Female Diver Missing on The Yukon, San Diego

[Dr. Lecter]

[bunch of emotion]

I think Abdullah raises some good points, actually, and though I wouldn't go so far as to agree with his conclusion about basic rescue procedure compliance I sure wouldn't agree with your 'dive with you any day, anywhere' statement on these facts either.

Using the victim's BCD as the primary source of buoyancy makes good sense for the reason Abdullah stated/the DM's popping to the surface demonstrates, but he's assuming the context of ascending from the bottom with a non-responsive diver. If you're rushing over to arrest the descent of a dropping, non-responsive diver/body I can see why going to your own inflator might be faster and how just making the victim neutral isn't that simple. Not to mention that if the DM's story is true, she was so negative at 60' that even with two full BCDs she was dragging an actively ascending DM down and dropped away as soon as she wasn't securely held.

I can't see where that negative buoyance was coming from, though. Knowing whether the weightbelt was still on and/or whether there was integrated weight during the attempted ascent would be very helpful. At this point all we know is the DM didn't remove it or see her remove it, but it was later found off on the bottom nowhere near the body. If she'd already ditched the belt, I'm really perplexed absent large integrated weight and/or entanglement. If she had it on and the DM just forgot to drop it, that's not good for him and would explain a lot...but then there's the question of how it came off.

 

[Abdullah]

From the ME's opinion in the autopsy report:

I read this as indicating she had drowned (flooded lungs making her heavier than a merely unresponsive diver) before the DM reached her, though this statement "[the DM during his attempted ascent with the victim] did not know if she was breathing" indicates that perhaps her reg was still in her mouth which might have prevented drowning.



Water is neutral, but air (normally present in the lungs) is not--if you're neutral at a given depth after you've exhaled all you can, you'll still become negative if I knock you out and flood your lungs, thereby releasing the tidal volume of air normally retained within them.

My point here is that water would not provide sufficient negative to overcome the ability of the BCD to float her, it's water not lead. If she was sufficiently positive at the beginning of the dive to float on the surface, a few pints of water in her lungs (assuming she had already drowned) would not have overcome the BCD's buoyancy rating. The thinking that water in the lungs contributes in any meaningful way to excessive negative buoyancy ignores the physics of diving. And, if she was knocked out and not responsive, she may not have had any water in her lungs. It's a red herring.

I did not see where the reports indicated the DM was low on air. If the DM had sufficient air when he observed the victim descending, he would have had time to assess her condition in the water column, and take appropriate action. Appropriate action is defined as the rescue procedures mandated by his DM certifying agency. Unless you KNOW the diver is dead, you always assume the diver can be resuscitated and proceed with the unresponsive diver rescue procedures.

A question about her equipment: Did she have a whistle built into her LPI? I have seen divers unfamiliar with the LP operated whistles press the wrong button and blow the whistle rather than fill the BCD. I've seen it many times supporting rescue classes. Is it possible the DM thought he was inflating the BCD, but was actually blowing the whistle? Also, is it possible that he was pressing the deflate button?

---------- Post added June 27th, 2013 at 07:47 AM ----------

I have no connection to this DM or the incident but I find your callus, misinformed and uneducated personal attack on this PERSON to be incorrect and disgusting.

You apparently don't understand the purpose of this forum. This is where accidents are objectively discussed and actions of participants in the event are questioned. The discussion is supposed to consider the what ifs, the known procedures, and the reported facts with the intent of learning what might have been done differently to prevent another occurrence. The posters are not required to consider the feelings of the accident participants, or their friends and family, in the discussion as that tends to obfuscate the facts. In fact, friends and family are advised that they may find these discussions uncomfortable.