Diver missing at Cove 2, West Seattle

[mcguiver]

the only part of what you've posted above that I would question are the depths. While they are significant in that part of the cove, they are not quite as deep as what's posted. Tidal height at the time of the accident on the day of the accident was about a +8
... Bob (Grateful Diver)

The most solid depth that was related to me is the depth that the victim was found at, (reportedly 115') at the time of the evening that the victim was found at this depth the level of the tide had dropped by about 10 feet making his initial depth around 125 +- The recovery diver talked about how heavy (negative) the diver was. Given that, and the lack of current in that area as well as the other gleaned information from those involved, adds to the compelling arguments I have heard for what happened. As I said I have answered some but by no means all of my own questions in my search for what happened. And I would hope that anyone with more information (indeed, facts that correct any flaws in my present understanding) would speak up.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

The most solid depth that was related to me is the depth that the victim was found at, (reportedly 115') at the time of the evening that the victim was found at this depth the level of the tide had dropped by about 10 feet making his initial depth around 125 +- The recovery diver talked about how heavy (negative) the diver was. Given that, and the lack of current in that area as well as the other gleaned information from those involved, adds to the compelling arguments I have heard for what happened. As I said I have answered some but by no means all of my own questions in my search for what happened. And I would hope that anyone with more information (indeed, facts that correct any flaws in my present understanding) would speak up.

Did you get this information from Johanna? She's the person who found the body. I have not spoken to her directly, and got my information from someone who we both know, and who did talk to her directly. They indicated that the body was found at about 105 fsw. Her and her buddy located the body between Olive's Den and the I-beams, which does not get that deep ... you have to go out well past the scooter line to get to 125 feet.

Tidal height at the time of the accident (about 11 AM) was +8. Tidal height at the time the body was found (about 5:30 PM) was +5 ... about a 3-foot difference. A cursory look at the tide chart will confirm those numbers.

Aaron ... I've logged over 600 dives in that cove ... probably a third of them in the area where this accident occurred. I know how far you have to go out to get to 125 feet ... it's a long way past where the body was found.

Edit ... I just realized that Lamont posted in reply #7 on this thread the depth at which the body was located ... 105 fsw. Lamont was one of the recovery divers.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[TSandM]

You know, Bob, that was the number that was in my mind, too -- but remember that the first team to find him were attempting to drag him upslope when the freeflow occurred, so maybe he did start out a little deeper. But I'm with you; the slope is awfully flat at that depth, and 120 is quite a distance from 105.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

You know, Bob, that was the number that was in my mind, too -- but remember that the first team to find him were attempting to drag him upslope when the freeflow occurred, so maybe he did start out a little deeper. But I'm with you; the slope is awfully flat at that depth, and 120 is quite a distance from 105.

I didn't hear anything about "upslope" ... but instead that he was found in an area that was between landmarks, and that they were trying to bring him closer to a landmark to make it easier for the recovery divers to locate him.

Perhaps Lamont or LJ could elaborate, since they spoke directly to the initial discovery team, and since they were the ones who then located and marked his location.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[mcguiver]

I didn't hear anything about "upslope" ... but instead that he was found in an area that was between landmarks, and that they were trying to bring him closer to a landmark to make it easier for the recovery divers to locate him.

Perhaps Lamont or LJ could elaborate, since they spoke directly to the initial discovery team, and since they were the ones who then located and marked his location.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

That has caused some confusion with people. I know Lamont and LLJ located the victim at 105' this was after the first recovery team (the ones who actually located him) found him at 115' I could be off on the tides for that day but like I said I double confermed what I initially was told that the victim was indeed found at 115 then brought up to 105. Before the second team marked his location after following the first teams directions to where they had pulled him. Hence the information on how negative the victim was. This information is indeed directly from the original recovery diver who found the diver based on information from the victims buddy.

 

[mcguiver]

Ah, you're right. I was looking at the wrong days tides. So a difference of 3' makes the original depth the victim was at at the time of the accident 118' rather than the 120' to 125' that I had originally thought. The recovery divers did indeed pull the victim up slope AND toward an easily found landmark. Also the recovery divers reg failed causing her emergency after they had re possisioned the victim in preparation for the police to recover him and begun their own ascent along the bottom toward shore.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

It's as may be ... and unless I hear it directly from Johanna I'll remain skeptical. But the fact remains that where the diver was found is based on where his body landed after attempting to surface. This could have been quite a distance from where the dive actually took place.

The only way to ascertain the dive profile is to examine the dive computer of the diver in question, as well as that of his buddy and the instructor. I'm fairly sure this has been done as part of the investigation into the accident.

Speculation about what the instructor may or may not have done is not a productive direction to take this conversation, unless you have some evidence to back up claims of standards violations or bad judgment. And while circumstances may (and do, in my personal opinion) point in that direction ... at least from a judgment perspective ... little is to be gained from speculating.

Show me the data ... then we can have a meaningful conversation about what may have led to the accident ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[mcguiver]

It's as may be ... and unless I hear it directly from Johanna I'll remain skeptical. But the fact remains that where the diver was found is based on where his body landed after attempting to surface. This could have been quite a distance from where the dive actually took place.

The only way to ascertain the dive profile is to examine the dive computer of the diver in question, as well as that of his buddy and the instructor. I'm fairly sure this has been done as part of the investigation into the accident.

Speculation about what the instructor may or may not have done is not a productive direction to take this conversation, unless you have some evidence to back up claims of standards violations or bad judgment. And while circumstances may (and do, in my personal opinion) point in that direction ... at least from a judgment perspective ... little is to be gained from speculating.

Show me the data ... then we can have a meaningful conversation about what may have led to the accident ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I would not want to baselessly speculate on anything the instructor may have done, this is why I have withheld much of the information that has come to my attention. You may wish to confirm what I have written here with the same sources I received the information from. As I have myself spoken directly in person to Joanna I have no such issues taking what she says as factual. And if I misrepresented her statements here I cirtianly couldnt hope to not be corrected by her so I fail to see your issue with trusting it's validity. As for the idea that the victim may have lost conciousness on his way to the surface before sinking back down to 118'. I did enitially consider this as an explanation for why the diver was found so far away from the depth and area the instructor reported seeing him go up. But given the instructors account of the student leaving the group from a depth of around 60' and where he was discovered at nearly twice that depth, it doesn't make sence. Even if he had made it all the way to the surface it is a long way to drift in a currentless environment to end up where he did. Also LJ reported his mask was only partially flooded. A uncontious decent of 60' or more would likely result in all open air spaces being almost completely inundated. However if he was at the depths he was discovered in when the accident happened and he only ascended a short distance toward the surface before returning to the bottom I would expect to see a partially flooded mask. Also given the rather gentle slope of the bottom and the negative bouyancy of the victim i would find it likely the area he was found would be very near the area the accident happened. An unconscious diver in a drysuit will very quickly become quite negatively buoyant during even a short descent and the longer the descent the more negative the diver would be, (as the suit is compressed and water enters the cylinder) and the more verticle his fall would become. As I have spoken with people involved that you have not and you have spoken to people involved that I have not and we each have theories as to what happened I think it likely that by putting the pieces together we could come close to discovering more of the truth about what happened. For example it has been stated that the diver had not been using a steel 72. I have heard from the diver who located him that he was I have heard second hand from the surviving buddy that he was and you have heard from LJ and Lamont that he was. It is entirely possible that amongst all the conjecture that this is a small piece of the truth. And after all that is the point of having discussions like this, to discover what really happened.

 

[cfrensley]

Whoever "mcguiver" is its clear he a) has a nasty vendetta b) is happy to exploit a tragedy to go after someone or someones who are the target of his vendetta and that c) he is either profoundly misinformed ir willing just to make stuff up in pursuit of his vendetta.

Between what he wrote and the support for his comments from even less-informed people it is very clear that scubaboard is not my kind of place. I know some great people who it turns out poat here sometimes but it is also clear that the bad apples ruin it for me. I live in the real offline world with real offline people and rwal offline situations and I can't stomach the few here who are creepy. I hope to see a lot of u in the water soon but otherwise <unsubscribe>

 

[Thalassamania]

Bi-bye.