When you dive the rigs, you are told in the pre-dive briefing to swim to a specific leg of the rig and to surface at the same leg. When it is clear, the DM will direct you to swim to the boat. Dan had only a handfull of dives, none within the previous year. He arrived without a buddy and asked if he could tag along with three guys from the shop. They agreed, but when they began their descent, Dan had trouble clearing. The rest of the team figured he had gone back to the boat when they didn't see him descend. Rather than ascend, he continued to try to equalize, losing sight of the other divers and the rig itself. That is a huge no-no ten miles offshore. When he finally surfaced he said he saw the boat, but when they didn't hear his whistle, he figured they would come and look for him. He never mentioned anything about leg cramps until recently. He had no business being on a dive like that to begin with, he didn't attempt to swim back to the boat, and he didn't follow the briefing. After the entire debacle ended, he did interviews with Oprah, the Today Show and several other media outlets, never once claiming any responsibility.
I think the judgement shoud be shared equally three ways.
Phil, I understand your perspective - I've read your posts on this topic in past threads. I was unaware that it had been such a long time since he'd been diving. But nothing in your post changes my opinion that he was not at fault (although clearly the jury felt he was at least partially so, and ruled accordingly - so I accept that others believe that he was.)
I also agree that he did not execute a perfect dive. But in all of the reading I've done about this incident, and given my own experience as a diver (both on SoCal boats, and at our local rigs), I still cannot see where his errors come even close to the dive op's.
1. He went on a boat without a buddy, and asked to instabuddy. I've done that. (Don't like doing it, but I've done it.)
2. He had trouble equalizing, and stopped descending to deal with it. I've done that.
3. His buddies continued on without him, assuming he chose to leave them, without even bothering to check, or surfacing when they realized their buddy, who they agreed to allow to join them, disappeared. I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. I see THEM as complicit in this overall cluster-f***
4. He surfaced when he couldn't find his buddies. Isn't that what we're supposed to do?
5. Every time I've dived the oil rigs, it was a hot-drop - they dropped us off, then headed off to wait, away from the rigs. We're supposed to signal them when we surface, and they come and get us. I've never seen it done any other way at the rigs. So I believe he had a reasonable assumption that the boat would "come and get him." This was not like most other SoCal dive boat dives - the boats at the rigs generally don't anchor. Was this one somehow different?
I suspect they didn't see him because he surfaced too quickly - they weren't expecting any divers to surface only 15 minutes after drop. And my understanding is that he didn't make it to the rig (where he could have held on and not get swept away) because of his trouble equalizing - hadn't made it there yet, so he never even got close enough to the rig legs to hold on.
I surfaced early from a rig dive once. Out at Grace, I started descending and my computer died - before we'd even reached the rig. I thumbed the dive immediately, and I and my buddy surfaced. The boat was pretty far away, but somebody obviously was watching, because they immediately powered over to us. That's what should have happened for Daniel.
If I'm wrong in any of my beliefs about this incident, please set me straight. I am always open to learning the facts, even if they differ what what I'd believed to be true.
Apologies.
