Female Diver Missing on The Yukon, San Diego

[dytis-sm]

Ironically I just read this after reading this article by John Chatterton ScubaBoard - Scuba Diving Forum - Diving Social Network - Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money
It is all about money. I often joke as to why bother sign a release on a boat when in fact any lawyer can dispute the validity based on a myriad reasons: client did not sleep well the night before and was impaired, client did not understand English, client had impaired vision, client was a dumb loser, etc...

 

[Dr. Lecter]

I'm willing to believe they're suing because they actually think something was done wrongly by someone other than their child, but I'm not willing to overlook what that makes them based on the facts regarding this dive. Being in it for the money would, in some ways, be more commendable.

Wrecks are dangerous, and even if you could hold a wreck class for certified divers on a perfectly safe one (you can't) nobody in their right mind would pay for such "training" because it simply doesn't prepare you for the real world. Wreck divers, even relatively new ones, dive wrecks just like the Yukon in less than ideal but not inherently deadly conditions like these all the time. Experiencing that in a safer but never 100% safe situation is the point of even a basic wreck class.

Sometimes people get hurt doing it; sometimes they die doing it. It's one of the reasons I poke fun at those who think formal training is the only responsible and effective way to gain experience--it's not like formal training is risk-free even when done properly. And while the instructor is there to make the wreck part of the dive safer for the class as a whole, they're not there to prevent an otherwise certified diver from screwing the pooch because they had a buoyancy issue/gear issue/failure to weight properly issue.

I hope there's either some egregious facts I haven't seen yet, or, the defendants can afford a damn good lawyer to tear this thing apart.

 

[Power Scuba]

After having read the medical examiners report and talking to many of the parties attached to this case:I think there are going to be some very strong points made on both sides of the issue.

Bill

 

[ams511]

Ironically I just read this after reading this article by John Chatterton ScubaBoard - Scuba Diving Forum - Diving Social Network - Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money
It is all about money. I often joke as to why bother sign a release on a boat when in fact any lawyer can dispute the validity based on a myriad reasons: client did not sleep well the night before and was impaired, client did not understand English, client had impaired vision, client was a dumb loser, etc...

The question is often one of negligence. In most states signing a release does not protect the operator from claims based on negligence. In the case of Ritchie Kohler I have no idea what they based the negligence claim on or why the case was tried in Texas. In the case of the Marine the lawyer is probably basing the negligence on the fact the dive conditions were too poor for taking someone with so little experience to the site.

I am not being a troll but sometimes dive operators gloss over the risks involved. For example when I first moved to Miami I went to a dive shop to get my reg repaired and while there asked if they had any easy dive trips. The woman tried the worst way to book me a Spiegel Grove trip. All as she was concerned about was if I had an advanced open water certification (which I did). The fact that I had not been diving for over a year or that my "wreck dive" was to a cement mixer at the bottom of a quarry did not matter. If I knew nothing about the wreck I may have been tempted to go but from what I read it could be a challenging dive depending on the conditions. Not a good refresher dive.

Some of you seem to fault the family and the lawyers saying it is all about money, but aren't the dive shops and dive boats also in it for money?

 

[Scot M]

I wasn't there that day, so I don't know what conditions were like. What I do know is that I've dove the Yukon on days with that were beautiful on the surface but surge was very strong on the wreck, and I've dove the Yukon on days that were ugly on the surface but mild a hundred feet below. I've never dove the Yukon from the Humboldt when the captain did not warn us about the potential hazards of surge, especially around the cutouts.

 

[Crass3000]

Just my opinion after reading the report: After reading the report it seems odd that the DM just dropped her at 60 FSW and then had an uncontrolled ascent. Seems like he should have got rid of some of his weight (or all) and preceded to bring the body up if he found that filling both BCs with air (victim without a weight belt) didn't provide enough lift. The report said the DM panicked. Seems like a DM should be able to adjust weight and air in BC (assuming not being low on air). The woman who died was obviously over weighted even without her weight belt if the DM was having trouble bringing her up at 60 FSW.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

What makes you think he "just dropped her" rather than lost control of a large mass of unresponsive deadweight in a current/surge while trying to vent an overfilled wing? Being a DM is not the same thing as being a body recovery diver, nor is the equipment the same.

 

[Tortuga68]

...(victim without a weight belt)... The woman who died was obviously over weighted even without her weight belt...

I think it was said earlier that she had integrated weights i.e. no weight belt to start with

 

[Crass3000]

What makes you think he "just dropped her" rather than lost control of a large mass of unresponsive deadweight in a current/surge while trying to vent an overfilled wing? Being a DM is not the same thing as being a body recovery diver, nor is the equipment the same.

I've read most quite a bit of the thread but it specifically said in the report that he "just dropped her" as he panicked because he was having a hard time getting her to the surface. Have you read the official report that was linked to? Sounds like you haven't as the report seems to indicate that with both BCs full he was having trouble bringing both his and the victims weight to the surface. He needed to ditch some of his weight.

Or... it was said in the report her weight belt was found on the ocean floor somewhere near her. It's possible she ALSO had integrated weights as Tortuga68 seems to remember being mentioned. In any case if both BCs are full and there is weight to get rid of it's time to figure out how to get rid of it without shooting to the top. It's not too hard to hang onto the tank.

I think it was said earlier that she had integrated weights i.e. no weight belt to start with

I was confused about that. You could be right. However, in the official report it mentions that her weight belt was found on the bottom. Maybe she had both? Seems like if he was having trouble bringing her to the top, weight would be something he should have gotten rid of.



All this is speculation but seems as if it could be reasonable and relevant.

If she wasn't over weighted and his BC had a normal amount of lift, the DM should have been able to bring the victim to the surface with both of their weight still attached and the victim's BC deflated so that the DM only had to worry about adjusting his buoyancy. Isn't that how everybody is trained? The woman only weighed 112 lbs. I can't imagine how getting her to the surface would be tough for a DM unless he also had a "tropical" BC that barely had enough lift for him.


Or maybe he was wearing a BP/W without enough lift. Probably a bad idea to let a DM wear a BP/W without enough lift to help someone else out. It seems a lot of people try to get theirs nailed down so they don't use a bigger wing than needed. This could obviously create a potentially bad situation where the BP/W wouldn't have enough buoyancy assuming it was not designed for much ditchable weight.

 

[Grover48]

Posted in wrong forum.