Diver missing on Vandenberg - Florida

[wavethrash]

I'll try to respond to what I can, but a lot of your concern is directed to the guide, who I cannot speak for. Thank you all for your response, and I'll try to clarify a few points in the order you all posted.

Bowlofpetunias:
Thank you, and unfortunately I didn't explain that the way I should have; I simply made a video log of myself recounting the events which took place, the transcript of which is less detailed than this account, though I would agree that it would be much simpler if I had bought and used a GoPro or another recording device for the dive. Having so little experience as a diver it is difficult for me to describe it to a community with it's own terminology.
(PS, the irony of your username appearing in accidents & incidents isn't lost on me, though admittedly it's slightly more sobering than it is funny)

Rich Keller:
To clarify, 100' was the greatest depth we went to, everything was shallower after that. As to the danger, I don't have the knowledge to answer that, it was a for profit dive center with a very good reputation (recommended by the owner of the location my family and I were staying). After returning us customers to the boat, he got in some surface time (I don't recall how much, but it was shorter than a recreational diver would require) and dove again with a crew member watching him. The man watching him did not dive with the customers, and was in the water while watching him. I do not believe the diver went all the way to the ship, he was simply looking for any signs of bubbles coming from the ship/around it.

Wookie:
Thank you for introducing the "Normalization of deviance", which I am not fully familiar with. As a reasonable individual, I can inference it to be when to go by the book and when things are being handled well enough. To this I should say that had we waited until seeing the crew and diver make physical contact, it is likely we would have seen that never actually occur, and we would have James, alive or otherwise. Other members inquired as to this, so I will add to this concept later.

Rich Keller:
after completing our second swim through (to make sure James didn't go through the wrong section of the wreck), our guide claims to have seen James at the surface, and working with the crew for however many years knew that a trained professional was in the water swimming as soon as the diver hit the surface. I believe if he had not seen him safely at the water we would have indeed surfaced, as is the typical diving protocol.

Bob DBF:
While I realize we should have explicitly made pairs, I believe it was inferenced that I was to buddy with the guide and the other divers were a pair following us. Though I should note here that compared to my PADI instruction, they were extremely relaxed about discussing normal dive procedures, they all felt confident they knew all the dive signals when I asked if they would like to go over them, and after being briefed on our dive plan they talked amongst themselves of previous dives I think. I was more engaged in going through the dive plan with the guide and trying to memorize the layout of the ship.
I do agree that this lax nature coupled with our 1 at a time "swim through" allowed James to go missing unnoticed.

dumpsterDiver:
If there are videos/links which you think could help me with the nuances of describing a wreck dive it is possible I could clarify some points of confusion.
The time line is definitely important, unfortunately I don't have the dive computer to put the pieces together, that would have to come from Lost Reef's record, which I assume they would have.
To answer your main question, I don't have an exact time, only what I can estimate. I had last visual contact with James when I entered the wreck, the instructor would have about 5-15 seconds longer. It took me approx 15-30 seconds to go through the wreck, and I believe I did look back at one point and see the next diver inside near the entrance. After completing that swim through, it would have been another 10-30 seconds before diver 3 exited, and we waited another minute or two for diver 4, James. As for current, at that depth of 100', I was able to maintain depth and position with minimal effort. After the guide decided to split up and go back to the other side, we had spent another 2-3 minutes signaling/ swimming. All in all, I believe you and the guide would agree that a rapid ascent would be possible, considering we had spent less than 5 minutes at that depth ourselves and he had at best over 4 minutes and at worst a bit over 2, less if he ascended while we were inside the wreck for the second time.

As for your second question, the crew members said they saw him as soon as he surfaced, so I can't answer as to exactly how many seconds that was. I am under the impression that the crew was in the water swimming to him in under 10 seconds after he broke the surface. Also the water was fairly clear and you could make out the ship looking with a mask from the surface, I don't know if that would have helped them see his bubbles while he was ascending. The crew was very familiar with the wreck, and I feel confident they were looking in the right spot. We entered the water with the aft of our vessel facing the wreck, anyone surfacing straight from it would be in their view, surface current aside.

Rich Keller:
That was indeed the thought process as I understand from the conversation the crew had on the surface. the other groups descended at different buoys, and all of their groups stuck together, so I believe our guide decided it was James on the surface (having no other groups within visual on the port or starboard section of the wreck. Let us not forget the Vandenburg is one of the largest recreational wrecks, being 524' long). The diver in question who surfaced and descended was only 'confirmed' to be James through process of elimination. To bolster that, no other divers were unaccounted for at any length of time to my knowledge.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Thanks for the clarification..

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Wavethrash You are providing valuable information for others to learn by. Many people tend to get defensive and not acknowledge their need to rethink their decisions. Your ability to do so is what will ensure your safety as you continue your diving career. I'd be happy to dive with you. Thanks for the information.

Your comment about believing you were safe because of the DM being "in arm's reach" is too common a belief leading to "trust me dives". In the beginning honestly most dives are "trust me dives" Trust the instructor, trust the DM trust the dive shop, trust the dive operator. In the beginning as we are extending our comfort and extending our skills this may be necessary.

The sooner a diver starts making decisions for themselves the better. Only the diver really knows what is in their comfort/skill level. Until you are making your own decisions you continue to risk that chance that the person's motivation for deciding you should conduct the dive are not made for your personal best interests. You have clearly reached that point which makes you a safer diver than prior to this unfortunate event.

 

[AdivingBel]

I've been on that Vberg dive. A couple, one AOW the other OW, wanted to dive the Vandenberg. I was approached by one of the "dive sherpas" about joining their party. In order for the OW diver to make the dive the dive OP required her to hire a guide. The guide (who I had dived with before) wanted to make sure they had definative "buddy pairs." He buddied with the OW diver and I buddied with the AOW boyfriend. The OW diver had a problem while decending the mooring line and called the dive. The guide (her buddy) escorted her back to and ONTO to boat. MY buddy and I continued on to the deck, cruised around near the mooring line, and was then joined by the guide. We proceeded to have a very enjoyable dive as a team of three. My point being, IMHO, one of the major failures on the tragic dive happened before they splashed by not having definative buddy pairs. We don't know what caused the problem with the deceased, but it should have happened in the presance of his "buddy." Ultimately, it may have not have made a difference, but odds are it would have ended with everyone on the boat (with an increased chance of a happy ending) and not a missing diver. Again, IMHO, that was a much bigger issue than divers going through a light to light swim through.

 

[Bob DBF]

. How about individual responsibility? The divers were ALL certified to dive to recreational depths. I'm pretty sure nobody hid the advanced nature of the dive (it's the Vandenberg for goodness sake). Everyone on the dive exercised their right as a reasoning adult to make the dive. Let's anaylize what happened, not cast aspersions all about the room, IMHO.

I'm all for individual responsibility and use it liberally in my diving however, new divers who are trained to see dive professionals as gods and expecting their advice to be law, does not make for a well reasoned decision.

What happened was a dive guide was paid to take four divers on a safe wreck penetration and only three came back. I still go with my first post that it was probably a medical event but the guide (as well as the divers buddy) lost the missing diver and did not immediately abort the dive and attempt to regain contact. Wavethrash stated that they saw the diver above them (possibly), but did not go to check which may have changed how the whole event played out.




Bob
---------------------
I may be old, but I'm not dead yet.

 

[Bob DBF]

. How about individual responsibility? The divers were ALL certified to dive to recreational depths. I'm pretty sure nobody hid the advanced nature of the dive (it's the Vandenberg for goodness sake). Everyone on the dive exercised their right as a reasoning adult to make the dive. Let's anaylize what happened, not cast aspersions all about the room, IMHO.

I'm all for individual responsibility and use it liberally in my diving however, new divers who are trained to see dive professionals as gods and expecting their advice to be law, does not make for a well reasoned decision.

What happened was a dive guide was paid to take four divers on a safe wreck penetration and only three came back. I still go with my first post that it was probably a medical event but the guide (as well as the divers buddy) lost the missing diver and did not immediately abort the dive and attempt to regain contact. Wavethrash stated that they saw the diver above them (possibly), but did not go to check which may have changed how the whole event played out.

I would not have a problem with the dive, depending on my dive buddy, but I would not take an inexperienced diver, for their safety and mine.



Bob
---------------------
I may be old, but I'm not dead yet.

 

[AdivingBel]

What happened was a dive guide was paid to take four divers on a safe wreck penetration and only three came back.

I may be incorrect, but from reading the 1st hand description of the dive and having been on a similar dive, the "wreck penetration" wasn't the focus of the dive. It's a swim down, swim around, 20 minute dive with a straight through, light to light, prepped swim through. It's at 90+ feet, so it's certainly not a dive to be taken lightly, but to characterize it as a "wreck penetration" dive is a misnomer. That said, other than possibly causing a separation of the victim from his "non-buddy" (IMO the big mistake was not specifying specific buddy pairs leading to nobody looking out for the victim and no clear party to accompany the victim at the surface when he ascended) the penetration/swim through had nothing to do with the incident. I also haven't seen where the victim was characterized as an inexperienced diver. The witness characterized himself as inexperienced but comfortable in the water and was directed to the dive by his instructor, not present. We've now side tracked to "I wouldn't take an inexperienced diver on a wreck penetration dive" which as far as I can see has nothing to do with the incident at hand. We've also now stated it's "it's all about the George" as a slap at dive OPs in general, which takes us even further afield. Bob, I wouldn't take an inexperienced diver on a wreck penetration dive either, but I think that may be beside the point.

---------- Post added March 3rd, 2015 at 07:00 PM ----------

 

[jejton]

I read through this entire thread and am still left scratching my head. I've done 2 dive trips in the Key's, including my first post-OW dives. When researching sites, the Vandeberg came up as an interesting site. In my naiveite, I asked the dive OPs if that its a possible site to visit, and each one of them said they would not take a brand new OW diver there, and 2 or 3 of the handful I've dived with, or considered diving with, said they would only take AOW on that dive. None of them would take me past 60ish feet on any dives. Maybe that is not standard, but I'm confused how a dive op or DM would take a brand new OW diver to this site, dive to 100', and do a swim-thru which at least some people here say is an overhead environment. What I find even more concerning is that the DM appeared to notice that the missing diver was having some trouble and still continued the dive until the very end. I am not casting blame on this DM as we do not know the whole story, and the story that was posted by the new diver earlier has many oneholes and assumptions in it, but this is not a DM I would want to be in the water with while I am still fresh enough a diver to be depending on a good DM.

 

[KevinNM]

The thing that keeps sticking with me on the original intent of the thread is the lack of a buddy. If the lost diver had a definitive buddy that followed training this might have turned out differently.

Yes, at the very least they would probably have not lost him. It's perfectly possible (and not unlikely) that some sort of severe medical event precipitated his departure, so it might have had a fatal outcome, but you likely wouldn't have just lost the diver.

However, I'm still not convinced that taking new divers into an overhead at 100 feet on a trust me dive is a good idea.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I don't know the site like many here do. I am just wondering if the fact that they entered the wreck is likely to have contributed insofar as losing sight of the diver?