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

[diverrex]

Are you saying CA members are incapable of navigating the board like the rest of us?

I'm saying a lot just don't bother looking at forums other than the So Cal forum. Plus maybe the So Cal divers would like to discuss this with mainly So Cal divers who have direct experience with the rigs and/or the charter boat in question, without havng to wade through pages and pages of comments from people without direct experience.

 

[Leejnd]

I'm saying a lot just don't bother looking at forums other than the So Cal forum. Plus maybe the So Cal divers would like to discuss this with mainly So Cal divers who have direct experience with the rigs and/or the charter boat in question, without havng to wade through pages and pages of comments from people without direct experience.

Thanks again, Rex. I posted the thread in the SoCal forum for exactly the reasons you quoted.

I knew there was already a thread in this forum. And I posted another thread in the A&I forum, because I know there are many divers who frequent that forum who knew of this case, and had previously been involved in discussions on it.

And I posted the thread in the SoCal forum SPECIFICALLY because I know there are many of us who really only go to that forum, so we wouldn't have seen the threads in the other forums. I also posted it there so we could have our own discussion - we, the local SoCal divers who know the region, the dive ops, the boats, the rigs, and the practices that are unique to SoCal.

Does this make sense now?

Frankly I'm pretty irritated that my thread got moved. I feel this is a topic of great interest to SoCal divers, and we should be allowed to have a discussion about it in our own forum.

 

[diverrex]

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 when I began ascending - 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 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.

1. I don't think it reasonable for a somewhat inexperienced diver to instabuddy on a rig dive, a very experience diver maybe, but not someone with so so skills and experience.

2. The rigs in current is not like other dives, you have to stay within the structure of the rig. If you are not equalizing and you start to leave the structure of the rig you can't just stay at your depth and drift away, you have to surface now.

4. I'm doing this from memory but I belive he did a safety stop in blue water away from the rig, when a stop was not mandatory. Once again you need to stay within the structure or as near it as you can. Doing a safety stop in mid water and drifting further away from the rig is a mistake.

5. You can expect the boat to come get you near the rig, and of course they will come get you away from the rig if they see you, but it's your responsibility to dive within the rig structure.

Similar to Farnsworth the rigs is an experienced dive, more experienced than just having an AOW cert. Unfortunately many, maybe most boats will take someone there as long as they pay their fee, whether they have the required experience or not.

 

[merxlin]

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.

Leeann, you seem to have most of your facts right, but not all. I don't think any of us as divers would appreciate the way this was handled, but getting away from the legality, do you fault the captain, or in this case the dive shop that chartered the boat and supplied the crew? I believe you work on a boat here in So Cal. Does your captain do the roll calls, or get his information from his crew? I don't think anyone is excusing the shoddy roll call procedure, but lets lay blame where it belongs. Lets also be fair and note that since that incident 6 years ago, the procedure has changed for the better on this boat at least. I can't say that is true for every boat I've been on.

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.

Here is where I think you have some blinders on. He would have us believe that he tried to descend, had trouble equalizing, was able to equalize but lost his buddies, them went to 108 ft looking for them (as you stated above you thumbed your dive immediately when there was a problem), then ascended (doing a safety stop), all in 15 minutes? All the while he was the only one the current "swept out to sea". Have you even seen a current only affect one diver? Why did everyone else surface where they should have?

Is it possible he tried to descend, got disoriented when he couldn't equalize, swam the wrong direction, and then surfaced in the fog too far away for the boat to see him, and maybe in a direction they weren't looking? I'm not trying to rewrite history, and unless we get his dive computer info we'll never really know, but there are a number of scenarios that would put at least some of the blame on him.

 

[Leejnd]

Rex, thanks for giving your perspective. I appreciate your thoughts, and your willingness to discuss. (Something I was hoping to do in our own SoCal forum, but whatev...)

Here are my thoughts on what you wrote:

1. I accept that he probably shouldn't have been doing that dive. I knew that he was AOW, but as we all know, AOW really doesn't mean much. So my opinion has been swayed on this issue. However, after all that I have read about how that incident transpired, I still do not feel that his lack of experience reduces the culpability of the dive op. This could have happened to any diver, regardless of experience. And besides, let's not forget the key facts: a) the boat left him, and b) they checked him off for TWO roll calls, in spite of the fact that he clearly was not on the boat for either.

2. I agree that you are supposed to, stay within the structure of the rig. I've been told the same thing in the briefing. But my understanding is that he never had that option, as his equalization problems occurred before he'd even reached the rig. He had problems equalizing, he stopped descending to try to clear, he cleared, his buddies didn't stop, he tried for a short while to find his buddies, didn't, and surfaced. What did he do wrong?

4. Yes, he did a blue-water safety stop. He'd descended to 108 fsw following his buddie's bubbles, but still couldn't find them. He made a judgment call to do the safety stop. Should he have done that? I personally feel that could go either way. The safety stop is pounded into us in training - even though many of us know that it's really "optional", it's not always presented that way in training. And after all, he did descent to 108 ft - that's pretty deep. I might have considered doing a safety stop after that depth as well. And still, this does not relieve the dive op of their responsibility to do proper roll calls, which is the main thing that went wrong here.

5. Again, he never got to the rig structure. I can relate, because that's exactly what happened to me that time my computer died. Fortunately we had almost no current that day!

 

[Leejnd]

Leeann, you seem to have most of your facts right, but not all.

Thanks for your detailed post - I have much to say in response, but I have to go cook dinner now (getting the stink-eye from my hungry husband). But I promise to come back and respond after dinner.

 

[Bob DBF]

No, that's not what has been reported. First of all, there's no such thing as "SCUBA police". There's no law against diving solo.

Second, according to news reports on the case, the diver asked to buddy up with two other divers, so he was in a team of three. When he had problems equalizing, he ascended a bit, was able to equalize, then tried to find his two buddies, who continued the dive without him. When he was unable to find his two buddies, he did what divers are trained to do - he ended his dive and surfaced. His two buddies reportedly assumed he'd gone off to buddy with someone else.

The scuba police was a joke should have used a smilie.

The news report I read and commented on was Engineer wins $1.68 million in scuba diving case - latimes.com which was the article given by the OP. It seems that you and subsequent posters have information that would make it seem to be a rather good idea to merge the posts since your information contradicts the article being discussed.


I completely agree with Merlxin final paragraph:
"The real issue was not that he was left, but who was responsible. The chartering shop (a reputable business that is still in business) provided the crew and DM, and the captain relied on them to provide competent information. Obviously that did not happen. So yes the letter of the law is that the captain is responsible for what happens on the boat, but in this case, in my opinion, the bulk of the responsibility should have been on the dive shop."

The captain is responsible for what happens on the boat really assumes that it is his crew. In this case his crew and second in command work for, and are responsible to, another party. Now there is Charlie Foxtrot if I've ever heard of one.


Bob
-------------------------------
"the future is uncertain and the end is always near"
Jim Morrison

 

[MaxBottomtime]

He had problems equalizing, he stopped descending to try to clear, he cleared, his buddies didn't stop, he tried for a short while to find his buddies, didn't, and surfaced. What did he do wrong?

New divers are taught to look for their buddy for a minute or so, then safely ascend. Fifteen minutes drifting underwater is not a short while. At that location, it is more important to stay within the rig structure than to drift aimlessly.

 

[Leejnd]

Leeann, you seem to have most of your facts right, but not all. I don't think any of us as divers would appreciate the way this was handled, but getting away from the legality, do you fault the captain, or in this case the dive shop that chartered the boat and supplied the crew? I believe you work on a boat here in So Cal. Does your captain do the roll calls, or get his information from his crew? I don't think anyone is excusing the shoddy roll call procedure, but lets lay blame where it belongs. Lets also be fair and note that since that incident 6 years ago, the procedure has changed for the better on this boat at least. I can't say that is true for every boat I've been on.

First, let me clear up the facts about my "work" on a dive boat (which they'd laugh at if they read this ) : I don't actually work on the boat. I volunteer to help in the galley - we jokingly refer to me as the "guest galley wench". I'm friends with one of the regular DM's, and have become good friends with the boat owner. I'm a sailboat owner, with experience cooking in small, cramped galleys at sea, so I volunteered to help them out with the food, which I do on occasion. I do not get paid.

That being said, I also want to say that I really have not waded into the discussion about who, between the captain, the dive boat owner, and the dive shop, should be considered to "blame". That's because there are elements of the law with respect to assigning legal culpability, that I do not know or understand.

But I will say that my personal opinion, as a private citizen and a local diver, and based on what I know about the case (which admittedly is not everything), I feel that the captain should NOT be personally held financially responsible. Given the situation on that day - the fact that the DM did not report to the boat, the "hot drop", etc - the captain should not be held liable at all. But again, I'm NOT an expert in the intricacies of the law surrounding this.

I also want to say that I would not hesitate to dive on the SunDiver today. What happened was, as I said earlier, a cluster-f*** of things that went wrong. And there were circumstances then that don't apply now (e.g. SoCal dive boats these days use their own DMs, not just providing taxi services to charters with their own DMs). And, this case (and others) I believe have led to more meticulous roll-call practices.

As for what I see on the boat that I help out on - the captain is always down on deck during the dives. He is intimately involved in helping out, in watching the water, in verifying that the roll-call is done properly. He doesn't go back up to the cockpit until he sees that every diver is aboard. And the DMs are rigid - they always ensure that they make visual contact with every diver, to the point where they've poked their heads down in the bunk room, and waited till someone came out of the head, before completing the call and declaring us ready to leave.

But keep in mind, we're not doing oil rig dives. We're not doing hot drops. We're at anchor, so how COULD the captain on the boat that day have done this? He couldn't.

As for who I would blame - I lay the blame squarely on whomever checked his name off on the roll call. But does that translate to legal responsibility? A lawyer (which I am not) would have to answer that one.

In the end, we're all safer for this incident, and nobody died. It's a shame that this case went this long, and it's unfortunate that it's going to hurt the dive boat, and the dive shop. I'm sure everyone involved is very sorry it happened. (Except for the lawyers!)

 

[Leejnd]

New divers are taught to look for their buddy for a minute or so, then safely ascend. Fifteen minutes drifting underwater is not a short while. At that location, it is more important to stay within the rig structure than to drift aimlessly.

Yes but Phil, he reported that he hadn't gotten to the rig yet, so he couldn't have stayed within the structure since his problem occurred before he got to it. He followed the bubbles down to 108 feet to try to find them, and never did - and never saw the rig.

Also, again, he reported that the whole dive, including his time descending with his buddies, his efforts to clear, his search for his buddies, and his safety stop, were what comprised the 15 minutes - not that he drifted underwater for that entire time.

What I don't know from reports is how far into the dive his problem began. Was it already 10 minutes? Or only 1 minute? In my mind, that would be the deciding factor as to whether he erred. Do you happen to know?

I appreciate hearing any additional information that will shed light on this incident. I'm simply seeking to understand. And should facts come to light that differ from something I believed to be true, I am always open to changing my opinion.