Maltese court convicts dive buddy

[SlugLife]

There is an interesting detail in there:

That defect combined with an ill-fitting drysuit explains her buoyancy problems....

I saw that as well.

I even slightly theorize she could have potentially surfaced with air in her doubles, but by the time her equipment was examined, any remaining air had been drained. (I'm not saying that's likely, just possible)

I personally don't have dry-suit training or experience, but it would seem like something covered in those classes might be to disconnect the hose, or resort to manual inflation.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I saw that as well.

I even slightly theorize she could have potentially surfaced with air in her doubles, but by the time her equipment was examined, any remaining air had been drained. (I'm not saying that's likely, just possible)

I personally don't have dry-suit training or experience, but it would seem like something covered in those classes might be to disconnect the hose, or resort to manual inflation.

This wasn't her first dive with that dry suit.

 

[BlueTrin]

I saw that as well.

I even slightly theorize she could have potentially surfaced with air in her doubles, but by the time her equipment was examined, any remaining air had been drained. (I'm not saying that's likely, just possible)

I personally don't have dry-suit training or experience, but it would seem like something covered in those classes might be to disconnect the hose, or resort to manual inflation.

I thought it was possible that it was the reason the doubles were found empty too.

 

[Bob DBF]

"The third and final event during the dive occurred at 77 minutes into the dive, when Ms Gauci ascended to the surface rapidly for the second time within the same dive. According to Mr. [Diving buddy], he looked up, saw her reach for the regulator of her Nitrox 50% deco cylinder, and never established eye contact or saw her again. He cites having a deco obligation and being light, hence the reason for not following her. This is disproven by his decompression computer – a 2 minute deco obligation at 5 minutes is never an impediment to seek a lost diving buddy."


I don't understand "a 2 minute deco obligation at 5 minutes", but it seems to me they are requiring one break a deco obligation to seek a lost buddy. It could be just a bad translation, but it seems a poor spot to have one.

 

[BlueTrin]

"The third and final event during the dive occurred at 77 minutes into the dive, when Ms Gauci ascended to the surface rapidly for the second time within the same dive. According to Mr. [Diving buddy], he looked up, saw her reach for the regulator of her Nitrox 50% deco cylinder, and never established eye contact or saw her again. He cites having a deco obligation and being light, hence the reason for not following her. This is disproven by his decompression computer – a 2 minute deco obligation at 5 minutes is never an impediment to seek a lost diving buddy."


I don't understand "a 2 minute deco obligation at 5 minutes", but it seems to me they are requiring one break a deco obligation to seek a lost buddy. It could be just a bad translation, but it seems a poor spot to have one.

The wording probably implies 2 min deco at 5m?

 

[Bob DBF]

The wording probably implies 2 min deco at 5m?

Well, at least the sentance makes more sense, but not the decision.

 

[SlugLife]

The wording probably implies 2 min deco at 5m?

That makes more sense.

There is general advice that you can skip or abbreviate a safety-stop on a no-deco dive, if you have a strong reason to do so, such as running low on air or needing to seek help. Given it was a deco-dive and he felt surfacing would be unsafe, he did the right thing. Especially on a mere "lost buddy" scenario, and not a "known in-need-of-rescue."

I'd challenge the prosecutor to find a formal recognized scuba-training agency written documentation which says you should skip deco-stops to search for a lost buddy.

He's basically saying if you come across a building on fire, have no idea if anyone is inside, you're supposed to run in and endanger yourself, just in case there is someone needing rescue. And if you don't do that, you're a criminal.

 

[Rick Brant]

Malta looks beautiful on the TV series Below Deck but based on what I have heard about their legal system I will never travel there for any reason.

 

[Bob DBF]

He's basically saying if you come across a building on fire, have no idea if anyone is inside, you're supposed to run in and endanger yourself, just in case there is someone needing rescue. And if you don't do that, you're a criminal.

That what it sounds like, however it is a 5 page document translated from a 44 page document so there is a lot of room for something important in the decision to be overlooked.

 

[Marie13]

I saw that as well.

I even slightly theorize she could have potentially surfaced with air in her doubles, but by the time her equipment was examined, any remaining air had been drained. (I'm not saying that's likely, just possible)

I personally don't have dry-suit training or experience, but it would seem like something covered in those classes might be to disconnect the hose, or resort to manual inflation.

Manual inflation of a drysuit isn’t possible. Connecting the hose is taught, but who knows if she had a drysuit class. Disconnecting drysuit and wing inflation hoses has been part of every tech class I’ve taken.