"Drifting Dan" Carlock wins $1.68 million after being left at sea

[tc]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

Another duplicate thread merged.

---

 

[idocsteve]

"It has been an ordeal," he said as he celebrated at a Newport Beach restaurant with his wife, Anne. "But I wanted to seek changes in the scuba industry. Others will benefit."

Yeah I'm sure it had nothing to do with the payoff, he just wanted to "see the scuba industry benefit".

The dive charters will be paying higher insurance rates and guess who is going to be paying more to step on their boats?

Unless he's going to donate all or part of the settlement (and profits from his TV appearances) towards "better education of dive boat captains".

Somehow I doubt it

 

[Thalassamania]

As Ken and I both know well, the job of an expert is, in large part, to make damaging testimony seem less creditable. The easiest testimony to do that with is that of a witness who was under stress. So it is unlikely that we will ever be able to analyze what happen in any detail. So I think it prudent to accept Occum's Razor.

1) All but the most experienced divers wind up swimming either into the current or with the current, it takes real concentration to hold any other course. So he would have been swimming either east or west.

2) He surfaced at 9:09. When did he submerge? My first guess would be that the distance he submerged would be something less than 110 feet times the number of minutes he was submerged.

3) When I have been running diving ops under similar circumstances (with much more experienced divers) I would always have a lookout, with binoculars, posted and actively scanning the area down current, whether or not anyone had surfaced there before. I would be sure that the lookout was carefully briefed to scan further and further away from the boat as time passed.

4) If, in fact, as Ken maintains, he had surfaced with a safety sausage, 1,100 feet away that would have meant that he submerged at about 9:00. At that range, about goalpost to goalpost on a football field, I would expect a competent lookout with binoculars to have identified a distressed diver waving a safety sausage.

"It has been an ordeal," he said as he celebrated at a Newport Beach restaurant with his wife, Anne. "But I wanted to seek changes in the scuba industry. Others will benefit."

Yeah I'm sure it had nothing to do with the payoff, he just wanted to "see the scuba industry benefit".

The dive charters will be paying higher insurance rates and guess who is going to be paying more to step on their boats?

Unless he's going to donate all or part of the settlement (and profits from his TV appearances) towards "better education of dive boat captains".

Somehow I doubt it

It seems that the case has had a significant effect on the way that boats do operate. So he's got his cake and can eat it too.

 

[Rainer]

4) If, in fact, as Ken maintains, he had surfaced with a safety sausage, 1,100 feet away that would have meant that he submerged at about 9:00. At that range, about goalpost to goalpost on a football field, I would expect a competent lookout with binoculars to have identified a distressed diver waving a safety sausage.

From what I've heard, the fog was quite heavy that day and 1,100' would have put the diver right at the edge of surface visibility. If that's the case, it's rather questionable if they should have been diving this site in the first place (it's notoriously current sensitive).

The lack (or failure) of roll-call is pretty inexcusable. My main issue with the dive itself is Dan's decision to descend while not already inside the rig structure. At least now, that's heavily emphasized during the pre-dive briefings. The boats back in, dump divers, and tell them to first swim into the rig (i.e. underneath the structure sitting out of the water), and only then, descend. If he'd done this, the rest of the story would likely not have unfolded as it did. Regardless of what his teammates decided to do, descending in open water ten miles from shore in a current sensitive area wasn't a good call if his goal was to hit the rig.

 

[Leejnd]

From what I've heard, the fog was quite heavy that day and 1,100' would have put the diver right at the edge of surface visibility. If that's the case, it's rather questionable if they should have been diving this site in the first place (it's notoriously current sensitive).

Agree!

The lack (or failure) of roll-call is pretty inexcusable. My main issue with the dive itself is Dan's decision to descend while not already inside the rig structure. At least now, that's heavily emphasized during the pre-dive briefings. The boats back in, dump divers, and tell them to first swim into the rig (i.e. underneath the structure sitting out of the water), and only then, descend. If he'd done this, the rest of the story would likely not have unfolded as it did. Regardless of what his teammates decided to do, descending in open water ten miles from shore in a current sensitive area wasn't a good call if his goal was to hit the rig.

This has been one of my biggest questions in this whole incident from the beginning. We need to remember that he did start out with two buddies - an existing team that had agreed to allow him to "tag along". So who made the decision to descend before they were at the structure? Dan has stated that he began his descent with his buddies. So did he even have the option of waiting until they surface-swam to the rig to begin the descent, if he wanted to stay with his buddies?

I would be very interested in knowing this - I think this one question plays a large role in determining how much responsibility should be assigned to Dan for this incident. If he was just following his buddy team, and was not the leader, then he didn't make the decision - he was following his team. (Of course an argument could be made that he should have aborted the dive when he realized they were gonna descend away from the rig, but I don't think it's unreasonable for the less-experienced diver to follow the lead of his buddy team.)

 

[Thalassamania]

I would still expect a competent lookout with binoculars to have identified a distressed diver waving a safety sausage at a range of < 1,100 feet when the reported visibility was 1/4 mile (1,320 feet). It does not sound like such a lookout was posted, there was just the usual DM milling about.

 

[Rainer]

but I don't think it's unreasonable for the less-experienced diver to follow the lead of his buddy team.

That gets people killed. I could be diving with God himself and if he decided to do something really dumb, I'd have no problem waving goodbye and heading for the surface.

We're all ultimately responsible for our own decisions. Just because we might be around more experienced divers doesn't mean we should abdicate responsibility for our own safety.

Descending outside the rig is pretty inexcusable (regardless of what the other team members might have decided).

In any case, he didn't deserve to get left. For that, he earned his paycheck.

 

[Rainer]

Maybe, but that's sort of beside the point. Even a competent lookout wouldn't have seen him 1-2 minutes later when he totally disappeared. It's also hard to know if the reported 1/4 mile surface visibility was really a little less or more. If less, then some other sites closer in to shore might have been more prudent.

I would still expect a competent lookout with binoculars to have identified a distressed diver waving a safety sausage at a range of < 1,100 feet when the reported visibility was 1/4 mile (1,320 feet). It does not sound like such a lookout was posted, there was just the usual DM milling about.

 

[Thalassamania]

Perhaps, but (like most diving accidents) there was a chain of failures ... some on the part of the diver, some on the part of the boat. The boat failed to select a better site given the poor conditions. The boat failed to post a competent and properly equipped lookout. The boat failed to discern that a diver was missing before departing to the next dive. The boat recorded the missing diver as having entered the water at the second dive site. The boat recorded the missing diver as having reboarded at the second dive site. That's pretty damning stuff, considering that the boat is supposed to be run by pros, even though the diver made a series of stupid amateurish mistakes.

 

[Rainer]

I'm in full agreement.

Perhaps, but (like most diving accidents) there was a chain of failures ... some on the part of the diver, some on the part of the boat. The boat failed to select a better site given the poor conditions. The boat failed to post a competent and properly equipped lookout. The boat failed to discern that a diver was missing before departing to the next dive. The boat recorded the missing diver as having entered the water at the second dive site. The boat recorded the missing diver as having reboarded at the second dive site. That's pretty damning stuff, considering that the boat is supposed to be run by pros, even though the diver made a series of stupid amateurish mistakes.