Diver missing on Vandenberg - Florida

[Wookie]

I think it's important for posters on this thread, especially if they are eyewitnesses and could be construed as buddies, with a standard of care to the deceased, should read this article. It's always important to remember that anyone can be sued for anything at any time. I know the captain and divemaster well, and you don't see them coming here and telling anyone what they saw.....

 

[dumpsterDiver]

I think it's important for posters on this thread, especially if they are eyewitnesses and could be construed as buddies, with a standard of care to the deceased, should read this article. It's always important to remember that anyone can be sued for anything at any time. I know the captain and divemaster well, and you don't see them coming here and telling anyone what they saw.....

Almost sounds like you are more worried about the people you "know well", rather than the new diver who described the dive.

 

[Steve_C]

I took Wookie's comment as a warning that other members of the dive group could also be sued so be careful what you post in public.

As to the main thread I distinguish between swim throughs and swim throughs that require single file and make it impossible for the DM to monitor or respond to the tail end of his group.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

This is A & I everyone. It seems to me that the fact that entering the wreck may have contributed to the buddy separation which ultimately resulted in the loss of the diver. It also seems that some discussion regarding WHY the missing diver who MAY not have been qualified chose to do this dive is also relative.

I don't know the site. For those of you who do... How much if at all do you think penetrating the wreck contributed to the total separation and loss of the diver? How long would they have been in the wreck? How much would the wreck block the view of the other diver once they had exited the penetrated area? Does anyone know the wreck and the entry/exit points well enough to give an informed answer to those questions?

 

[Wookie]

This is A & I everyone. It seems to me that the fact that entering the wreck may have contributed to the buddy separation which ultimately resulted in the loss of the diver. It also seems that some discussion regarding WHY the missing diver who MAY not have been qualified chose to do this dive is also relative.

Extensive discussion of DIVE courses, PADI and otherwise cover overhead environments is a worthwhile topic IMHO. Perhaps someone can start a thread on the topic before it turns into a hijack and the topic of this thread is lost in the mix.

I don't know the site. For those of you who do... How much if at all do you think penetrating the wreck contributed to the total separation and loss of the diver? How long would they have been in the wreck? How much would the wreck block the view of the other diver once they had exited the penetrated area? Does anyone know the wreck and the entry/exit points well enough to give an informed answer to those questions?

Witness says that they were on the number 6 mooring, which ties in to the deck at 95 feet, on the stern open chocks. Can't get any farther aft than that on the Vandy. Witness says they dropped off of the main deck to access the large holes cut in the side of the hull. From these holes, you can see a way out from the way in. You would be in the "cavern zone" while on THAT DECK. If you drop down another deck, you might be able to see natural light, and you might not, but they didn't, so the point is moot. You can go up inside the ship and stay in the natural light area, but if I remember correctly, the witness said that the victim didn't follow the group inside. If the group was inside and the victim outside, they would lose sight of each other immediately, I would imagine.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Thanks Wookie.. that is certainly the impression I have s well.

What I am wondering is how long they would likely have been in a position where they couldn't possibly see the other diver. How long to go through if they did it directly? Once out the other side I assume if the diver dropped below the access holes they entered the most they would see is bubbles if that.

So lets assume they went straight through the wreck. At that point they exited how much wreck if any would be obstructing their view of the diver if he was at the point they entered it or higher?

It is the "time frame" when things went potentially wrong and no one was aware of it that is of interest to me here.

 

[Wookie]

Thanks Wookie.. that is certainly the impression I have s well.

What I am wondering is how long they would likely have been in a position where they couldn't possibly see the other diver. How long to go through if they did it directly? Once out the other side I assume if the diver dropped below the access holes they entered the most they would see is bubbles if that.

So lets assume they went straight through the wreck. At that point they exited how much wreck if any would be obstructing their view of the diver if he was at the point they entered it or higher?

It is the "time frame" when things went potentially wrong and no one was aware of it that is of interest to me here.

If I remember the wreck at that point correctly, and I am NOT an overhead kind of guy. 6,000 dives and overheads freak me out. Anyway, you enter the wreck through a hole cut in the side of the wreck. From that compartment, you would enter a central gallery that allows you to go up ladder, down ladder, or up deck hole or down deck hole. Or you could go into the next compartment and out the other side. This is a wide wreck and 600-something feet long. When they prepped it for reefing, they made vertical shafts from the keel to the main deck for air to escape, and for diver access. So there are 7 "elevator shafts" running up from the keel to the main deck inside the ship, probably 5 or 4 holes running horizontally around the deck below the main deck (called the second deck) in probably 105-110 feet of water for access from outside the hull into the hull, and a gallery running inside the second deck from fore to aft.

We dive this wreck a lot, but our divers are not guided. There is a ton of wreck to see above 95 feet, and everything main deck and above is open to daylight. There is a blimp hanger for launching weather balloons, the wheelhouse is very large and open, the antennas, though falling apart, are still there and obvious, the main deck has swim-throughs that are "diver-safe", and have easy access to open water. It is also a great wreck to teach a wreck pen course, as there are dark places, but no mazes like there can be on the Spiegal Grove (#2 pumproom?). We tell our divers that the wreck is an overhead, and if they are not overhead trained not to go in the wreck. We also get some divers who are full wreck certified, but aren't properly equipped (doubles), so they may penetrate, but not past the natural light zone.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Was the witness who posted earlier in this thread Open Water qualified? If they tied in at 95 feet in current he shouldn't have been there let alone the talk of a swim thru. Any word on a recovery yet?

---------- Post added March 7th, 2015 at 08:35 AM ----------

I don't mean to be insensitive but I'm frustrated with theses reports of the trust me dives.

I understand your concern regarding "trust me dives".

We are fortunate that a "witness" has been willing to come forward and post. What the qualifications of the witness are/were really are off topic in A & I as we are supposed to be talking about the incident and what contributed to it. There really is no evidence that the witness contributed in any way to the situation therefor discussion of his qualifications is nothing more than a Red Herring.

I am not sure that anyone has posted the qualifications of the victim. If I remember correctly the witness has posted that while the victim seems to have been overweighted he also seemed to be managing his bouyancy ok. If he was overweighted that may have been a contributing factor in the end. I know a lot of experienced divers who for various reasons carry too much weight on a regular basis. I also know of situations where that eventually contributed to a fatality. IMHO the habit of carrying too much weight is just another one of the errors divers make that they get away with until their complacency about it comes back and bites them ......

Divers get away with the complacency that leads to "poor decisions" until they wind up the topic of an A & I thread We try to find the answers "WHY". Some rare occasions it is just sheer bad luck but too often it can be summed up easily... :crying2: COMPLACENCE KILLS DIVERS!

 

[Abdullah]

I understand your concern regarding "trust me dives".

We are fortunate that a "witness" has been willing to come forward and post. What the qualifications of the witness are/were really are off topic in A & I as we are supposed to be talking about the incident and what contributed to it. There really is no evidence that the witness contributed in any way to the situation therefor discussion of his qualifications is nothing more than a Red Herring.

I am not sure that anyone has posted the qualifications of the victim. If I remember correctly the witness has posted that while the victim seems to have been overweighted he also seemed to be managing his bouyancy ok. If he was overweighted that may have been a contributing factor in the end. I know a lot of experienced divers who for various reasons carry too much weight on a regular basis. I also know of situations where that eventually contributed to a fatality. IMHO the habit of carrying too much weight is just another one of the errors divers make that they get away with until their complacency about it comes back and bites them ......

Divers get away with the complacency that leads to "poor decisions" until they wind up the topic of an A & I thread We try to find the answers "WHY". Some rare occasions it is just sheer bad luck but too often it can be summed up easily... :crying2: COMPLACENCE KILLS DIVERS!

The red herring is not the qualifications. Diving below their 60 foot qualification to 95 feet is quite relevant for A&I. A diver is responsible to dive within his qualifications. If these divers were OW (and new), and diving below 60 feet, they should have been wary of adding swim throughs and other complications to a dive that was already beyond their training. Its a good A&I learning point for new divers to ask questions of the dive op before they splash and ensure the DM/guide won't put them in a position they aren't adequately trained to respond to.

As for the red herring, you'll find that in an over weighting discussion. Any root cause analysis begins with a problem statement. In this accident, the problem is that a diver is missing. Why is a diver missing? Because no one was with him when he disappeared. Why wasn't anyone with him when he disappeared? Because his buddy left him on the wreck. Why did his buddy leave him on the wreck? Because the buddy system on this dive was not effective. Why wasn't the buddy system effective? Answer this and you have the root cause for the missing diver, and it isn't going to have anything to do with weighting, more likely an insta-buddy issue.

Weighting, skill set, current, etc. are all contributing factors. The victim may not have survived the dive due to one or more of the contributing factors, but he would not be missing if his buddy was with him throughout the dive.

 

[Wookie]

There is no 60 foot limitation for OW certification. How many times does this have to be said? The depth limit for Open Water certification in any and all training agencies in the United States is 130 feet, and by training and experience. You get experience by being briefed and led on a dive. The witness was briefed and led on a 95 foot dive. It's how you gain experience.

i find your root cause analysis statements to be right on. Were you in nuclear power?