Error Losing Your Group - Lessons to be Learned

[inquis]

Would it have been better to have redundant air - sure. But not necessary for a recreational diver…

... who is next to their buddy.

But that wasn't the case here. Given the numerous photos taken, I would speculate he was out of range more often than not -- it's simply the nature of the activity. As such, a pony would go a long way toward reducing risk.

how would you instruct a typical recreational diver with a single backmounted AL80 in situation where all of a sudden he separated from the buddy?

As the OP described. The actions from that point onward seemed quite reasonable, and that part of the story was a good reminder for others.

 

[johndiver999]

Well, John. Open Water Manual. Go to lost buddy procedure.
It does not appear that he “was diving like that”. He realized he separated from his buddy (which really was not clearly assigned, but it should have been). He looked around. Realized it was not safe to continue the dive . Ascended in controlled fashion. Saw the DM and rejoined him to go to the surface. He followed the procedure. Would it have been better to have redundant air - sure. But not necessary for a recreational diver…
How would you approach this differently or more importantly, how would you instruct a typical recreational diver with a single backmounted AL80 in situation where all of a sudden he separated from the buddy?

He was diving 115 feet. He abandoned the group for about 3 minutes and allowed the group to move 100 feet away.

As I previously tried to emphasize, this separation was not an accident, but rather was a direct result of a deliberate decision to not stay with the group for quite a long time. This is neither safe nor good buddy diving protocol. It is not by the book.

As previously described, I would approach this situation with staying together, so the separation would not occur. The situation was clearly not a sudden separation, it occured over 3 MINUTE PERIOD OF DELIBERATE INATTENTION. So I would suggest that a typical recreational diver with no redundancy diving at a depth of 115 feet would be to stay together and not get more than 20 feet of separation or 30 seconds of loss of visual contact) - even in very clear water. The fact that this was NOT a sudden or inadvertent separation is a major reason why I find the situation so ridiculous, coming from an expert diver. Sudden separations CAN easily happen in certain environmental conditions like bad vis and strong currents or surge, but apparently the conditions were the opposite of that.

Perhaps you feel that if a buddy is "not assigned" to a diver then they don't have a buddy? Is that your logic? Some third party must dictate your buddy and if not then you really don't have one and you are not responsible for anyone else you are diving with?

Personally, I will take a more active roll in the buddy designation. I will talk to the buddy and clarify if we are going solo, going as buddies or Same ocean buddies. Again, as I previously stated, any of those options would normally be OK with me, but I am not going to delegate my responsibility to a third party providing assignments and roles.

 

[Kendall Raine]

I don’t recall us saying exactly where we were going to end the dive, but there’s a reef perhaps 50 feet in front of the bow.

Hi Ken;

Relaying this experience is great and much appreciated, particularly your analysis/self-criticism. Some good discussion has followed from it. It also made me think about my own behavior in guided dive group settings. Thank you.

I read this as an example of, at its core, a common problem in all levels of diving, and not peculiar to photographers: holes in the dive plan. This is probably a bigger problem in the kinds of recreational guided diving many people do, since so much (planning/decision making/conditions assessment/situational awareness) is assumed by client divers (frequently low experience occasional tourist divers least capable of solving problems on the fly) to be the responsibility of the guide. However, your example illustrates no one is immune. In fact, your long experience might have led to both you and John adopting a relaxed attitude regarding planning since maybe he figured "Oh Ken will be fine, probably just has his head in a hole someplace and will show up eventually." When you didn't, he went looking.

For example, not sure why the confusion about the exit plan. Was it not discussed (if so why not?) or did you not remember (not paying attention during the briefing?). Why no plan in the event of group separation? Did John know you might not penetrate the wreck (thereby separating from the group on purpose)? Nothing wrong with that per se, but shouldn't that have been discussed (with the whole group) during the briefing?

Had you known/recalled the plan was for a return to the line at the stern (as opposed to continuation to the reef in front of the bow), you would have had a pretty good idea that your group was in that direction (provided you didn't see fresh bubbles from an access point near the bow suggesting the group had re-entered the wreck). Had you known that, you could have simply swum back towards the stern. You might have caught up with your group on the wreck or run into John that much sooner had you done that. This assumes there was no agreed plan to immediately abort the dive if separated (no mention of that).

I think the most important lesson here is the importance of an integrated plan even/especially on a guided "pick-up dive" like this. As a dive guide/instructor yourself, and the most experienced member of your group (by a significant margin), as well as the one most likely to split off/fall behind, seems the burden was really on you to identify and close the holes in the plan during the briefing. I'm sure John rightly assumed you could take care of yourself, but he nevertheless left the other divers (at their safety stop, true) to come look for you because the plan didn't encompass an entirely foreseeable event. As such, one group split into three parts as the "plan" (such as it was) broke down.

At the end of the day we are all responsible not just for ourselves, but, if diving in a group, for the integrity of the group, even if it's a pick-up "same ocean" structure. This was illustrated to me recently during a trip to Raja. While I no longer carry a camera, I frequently swim slow (with a big magnifying glass) because there are just so many amazing tiny things to see. I fell behind my guided group on several dives and got chewed out by a fellow diver who complained about having to wait for me. He was right and I thanked him for pointing out what was selfish behavior on my part. Thereafter I kept up. Had I wanted to keep poking along at a nudibranch's pace, it would have been my responsibility to talk it over with the guides and, if need be, arrange for a private guide to hang out with me while I slithered around the reefs. Next time I go on a trip like that I'll have that conversation early on to be sure interests and plans are aligned.

 

[Ukmc]

He was diving 115 feet. He abandoned the group for about 3 minutes and allowed the group to move 100 feet away.

As I previously tried to emphasize, this separation was not an accident, but rather was a direct result of a deliberate decision to not stay with the group for quite a long time. This is neither safe nor good buddy diving protocol. It is not by the book.

As previously described, I would approach this situation with staying together, so the separation would not occur. The situation was clearly not a sudden separation, it occured over 3 MINUTE PERIOD OF DELIBERATE INATTENTION. So I would suggest that a typical recreational diver with no redundancy diving at a depth of 115 feet would be to stay together and not get more than 20 feet of separation or 30 seconds of loss of visual contact) - even in very clear water. The fact that this was NOT a sudden or inadvertent separation is a major reason why I find the situation so ridiculous, coming from an expert diver. Sudden separations CAN easily happen in certain environmental conditions like bad vis and strong currents or surge, but apparently the conditions were the opposite of that.

Perhaps you feel that if a buddy is "not assigned" to a diver then they don't have a buddy? Is that your logic? Some third party must dictate your buddy and if not then you really don't have one and you are not responsible for anyone else you are diving with?

Personally, I will take a more active roll in the buddy designation. I will talk to the buddy and clarify if we are going solo, going as buddies or Same ocean buddies. Again, as I previously stated, any of those options would normally be OK with me, but I am not going to delegate my responsibility to a third party providing assignments and roles.

I do not disagree with your points. That is why OP posted it as an “error” in the near miss section. Which is well appreciated for others to learn. What I am saying is that once the error was realized he functioned in the safest way possible.
He could have continued the dive by himself- not the right answer. Could have penetrated the wreck to “look in the last place he had seen the group” - also no good or else.
There were good learning points to be had, including some of the ones you brought up.

 

[dylanfromwinnipeg]

He was diving 115 feet. He abandoned the group for about 3 minutes and allowed the group to move 100 feet away.

As I previously tried to emphasize, this separation was not an accident, but rather was a direct result of a deliberate decision to not stay with the group for quite a long time. This is neither safe nor good buddy diving protocol. It is not by the book.

As previously described, I would approach this situation with staying together, so the separation would not occur. The situation was clearly not a sudden separation, it occured over 3 MINUTE PERIOD OF DELIBERATE INATTENTION. So I would suggest that a typical recreational diver with no redundancy diving at a depth of 115 feet would be to stay together and not get more than 20 feet of separation or 30 seconds of loss of visual contact) - even in very clear water. The fact that this was NOT a sudden or inadvertent separation is a major reason why I find the situation so ridiculous, coming from an expert diver. Sudden separations CAN easily happen in certain environmental conditions like bad vis and strong currents or surge, but apparently the conditions were the opposite of that.

Perhaps you feel that if a buddy is "not assigned" to a diver then they don't have a buddy? Is that your logic? Some third party must dictate your buddy and if not then you really don't have one and you are not responsible for anyone else you are diving with?

Personally, I will take a more active roll in the buddy designation. I will talk to the buddy and clarify if we are going solo, going as buddies or Same ocean buddies. Again, as I previously stated, any of those options would normally be OK with me, but I am not going to delegate my responsibility to a third party providing assignments and roles.

It drives me nuts when you (and others - especially in the divetalk incident posts) make responses like this. While you may have some good points, your whole attitude and tone is confrontational, and comes across as you attacking the OP. Repeatedly calling him reckless and ridiculous.

When divers have incidents, coming forward and admitting to them and sharing the details creates great learning opportunities for other divers. But if they are only going to get attacked by a swarm of people jumping at the opportunity to point out how dumb they were, nobody is going to share incidents like this and it will be a loss for the whole community. In my line of work we talk about this as psychological safety, and it is a critical part of an effective culture otherwise people will hide problems and not talk about them.

So please, in the future try and be more empathetic and focus on what we as a community can learn instead of trying to disparage the OP.

 

[Allen-1]

It drives me nuts when you (and others - especially in the divetalk incident posts) make responses like this. While you may have some good points, your whole attitude and tone is confrontational, and comes across as you attacking the OP. Repeatedly calling him reckless and ridiculous.

When divers have incidents, coming forward and admitting to them and sharing the details creates great learning opportunities for other divers. But if they are only going to get attacked by a swarm of people jumping at the opportunity to point out how dumb they were, nobody is going to share incidents like this and it will be a loss for the whole community. In my line of work we talk about this as psychological safety, and it is a critical part of an effective culture otherwise people will hide problems and not talk about them.

So please, in the future try and be more empathetic and focus on what we as a community can learn instead of trying to disparage the OP.

When divers have incidents, coming forward and admitting to them and sharing the details creates great learning opportunities for other divers. But if they are only going to get attacked by a swarm of people jumping at the opportunity to point out how dumb they were, nobody is going to share incidents like this and it will be a loss for the whole community.

^^^^ QFTMFT.

As a relatively new diver, discussions about how things could be managed better are invaluable to me. It makes me think about what I'd do in similar circumstances, and it opens my thinking up to lines I otherwise wouldn't have seen/followed.

Different viewpoints stimulate the conversation, being antagonistic/confrontational stagnates it - and it carries over to other threads.

 

[Still Kicking]

Nm life's too short.

 

[Kendall Raine]

I'm left wondering what happened with the DM? This was a paid for, guided, dive. Shouldn't the DM have been keeping track? Maybe he or she know you and trusted you on your own? (I've had guided dives where the DM trusted me to be on my own at a distance he wouldn't have ordinarily tolerated.)

This perfectly illustrates the point of post #43. DM/guides are guides, not baby sitters. Besides, how do you know he didn't keep track and recognize the OP was peeling off and would join later? Perhaps the OP was doing this kind of excursion on every dive and it was SOP between the OP and the guide. When the OP did didn't rejoin during the dive or at the up line the guide went looking. If a diver consciously breaks off on their own, particularly one in whom the guide has high confidence, the guide is right to assume they'll rejoin the group on their own. As the OP stated, the fault was his.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVE AND CORRECTING SOME MISCONCEPTIONS
I have - for the most part - enjoyed the dialogue that my post has spurred. As a NAUI instructor for the past 44 years, I have always felt you can learn something new (and that includes me too) so hopefully this has given some of you food for thought.

By the same token, some of you have focused on either things that were weren't germane or, as they say in the legal game, facts not in evidence. So here's some more info for you based on some of the comments that might alter perceptions, give you more food for thought, or even give you more ammo for the pile-on. At any rate (and in no particular order) . . .

1. I've dove with DM John two other times, roughly 20 dives each time, so he knows me well.
2. This was the 10th dive on the fourth dive day of our trip.
3. This was an official Reef Seekers (the dive operation I own) trip so I'm the group leader as well as a participating diver.
4. I'm very familiar with the divers in our group and they are as well with me.
5. The are two reasons why I'm frequently at the back of the group, one of which you all got and the other which you all missed.
6. Reasons 1 is the obvious: I'm a photographer and photos fall behind. (I also believe strongly as I stated in the narrative that photogs also have an obligation to know where the group is heading and catch up.)
7. Reason 2 is the one you missed: As a group leader, I like being at the tail of the group because that way, everyone's pretty much in front of me, and if anyone starts having a problem, they're likely to fall backs towards me and/or I'll see it and go to them.
8. Yes, I'm willing to ditch my $5,000 worth of camera gear in a life-threatening situation. (Meaning I have to go rescue someone. ) I'm also hopefully/confident we would find said ditched camera later on.
9. So the general structure of the group is DM John leading, group in the middle, me at the tail.
10. Yes, I am keeping an eye on everyone while taking pictures. Not every second of the dive but regulary throughout.
11. I DO dive with a buddy but she skipped this dive because the max depth (115') was deeper than she wanted to go.
12. Yes, as Kendall pointed out (FTR, he and I have known each other for years and he's well aware of my diving style and skill - or lack thereof), DM John is well aware and comfortable with that I will occasionally drop back and then catch up.
13. On this specific dive, it was the wreck of the Odyssey. This is what it looks like, since it seems many of you may not be familiar with it:

14. There's a mooring line on the stern (#1) and also a mooring line on the bow (#6).
15. DM John did a thorough briefing. I cant recall if we said we'd come back to the stern mooring line or if we said wed end up on the reef ahead of the bow.
16. It was not uncommon in the previous 9 dives, to start on one mooring line and end the dive on anotgher (or even do a live boat pickup).
17. DM John took the group - 3 divers not counting me - down the stern mooring line and then inside while I stayed outside the superstructure pretty much at the same depth as the group descended inside.
18. When we exited, we made our way down the right side of the wreck in the sandy area.
19. The top of the bow is much shallower then the bottom of the stern. 55' feet vs 115'.
20. The bow is not an enclosed structure as its some ripped apart and is more or less sheets of metal. It's also not very big.
21. When the entire group got to the bow area, I ducked under to see what's what.
22. This is akin to ducking under a ledge, as opposed to going into a separate enclosed area or "deliberately abandoning the group".
23. When I came out from under the bow ledge, I though the group had continued to move ahead towards the reef in front of us. That also made sense because it was significantly shallower and at one point in the briefing, we had discussed fish life on the reef. (I'm sure you'll all agree that it's good on a dive to work from deeper to shallower and end shallower.)
24. You know the rest.

Other points to consider/discuss/debate:
A. I had plenty of air, control of my buoyancy, control of my mental faculties, there was no current and was evaluating my various surfacing options. Fopr tose whjo have taken issue with me on this, please explain the specific dangers you feel I faced at that moment.
B. Please also feel free to explain what options having a buddy with me - who would have been equally separated from the group - would have given me that I didn't have on my own.
C. For those who were concerned about a redundant air supply - I have an octo but no Spare Air or pony bottle - please explain to me what danger that posed and please remember I had at least 1,000psi coming out of the bow. (I dive with a Atomic T2 so don't go for "some regs won't breathe good once the air drops below 500psi.")
D. And if your concern is that I would run out of air or my recently serviced regulator was going to explode, please let me know why you think I couldn't do a free ascent - yes, I practice them with some regularity - from my 20' safety stop.

And I think is, and I hope it will continue to be a good learning experience all around. I look forward to any (well, most) further comments.

- Ken

 

[Learner Diver]

Being a photog throws “normal” out the window at times because we know the photog is going to stop frequently and deliberately.

Were you assigned a dive buddy?