Galapagos Scuba Diving Fatality - February 12, 2010 - Eloise Gale

[bsee65]

Really? Everything isnt meant, nor intended to be owned. Even if the author didnt want his article to be reprinted, I dont think it should matter, especially when the information benefits the community and could possibly save another persons life.

The information can be referenced without full reproduction to the same end. Our convenient access to the information does not override the author's legal rights to his own content. The incident is "news" if someone wants to write it up in their own words, and there you might reference the original article as a source for the information presented. That's different from a cut/paste of someone else's entire article. Try doing that with any AP article and you better have your attorney on retainer if they find out about it.

I totally agree that the information should be accessible if it can help to save lives, but the ends don't justify the means. Laziness is not an excuse for copyright violation. At least I don't think it is a valid one.

Copyright law does allow ScubaBoard to ignore the violation until the owner objects, but that's the letter of the law. Personally, I would much rather see a policy that respects copyright holders by prohibiting the substantial reproduction of their work without permission. It's easy enough to summarize and attribute, or to provide a link if the information is important.

 

[widget]

I am guessing that these are rhetorical questions, but if you are looking for answers with respect to the Galapagos, all of the answers to the above questions are no.

Absolutely, I would agree.

When I dived the Galapagos it wasnt with the Aggressor fleet but with Quasar Nautica on the "Lammer Law" Trimaran, and they were very explicit in their advertising etc that diving in the Galapagos was only for experienced divers due to strong currents, cold water, surge etc, they also made it clear, you were effectively responsible for yourself.

They had Divemasters obviously, and if you were unsure, you could tag along with them, but for the rest of us, we were given a briefing on times, depths etc and from there our profile / dive was our own responsibility.

Personally, I think too much emphasis is often placed on dive masters etc, we need to know our limitations and dive accordingly.

 

[DandyDon]

There are Discover Scuba dives for close DM oversight, and there are some with Scuba Diver cards (not OW) for some DM oversight on dives, but DMs on dives otherwise are to lead, but babysit. I don't know why this young lady died, and I am very sorry that it could not have been prevented, but it wasn't the DM's fault that I see. Some divers do sign on for trips really beyond their skill and experience, but I don't know if this is the case here for sure.

 

[bsee65]

I can't imagine placing the blame for this on a DM unless you are going to say the victim wasn't qualified and the DM should have kept her out of the water. If anyone might have a responsibilty to assist a diver in distress, it's the buddy.

One thing I got from reading the accounts was that the victim's buddy recognized a bad habit and wanted to correct it, but was unable to get her to change. I'm speaking of the positioning issue. It was reported that the victim liked to directly follow her more experienced buddy. After conversation, she said that she followed off to the side a bit which improved visibility a bit, but apparently not enough for a prompt recognition of the victim's disappearance.

I would suggest that a diver pair running side by side would have a better chance of noticing a problem more quickly. These weren't normal conditions, so who is to say if they even could have maintained a formation in this current or how much attention was available for keeping tabs on a buddy.

Is there a lesson to be learned with regard to buddy positioning? Should the more experienced buddy lead or follow if they don't go side by side?

 

[NTSilver]

I didn't read every post here, so I apologize if I am repeating something, but if you go to the original link to the blog, Denise - the dive buddy - does describe why they were separated in the comments to the blog. I do not want to repost her comment here in case there is some rule against doing so.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

I can't imagine placing the blame for this on a DM unless you are going to say the victim wasn't qualified and the DM should have kept her out of the water. If anyone might have a responsibilty to assist a diver in distress, it's the buddy.

One thing I got from reading the accounts was that the victim's buddy recognized a bad habit and wanted to correct it, but was unable to get her to change. I'm speaking of the positioning issue. It was reported that the victim liked to directly follow her more experienced buddy. After conversation, she said that she followed off to the side a bit which improved visibility a bit, but apparently not enough for a prompt recognition of the victim's disappearance.

I would suggest that a diver pair running side by side would have a better chance of noticing a problem more quickly. These weren't normal conditions, so who is to say if they even could have maintained a formation in this current or how much attention was available for keeping tabs on a buddy.

Is there a lesson to be learned with regard to buddy positioning? Should the more experienced buddy lead or follow if they don't go side by side?

I didn't read every post here, so I apologize if I am repeating something, but if you go to the original link to the blog, Denise - the dive buddy - does describe why they were separated in the comments to the blog. I do not want to repost her comment here in case there is some rule against doing so.

@NTSilver: bsee65 gives an accurate recount of the buddy situation. On a previous dive, EG positioned herself directly behind Denise. Denise spoke with EG about this after the dive and mentioned that, if she felt more comfortable following behind, that it would make it easier for her to be seen if she moved a little off to the side. I think the point that bsee65 is making is that, in an area with unpredictable and strong currents, it would be best to have buddies immediately next to one another. If that doesn't occur, then another alternative would be to have the less experienced buddy lead and the more experienced buddy follow. In this way, the more experienced buddy could constantly monitor the status of the inexperienced diver. However, I think that even this kind of positioning is far less preferable than having buddies dive side-by-side.

I was a little surprised that Denise seemed OK with EG following behind and a little off to the side. That's very problematic buddy positioning for those dive conditions.

 

[bsee65]

I didn't read every post here, so I apologize if I am repeating something, but if you go to the original link to the blog, Denise - the dive buddy - does describe why they were separated in the comments to the blog. I do not want to repost her comment here in case there is some rule against doing so.

Yes, it was Denise's blog post that I was referencing above. You can read that they were separated because Denise was busy fighting her way down to the bottom while the victim was experiencing whatever difficulty led to her death. The question I ask is, would this have happened if they were maintaining a better formation throughout that would have made it easier and more obvious to detect a partner in trouble sooner? In most cases, it's nice to be closer to your buddy and not wonder if they happen to be out of sight behind a third diver. It is practical to expect better in still waters, but is it even possible when fighting heavy and variable currents? Also, wouldn't it be more critical to regularly glance at your buddy during a difficult segment of a dive? That would be when trouble is most likely to hit, right? We don't know from Denise's comments how long it was between the last positive check and the realization that her partner was lost.

 

[Thalassamania]

We are also lacking the critical piece of information, what was EG doing? We know what Denise was doing, but what was EG doing? No one knows.

 

[Scubagolf]

My heart goes out to the young woman's family. What a tragedy.

My wife and I went to the Galapagos in 2003 for a week on Lindblad Expedition's Polaris. At the time I had been certified for one year and had about 20 dives, all in fairly benign conditions. There was NO WAY that I was going to dive. Four guys from the boat, all males in their mid-40's with about 50 dives each went diving one morning. They came back talking about the 30+ pounds of weight they needed in full 7 mm and the crazy cross-currents. They were very happy to be back on the boat, and stuck to the really, really good snorkeling after that.

The topside stuff in the Galapagos is wonderful. The land animals have no fear because they have no predators and you can literally walk right up to and through groups of them. Galapagos diving is not on my "list" either, but I think that it is a place to go before the topside stuff disappears. Attached are a couple of photos from our trip.

 

[drbill]

Good to hear you enjoyed the Lindblad trip, ScubaGolf. I worked on various Lindblad cruises as a marine biologist ("lecturer") and underwater videographer. I think they offer a grea niche opportunity for those with an interest in the natural or cultural history of the areas they visit.

I had the opportunity to spend time recently with a dive instructor who spent time on the Galapagos Aggressor. This person had not heard of this death, but was not surprised to learn of it. One issue raised was that the "dive masters" during her time on board were not even certified professionals and some had very little experience diving at all. This person attributed it to the fact that all hired on those boats must be Ecuadorians. This is true on the Lindblad boats as well, although I know several of the dive masters and dive professionals on those vessels and they are certainly qualified. I've dived with them on other Lindblad trips in the Sea of Cortez and Belize.