Lessons to be learned-Death in Palau

[Charlie99]

No shame in drift diving below a SMB.

Unless you're trying to stay in one spot to observe the marine life feeding in the current.

Although it's an old thread, it's a good one to pop back up top for people to review. Like most tools, reef hooks have both advantages and disadvantages/dangers.

 

[erichK]

There were divers in the water with 12!!!!!! dives. So lets go and, not only drift but, hook to a reef in a strong current. Why you ask? Because we can.............

******************************************************
Peter whoever should be shut down.
The hubby will spend the rest of his life feeling like crap.


My spin, sheer stupidity on ALL levels.

Bummer all the way around

tiny bubbles

Peter Hughes seems to be one of the biggest dive operations going. And they advertise aggressively and everywhere. I completely agree that "reef hooks" should either be completely banned, or allowed only with special training, in carefully designated areas (note the mention, in the initial post, of a coral head "breaking off", etc.

Completely disagree with the comments made blaming the poor diver or...likely...her husband. How could they possibly judge or fully understand the many hazards associated dive and site they had likely only seen carefully manipulated photos of. How easy is it for any of us to abort a dive we've flown thousands of miles and paid thousands of dollars to do?

*IF* the dive was advertised as challenging diving for expert, divers, then there are grounds for blaming any divers who were not. But even then, with expert and experienced divers, the judgement of this operator is highly suspect. A six foot swell seems highly problematic--especially re-boarding! Pehaps, if the trip had already been advertised as challenging and potentially hazardous, AND there was then a complete dive briefing encouraging any who had qualms to wait this one out, the dive could be justified as an adventure dive (except for the reef-hooks and damage to the reef!).

These are far from Peter Hughes first fatalities (read other threads to see their big accident in Belize!)...and I can only wonder how many incidents and near-misses have gone unreported in the operation of "bottom line first!" businesses.

Unfortunately, any lawsuit is bound to be difficult, if not impossible (again, read up on what happened with Hughes' Belize fatalities). Protection against lawsuits is the real l reason dive operators make us all those waivers. Fortunately, most of the ones we've used *have* chosen not to exploit this situation. But some do. .

 

[OWSI176288]

I agree, it's an old tread. But a good one for new or inexperienced divers to think about. Like my mom always told me "if everone else jumped off a bridge, would you?"

Yes, reef hooks allow you to stay in one spot to better observe the marine life.

But using the same logic, why not stay down until your tanks is less then 100 psi to see the marine life longer. Or...hey why not go all the way down to 200+ feet on a single Aluminum 80 to get closer to that eagle ray you saw swimming way below you? Me, I would rather play it safe and be around to make a another dive. Let alone the damage I seen done by reef hook used improperly.

 

[scubatwinned]

.

Completely disagree with the comments made blaming the poor diver or...likely...her husband. How could they possibly judge or fully understand the many hazards associated dive and site they had likely only seen carefully manipulated photos of. How easy is it for any of us to abort a dive we've flown thousands of miles and paid thousands of dollars to do?

*IF* the dive was advertised as challenging diving for expert, divers, then there are grounds for blaming any divers who were not. But even then, with expert and experienced divers, the judgement of this operator is highly suspect. A six foot swell seems highly problematic--especially re-boarding! Pehaps, if the trip had already been advertised as challenging and potentially hazardous, AND there was then a complete dive briefing encouraging any who had qualms to wait this one out, the dive could be justified as an adventure dive (except for the reef-hooks and damage to the reef!).

Good points, but a diver cannot just blindly be led by adverts and the distance traveled to get in the water. When I was in Palau in feb.- april 99 from what I remember, if Peleliu was mentioned the word current was in the same or next sentence. I believe one must research as much about the diving that you are placing yourself into especialy if you travel a great distance and pay as you do in Palau.

Where the dive at Peleliu takes place the current is so strong that there is really no coral on the plateau where we hooked in. If one has been to Blue Corner and has seen the # of divers that are there - Most of them really not at the level needed to be at to dive there in the first place - who are not using reef hooks and watch them drag themselves hand over hand over the reef by the boat load with their octo and consoles bumping along behind them would make even the purist of the pure endorse reef hooks for this spot where one wants to hold in place to watch the action.

 

[scubatwinned]

Peter Hughes seems to be one of the biggest dive operations going. And they advertise aggressively and everywhere. I completely agree that "reef hooks" should either be completely banned, or allowed only with special training, in carefully designated areas (note the mention, in the initial post, of a coral head "breaking off",

If I had a dollar for every time I have seen a diver do the same with a hand or a fin...

 

[mm777]

Could you please give a few tips on how to ascend slowly and carefully without a mask to watch your gauges/computer in a strong current? I'm serious...any info will be appreciated!
_________________________________________

Hi Snuggle,
if what she wanted to do is ascend she should have simply cut the line and slowly and carefully ascended, mask or no mask and fin or no fin. You don't need either of those things to live. All you need is gas and she had that. It looks like pure panick to me. Why? Because of no having a mask? a fin? Should be no big deal. Even that though doesn't explain what caused her to lose conciousness. Is that better? Unless of course she was murdered? I do hope some one is asking questions. Looks funny to me.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

Could you please give a few tips on how to ascend slowly and carefully without a mask to watch your gauges/computer in a strong current? I'm serious...any info will be appreciated!

First, strong current. Don't sweat it. Do you think it feels windy when you ride in a hot air balloon blown by the wind? You'll be moving with the current. Aside from getting slammed into the wall or rock outcroppings, its the least of your concerns. Second, old-tricks-dept: assuming you're completely horizontal in the water column, bring up your wrist with your computer/whatever to a position in front of your face (e.g. right below you). Cup your other hand over your eyebrows. Exhale through your nose. Sufficient air will be trapped by your eye sockets and cupped hand to allow you to read through the 'bubble' thus temporarily formed. Try it in the pool. Amaze your friends. Third, the entire point is to not lose your buddy. Even if you lose your mask, you still ought to be able to see that ugly blurry blob that is your buddy. Your buddy should still have a mask, and should set the ascent rate. What's the probability that you'll both lose your masks at the same time on the same dive? (If it happens, take all your savings from the bank and buy lottery tickets.) Forth, "slowly and carefully" is relative. If you're a recreational diver, this means you're within No-Decompression Limits. This being the case, and considering the fact that you're being carried farther and farther away from the boat, 'up is good'. Pressure on your ears is bad, plus you'll feel less pressure and notice more ambient light as you approach the surface. Bent can be fixed; dead cannot. 30 years ago an ascent rate of 60 feet per minute was the norm for sport divers. So "slowly and carefully" when a dive has gone to hell means "within control at a rate somewhere between 30 fpm and 60 fpm, together with your buddy". YMMV.

[/HIJACK]

 

[lairdb]

Could you please give a few tips on how to ascend slowly and carefully without a mask to watch your gauges/computer in a strong current? I'm serious...any info will be appreciated!

Ignore the current, it won't kill you right away (running out of gas will.) Use bubble-goggles to watch your depth guage (cupping your hand over your eyes to trap exhaled air -- your Basic did include this skill, didn't it?) Ascend normally.

 

[Chotzi]

Everybody is so quick to assess blame, to the diver, to the operation, blah blah blah. The nurse said the lady had a contusion on her head. Maybe she was having NO PROBLEMS til she got bashed! Everyone on this thread should go get bashed in the head, lose their mask and fin, spend a couple of minutes unconcious and then write a nice post(-humous) about whose fault it is. S**T happens. The lady had over a hundred dives and had an experience that she (and maybe any of you!) couldn't recover from. It's a tragic shame.

 

[MoonWrasse]

...
Back on the boat, we all "debriefed". Piecing the story together, the scenario goes as follows: The victim hooked on the reef. She lost a fin in the current, perhaps looked back to assess the situation, and lost her mask in the process. She panicked, dropped her weight belt, and tried to remove her BCD. What follows next, no one knows. She may have panicked, hyperventilated, and became unconscious. She had an abrasion on her forehead, so she may have hit her head in the current and became unconscious. The end result was that she was unconscious and drown. Although the reg was in her mouth, her nose was exposed, and the current was high velocity, and sea water likely could've entered and filled her lungs.
...
I filled out a bunch of incident reports and sent copies of it to DAN and PADI. Undoubtably the husband will sue Peter Hughes. The claim could be made that the dive site was for an expert diver, and there were many novice divers. There were 17 divers in the water, and one divemaster. Panic situations wern't mentioned in the briefing (for instance, I knew that if I didn't hook in the beginning, it wasn't a big deal. I had plenty of air on my back, and it would've been a longer drift dive.) Perhaps the victim felt obligated to remain hooked, or to hook in even though she wasn't comfortable (instead of just aborting the dive) which exacerbated the situation."

A few things come to mind right away.

Firstly, if you believe the sequence of events told during the debriefing, this all started with a noncritical event (lost fin) cascading into a catastropic event (death). Having lost a fin a calm waters and the trouble of chasing it with only one fin left, it's not something I'd want to do in a strong current. Now I know it's better for the fin to be a little too snug. Also being able to cope and consider ahead of time "am I prepared if..I lose my mask/fin underwater?".

Secondly, 1 DM for 16 divers? *** is that? I've never seen anything even close to that big a group with only 1 DM.

Thirdly, the brochere for that boat states "experienced divers", which means what? 10 prior dives? 100? 500? I didn't see anything stating the dives would be difficult, in fact one could argue only with experience would one be able to discern that, therefore it's a dangerous trap for inexperienced divers.

http://www.aggressor.com/_pdfs/Pal-KBYG.pdf

Thanks for posting this.