Female Diver Missing on The Yukon, San Diego

[finnks]

Dam* straight.

I've spent much time supervising students in near zero visibility. It takes about 5 seconds to go from complete control to WTF happened. My last weekend as an active instructor started with a deep dive, a free descent without reference. Three students and an AI. As soon as our heads went below water, I could see no one. The 5-10 ft. vis had gone to zero. Somewhere down there are four people, hopefully not entangled in the pecan grove at 100+ ft. I found the girl. Brought her to the surface. Oh wait! It's not the girl, it's one of the guys! The vis was so bad I couldn't tell them apart. Descended again on bubbles. Found the other guy and the girl and the AI. I look at the girl's computer, flashing "ERR".
Awesome. I got to take 7 people on a night dive later. That's another story.

Your ID shows as in Dallas. Was that Windy Point, Lake Travis? Several people have stated that you should have called the dive at that point. Guess they didn't notice how you went from fine/normal to zip instantly. Good catch on being able to find everybody in conditions where I'd have a hard time finding a turned on flashlight.

As for calling the dive - you saw the vis when you descended, not before. Rather tough to call the weekended without submerging after driving from Dallas. Just glad you were able to make it to the night dive with all your students intact.

Got to ask - have you revised your dive briefs to reinforce buddy/instructor separation protocols? Seems to me each of those certified divers should have had the sense to surface without you having to recover them. Particularly the AI and the girl who (?) bent (?) her computer. Did the computer "ERR" upon surfacing or were you able to read it at depth? If the later - guess it wasn't truly zero vis...

Bet you are glad the waters down. I've got friends who were teaching AOW and had been assured that the bouy ropes were a good descent reference. Two instructors, four students, one Cluster F. One of the AOW students with terrible bouyancy control hit the bottom at 150' blew deco and surfaced OOA, at least one other missed deco. Lesson for them and for you is to more thoroughly check the site before diving with students. Had they known the depth there, they would have taken a different route. Had you (or your AI) ducked to 20' before descending with students, I imagine you would have called it on the surface.

If you are learning from your (and your assistant's and your student's) mistakes - and if you could use additional DMs, I'm always looking for an excuse to go dive. Unfortunately my (and wife's and kids') schedules rarely cooperate.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

"Within standards" doesn't always mean "good idea".

flots.

True dat ... but it does establish a reasonable baseline for determining appropriate instructor behavior ... particularly in situations that may ultimately lead to legal mitigation ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Mike Boswell]

Here is a late report:

[video]http://www.cbs8.com/story/20241260/divers-body-recovered-identified-as-local-marine[/video]

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Here is a late report:

[video]http://www.cbs8.com/story/20241260/divers-body-recovered-identified-as-local-marine[/video]

Not to stoke the speculation vs. no-specualtion fires again, but . . .

Be sure to read the comments below the aticle itself (which is 2 days old BTW - no new info - also contains assertion it was a DM class when it seems it was a Wreck class). They're talking murder, foul play, suspicious circumstances, the buddy's at fault, the charterer's at fault . . .

There's a fine line between educated guesses as to what might have happened due to known facts & known hazards of the area/dive, and basing your speculation on facts-not-in-evidence. Obviously a number of the people commenting in the CBS8 thread aren't divers (but some apparently know people who dive), but the general point is still the same and that's why, when it seems to me that we've strayed too far afield with the speculation in this forum (where people should know better), I personally feel a duty to speak up.

- Ken

 

[mdb]

Well Ken, You are a Pro and a good person to step up. Whatever happened there
are lessons to be learned.

 

[Power Scuba]

From the stated rules of this forum:

(7) If your post is your hypothesis, theory, or a "possible scenario," identify it as such.

So it seems that, not only is speculation allowed in this forum, it's specifically addressed in the sticky thread rules of this forum. I hope that puts to rest, in this thread at least, the responses poo-pooing those who offer conjecture. Said conjecture has a place, especially if it points out unsafe diving techniques or the like.

Not to stoke the speculation vs. no-specualtion fires again, but . . .

...when it seems to me that we've strayed too far afield with the speculation in this forum (where people should know better), I personally feel a duty to speak up.

- Ken

 

[tracydr]

It seems to me that we've had far too many dive accidents here in San Diego. I don't know why.

I'm not an expert on local conditions, but I do know that our ocean here in San Diego is a bit deceptive: From shore, it can look just as calm and blue and inviting as any tropical beach.

Even our official warning systems can deceive: I have taken my boat out on days where high surf advisories were in effect, and other than some 3-foot waves breaking across the channel, the ocean has been warm, blue, and dead calm. At other times, condition reports are fine, but the weather is cold, overcast, and windy, and the water is like a washing machine.

The surface may be relatively calm, but you can experience strong surges at depth. There can be strong currents too, and very unpredictable in strength, direction, and timing. Those currents can start or stop during the course of a single dive, and I've seen days where there was a strong surface current running East and an equally strong deep current running in the opposite direction.

The water temps here can dip down to 48 degrees F at 60 foot depths, cold enough that your gloved hands ache and your 9/7/6-mil wetsuit seems too thin. And the kelp forests and low vis and entanglement possibilities are additional things to contend with. Just finding your way back to your anchor and your boat, is a major accomplishment.

So, my hat is off to the many DM's who work here and successfully take students out and bring them back alive. I know I could never do it.

Please be careful if you dive here: It's harder than it looks.

I have dived so many places, from Puget Sound , Africa to Galapegos. I found San Diego to be the most difficult place to dive. Even the " simple" shore dives at La Jolla where Open Water students get certified can be very difficult, depending on conditions that day.
We did some boat dives for lobster and I could not see beginner divers doing these. 100 foot depth and still heavy surge. Getting back to the boat with high seas, 4-6 foot waves, in the dark was certainly not for the timid.
So, I agree that San Diego is a very difficult, deceptively difficult place to dive.

 

[Power Scuba]

Yes, the family is very upset. They want answers and may not be getting adequate responses from the involved parties. It may very well become a cause for litigation and I wonder if those same involved parties are now being told to clam up by their various legal representatives.

Aside: One news report states Staci had five years of diving experience. I'd like to know how many dives she had during those five years. Marines go on long deployments and maneuvers during which they don't get much chance to dive. {CONJECTURE} It could be she had some longs gaps of no-diving during those five years. {/CONJECTURE}

Bill

 

[Hatul]

Bopper, no one is talking about the boat Dive Master. The DM in question was associated with the class.

In light of the info in the 10 news story, and what I think I already know, I would proffer an alternate theory to the one Ken has given.

{Begin Pure Conjecture}

The deceased had a problem with her "buoyancy apparatus". I take that to mean her BC. I extrapolate she either had a hole in it or the inflator hose connection to the BC was loose/came off, thereby allowing the BC to take in water and fill. The Divemaster, seeing this problem underwater and having, with the deceased, become separated from the rest of the class (Wreck Diving Specialty class) earlier, grabbed the student with the inoperable BC, over-inflated his own BC, and thus attempted to bring the both of them to the surface. At some point, before the surface was made, the DM lost his grip on the student. He and his over-inflated BC rocketed to the surface while the student with the faulty BC, perhaps now full of water, plummeted to the bottom where she expired at some point afterward due to panic and drowning. This would explain why the Divemaster buddy hit the surface first and was able to alert the boat as to the status of the deceased. This would also explain why the boat took immediate action in calling the Coast Guard rather than waiting a few minutes to see if she surfaced safely.

{/Pure Conjecture}

Bill

There was recently a discussion on Scubaboard precisely about this problem: failure of the BC in a wetsuit diver on a deep dive. I think the best way of dealing with this is to deploy the SMB, which typically has about 20 lbs of lift--more than enough to overcome the negative buoyancy. Even if it does not fill fully you can then fin up.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

I have no intention of turning this into a thread or th emerits or lack thereof of speculation so this will be my last comment on that aspect of it (at least in this thread ), but I think Bill's comment merits a direct reply:

So it seems that, not only is speculation allowed in this forum, it's specifically addressed in the sticky thread rules of this forum. I hope that puts to rest, in this thread at least, the responses poo-pooing those who offer conjecture. Said conjecture has a place, especially if it points out unsafe diving techniques or the like.

You need to pay more attention to what I've said about speculation. I didn't say don't offer conjecture (properly labeled). I said I don't think we should be offering conjencture not based on the known facts or the known hazards of the area. I've got no problem with people speculating, in this particular case, on issues such as low viz, buddy separation, entanglement or other hazards of the wreck, level of dive experience.

What I do have a problem with is when people state things as an absolute truth that may not be and then go off on a tangent about that. The extreme unreasonable example would be like saying it was space aliens who caused all this and then doing a dissertation on what steps we need to take to make ourselves safe from space aliens underwater. And IMHO, there have been a couple of posts here that have headed off in underwater space alien direction and, again IMHO, needlessly so. (And cut me a little slack here because sometimes I've been given info that I'm not at liberty to discuss publicly but which directly contradicts what others state as fact.)

I've got ZERO problem with discussing the realistic scenarios that might have happened. I think that's healthy and good overall and I wish we, as an industry, would encourage that more. But, like the post on the CBS8 website that said they felt it was a murder, some things cross the line. IMHO.

And instead of using "The thread rules allow it" as a shield to include speculative comments that may be over the line, maybe it's time to revisit and revise the rule.

End of rant.

- Ken