Maltese court convicts dive buddy

[boulderjohn]

It seems to me that the defense either did not hire an expert witness or it hired a really bad expert witness.

 

[SlugLife]

I responded to the article in another thread on SB. In short, the ruling was absolutely absurd. All of the statements by the procecutor in the article were thing I would never endorse. He says things about buddy-diving, which I've never heard of, and acts like there's some official buddy-diving standard and obligation.

A simple logic tool, when dealing with any proposed standard/ethic/law is to apply that standard UNIVERSALLY. If he was obligated to micro-manage, monitor, and rescue his dive-buddy, then that woman would have had the exact SAME obligation. Aside from the absurding of charging dead people with a crime, if she had survived, would she be guilty of a similar crime ... perhaps negligence ... against him?

The prosecutor asserted that he should have endangered himself, just in-case she might be on the surface and might need assistance. He didn't know where she was, or if she needed assistance. She could have been still at depth, but outside visibility-range, at a safety-stop, or anywhere else.

The procedure I was taught in open water, is to stop, look 360-degrees a few times for about 1-2 minutes, then slowly surface. Also to never endanger yourself looking for a lost-buddy. Now, I personally solo-dive, and visibility where I dive is often 4-feet on a good day. However, I usually ask a buddy if they really want me to surface if we get separated.

edit: Here's my more direct response to the article itself:

Maltese soldier dies in diving incident off Mġarr ix-Xini

AFM soldier dies in diving incident off Mġarr ix-Xini

scubaboard.com

 

[boulderjohn]

A simple logic tool, when dealing with any proposed standard/ethic/law is to apply that standard UNIVERSALLY. If he was obligated to micro-manage, monitor, and rescue his dive-buddy, then that woman would have had the exact SAME obligation.

Well, when they tried to prosecute roughly the same thing in 2015, they used the logic that the guy they were prosecuting was an instructor, and as the most experienced diver in the group, he bore the responsibility for everyone else's safety..

 

[ROUS]

If allowed, I think I'd appeal that terrible ruling. If anything, she was endangering him.

 

[SlugLife]

Well, when they tried to prosecute roughly the same thing in 2015, they used the logic that the guy they were prosecuting was an instructor, and as the most experienced diver in the group, he bore the responsibility for everyone else's safety..

In the articles I read about this case, the prosecutor made no such assertions. I would still consider that a bad precedent. For example if you're instructing a class, the students may be entrusting you to keep them safe. However, simply being the most skilled or experienced in a group should have no bearing on who gets the short-end-of-the-stick because "when someone dies, someone has to pay."

That morning, Arthur Castillo, 60, met up with Christine Gauci, an AFM soldier and diving instructor, and four others to go on a dive at the bay in the limits of Sannat in Gozo.

This suggests she was a diving instructor herself. Theoretically, she's had the background and skill in order to take care of herself and less experienced divers. Instructors are, in many ways, solo-diving with several buddy-hazards.

 

[Miyaru]

Article states the prosecutor was Inspector Josef Gauci. Victim was Christine Gauci.

Wonder if the prosecution was motivated by more than just law…

Likely not. It's a very common surname.

 

[Searcaigh]

There's an article written about this incident here:

Diving Accident Analysis: Christine Gauci Fatality | Malta 2020

Comprehensive analysis & dive safety lessons to be learned from the Christine Gauci diving accident in Malta, 2020.

scubatechphilippines.com

 

[SlugLife]

There's an article written about this incident here:

Diving Accident Analysis: Christine Gauci Fatality | Malta 2020

Comprehensive analysis & dive safety lessons to be learned from the Christine Gauci diving accident in Malta, 2020.

scubatechphilippines.com

The article doesn't allow copy+paste, so I'll paraphrase parts:

It's important to note that article is primarily focused on accident prevention, and not the legal-or-moral aspects.

<They incurred mandatory deco...>

This adds to my assertion, that Castillo should not have immediately surfaced in disregard for his own safety.

<dry suit too big, not trained, etc>

Gauci was a scuba-instructor. She shouldn't have been naive about the risks she was taking. Furthermore, she chose to continue the dive despite having buoyancy difficulties.

<practice in pool or shallow shore dives>

I do the shallow-shore-dive practice a lot, it's fantastic.

<stage-gas was full>

This suggests Gauci may not have had the mental capacity (tired, narced, multiple problems, stressed, holding a rock) to switch to her stage gas.

<estimate SAC rates on the fly>

I think a lot of people naturally develop that, at least for themselves, with enough experience. I can usually estimate gas-remaining better than I can estimate time.

<he hadn't checked her gas-levels>

It as never his obligation to baby-sit her. While, yes, it's good practice to periodically check your buddy's dive-levels, failing to do so cannot be considered endangering your buddy. If you ever feel you MUST baby-sit your dive-buddy, then the dive is too complex for that diver.

As far as I'm aware, there is no "buddy-diving handbook" that most divers are aware of and expected to follow. Perhaps when you get to technical or cave diving, that's more common?

<Castillo had provided multiple assistances & affect on awareness>

That's a good point, just as Gauci was task-overloaded, so might Castillo. Every standard applies to Castillo must also be applied to Gauci.

<Ability to rescue uncontrolled ascent is limited>

Absolutely. Unless you're baby-sitting the other diver, they'll likely be well out of reach, by the time you even notice.

<separated team>

Agreed that "separations happen for many reasons." He had reasons to suspect she might have trouble, and did ascend in an abbreviated way, but to ascend faster would have been highly dangerous to him. As far as the events on the surface, your head is low to the water, so naturally it may be difficult for him to have seen her floating.

<judgements in hindsight>

This is something I see often going VERY wrong in court-cases. An incident which happens in micro-seconds is analyzed for days and days and days on end, as if the person would have also had the opportunity to really think through the proper reaction in detail, and make the best decision in the moment.

I'll again point out, "what if Castillo was narced, tired, etc?" Try performing skills out of the water. It's so easy! Now put on a bunch of scuba-equipment including a vision-restricting mask, thick gloves, etc and try the same. Now try that underwater while remaining neutral and monitoring air. Now try that after a 60 minute dive while slightly narced.

In some ways, I feel it's absolutely not fair for non-divers to judge a diving incident. That would be like arguing about who created a software bug and looking at code, to an audience of non-programmers.

 

[Searcaigh]

All of the separate incidents in this terrible scenario comply with the "Swiss cheese model" for failure, and unfortunately in this case, death of a diver

 

[admikar]

While she wasn't certified with dry suit, she dove it (that particular suit, don't know ih she had previous experience) for 2 weeks prior to the accident. While she might not be wastly experienced with it, drysuit diving is not rocket science.
What is baffling is that prosecutors expected Castillo to blow through his deco obligation to follow her up?
Like it was already said, it looks like defence either did not have any expert witnesses or they managed to find an astoundingly lousy one.
Solo diving seems to be way to go in the future.