

 

[DandyDon]

SENTENCING STATEMENT by Judiciary of Scotland...

PF v Ashley Roberts

Sep 14, 2021



At Edinburgh Sheriff Court today Summary Sheriff Roderick Flinn ordered Ashley Roberts to pay a fine after the offender pled guilty to a breach of the health and safety at work legislation.


On sentencing, Summary Sheriff Flinn made the following statement in Court:

“This case called before me on 8 September 2021. On that date, the accused pled guilty to an amended version of charge 1 on the complaint, which necessitated a substantial reframing of that charge, and not guilty to charge 2. These pleas were accepted by the Crown. I was provided with a Crown narrative, of some 15 pages, which, I was told, had been the subject of discussion between Crown and defence. That document sets out in clear and helpful terms the nature of the failings on the part of Ash Roberts Technical Ltd and therefore, by virtue of section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, a breach of section 3(1) of the Act by the accused.

This case arises out of an assessment dive off the East Lothian coast, in which a dive was to be carried out to assess certain competencies of two divers, William Peace, now deceased, and Richard Heppell. During the course of the dive in question William Peace got into difficulties at a depth of between 40 and 44 metres below sea level and died. It is not contended by the Crown that the failings of the company and therefore of the accused caused the death of Mr Peace. That is of course a critical point in arriving at an appropriate sentence.

The failings on the part of the company and therefore the accused are set out in the Crown Narrative. They can be summarised as:

• a failure to check both divers’ current levels of competence, as opposed to merely their previously attained training levels
• a failure to make a proper assessment of each diver’s rescue ability
• a failure to comply with the recognised practice that an assessment dive should take place to a depth significantly shallower than the limit 2 of the diver’s existing qualification - in this case, it is suggested, not deeper than 20 metres.

As noted above, these failures did not cause or contribute to the injury or death of any person, although no doubt they came to light as a result of Mr Peace’s death. The post-mortem report notes Mr Peace’s significant coronary artery disease. Death by drowning could not be confirmed or excluded. Mr Peace’s death was certified as “death whilst diving in a man with coronary artery disease”.

Counsel for the accused invited me to adopt the approach set out in Dundee Cold Stores v HM Advocate, and to have regard to the Sentencing Council’s Definitive Guideline on Health and Safety Offences, etc. 2015. The proper use of those guidelines is considered in Scottish Power Generation Ltd v HM Advocate. On that approach, I require to arrive at a provisional view as to the appropriate penalty before I adjust that penalty in light of aggravating and mitigating factors.

In arriving at a provisional view I note that counsel accepted that this case could be one of Level A for the seriousness of the harm risked; it could not in my view be otherwise given the dangerous nature of the diving involved. I accept also that a fair assessment of this case would be that it falls within a ‘medium’ likelihood of harm and therefore, Category 2. I accept that the offence itself was not a significant cause of actual harm and therefore this is a case in which the culpability is in the low-medium range, at Harm Category 2. That brings out what is referred to in the Sentencing Guideline as a fine in Band F, in the range of 500-700% of relevant weekly income, and in Band E in the range of 300-500% of relevant weekly income. I am satisfied that this is not the case in which the custody threshold has been reached and that a financial penalty is appropriate.

Following that approach, I am of the view that, given the risks inherent in this highly dangerous pursuit the fine should be near the top of Band F, that is to say 650% of relevant weekly income. That brings out a starting figure, based on the accused’s weekly income of £662.50 per week, of £4,306.00.

I accept that there are no aggravating factors to be considered here. There are none before the court, and the sort of aggravating factors referred to in the Dundee Cold Stores case, such as a breach with a view to profit, or cost cutting at the expense of safety, are not present here. I accept also that there are mitigating factors including the accused’s good health and safety record, his good character, the fact that there is no ongoing risk and his high level of cooperation with the police. These must be given appropriate weight.

Applying these mitigating factors, I am of the view that my provisional assessment should be adjusted downwards to £3,500. I am satisfied that notwithstanding the delay in bringing this case to court, the accused cooperated fully with the police, gave prompt instructions to his agent and agreed a plea as soon as the detailed terms of that plea had been adjusted by those advising him. On that basis, he should have the benefit of the full one-third discount. Accordingly, that brings out a final figure, for a financial penalty, of £2,300. I will impose a fine in that sum and invite representations as to time to pay.”

14 September 2021