Maltese soldier dies in diving incident off Mġarr ix-Xini

[wetb4igetinthewater]

The way it's phrased and described at the beginning, that leans towards implying a recreational-diver could be liable.

We need to remember the standard for lost buddy. Look around for 1 minute then surface. In that 1 minute period in looking around plus the time it takes to ascend and the time it takes to swim to the buddy in an ideal scenario where they are able to spot them immediately that buddy could very well die.

Technical divers as they were in this case, have a virtual ceiling based upon their decompression requirements. Ignoring those may result in one victim becoming two.

In the time it takes to clear deco requirements, surface, find the buddy, that buddy could easily already be dead.

I found the language of technical divers trained to be fully self-reliant a bit odd (one of the weaknesses of DIR agencies in my opinion as the reality is that divers can become separated and then if they have an emergency, they won't have a buddy to help them). But diving as a team is a part of every agencies' technical diving program. Checking gas switches of your buddy for example.

 

[SlugLife]

We need to remember the standard for lost buddy. Look around for 1 minute then surface. In that 1 minute period in looking around plus the time it takes to ascend and the time it takes to swim to the buddy in an ideal scenario where they are able to spot them immediately that buddy could very well die.

Exactly, even if you followed standard recreational protocols, and no deco-obligation, and immediately find them, it's questionable if you could revive a drowned diver.

Technical divers as they were in this case, have a virtual ceiling based upon their decompression requirements. Ignoring those may result in one victim becoming two.

Right. That drives me nuts. If I had the free time, I could probably find multiple statements from every major training agency, both for open-water, rescue-diver, and many other classes ... that "one should never endanger themselves to rescue another diver."

Your buddy slips and falls off a cliff. Do you... (a) dive heads-first after him to see if he's okay? or (b) look for a safe way down.

I found the language of technical divers trained to be fully self-reliant a bit odd (one of the weaknesses of DIR agencies in my opinion as the reality is that divers can become separated and then if they have an emergency, they won't have a buddy to help them). But diving as a team is a part of every agencies' technical diving program. Checking gas switches of your buddy for example.

Right, you don't want to be dependent on your buddy if (for example) they have their own emergency, swim off, etc. The idea is that you're improving each other's safety, not that (a) you aren't responsible for your own safety or (b) you're 100% responsible for their safety.

 

[SlugLife]

Curious if everyone agrees with the entirety of that statement.

“We note that two experts were appointed in this case, a scuba-diving equipment specialist and a hyperbaric doctor,” says the PDSA. “The obvious lack of an expert in diver training and procedures raises serious questions and concerns.”

Whoa, hold on.... So, they really didn't have an expert-witness who could speak to scuba-training, scuba-instructing, standard buddy-diving, procedures, etc? I mean, I guess it makes sense how they secured the conviction. These were probably the only two witnesses the state could find that would speak negatively about Castillo's actions, because neither sounds like someone who can speak about diver-training, best practices, rescue-diving, etc.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Whoa, hold on.... So, they really didn't have an expert-witness who could speak to scuba-training, scuba-instructing, standard buddy-diving, procedures, etc? I mean, I guess it makes sense how they secured the conviction. These were probably the only two witnesses the state could find that would speak negatively about Castillo's actions, because neither sounds like someone who can speak about diver-training, best practices, rescue-diving, etc.

I found the statement overall to be rather bizarre.

 

[Bob DBF]

Also the article seems to imply that somehow in a recreational setting it would make sense to condemn the buddy.

The diver was convicted, from my understanding, because he did not ignore a deco obligation. The rec diver had no such obligation and could surface to assist their buddy.

Exactly, even if you followed standard recreational protocols, and no deco-obligation, and immediately find them, it's questionable if you could revive a drowned diver.

A rec diver could follow the victim to the surface to assist, the only reason the buddy was lost was due to the deco obligation. The outcome may not be any different, but but assistance would have been rendered the entire time, which, I believe, is what the punishment is trying to reinforce.

 

[SlugLife]

The diver was convicted, from my understanding, because he did not ignore a deco obligation. The rec diver had no such obligation and could surface to assist their buddy.

A rec diver could follow the victim to the surface to assist, the only reason the buddy was lost was due to the deco obligation. The outcome may not be any different, but but assistance would have been rendered the entire time, which, I believe, is what the punishment is trying to reinforce.

My understanding of events, is that Castillo was not aware of any emergency. Yes, she blew through her deco, but sure, but he doesn't know of any drowning. Him blowing through his deco would have been an equal emergency to whatever potential emergency her blowing through her deco would have been. The court is acting like Castillo should have known Gauci was drowning, even though Gauci has lots of air in a completely full Deco tank.

Lets pretend exact same scenario, except we don't know the outcome. You're with your dive-buddy who is a scuba-instructor and technical-diver. During a deco-dive, at a deco-stop. You check your gauges for a moment, look back, and see a rock they were holding drop to the bottom, and can't see your buddy.

What do you assume at this point? Sure, we know Gauci drowned in hindsight, but would George the Scuba Instructor have also drowned in this situation?

 

[boulderjohn]

Skipping over the nonsense about technical diving, the fact that there was no expert witness with knowledge of diving protocols is stunning.

 

[Bob DBF]

My understanding of events, is that Castillo was not aware of any emergency.

He would have known, and been able to help, if he had not abandoned his buddy, seems to be the judges reasoning. The fact the judge is wrong was not brought to his attention by his experts. The outcome may be the same but no one can know because there was no buddy to render assistance the entire time.

 

[SlugLife]

He would have known, and been able to help, if he had not abandoned his buddy, seems to be the judges reasoning. The fact the judge is wrong was not brought to his attention by his experts. The outcome may be the same but no one can know because there was no buddy to render assistance the entire time.

Since you didn't answer directly, I'm presuming we both think George the Scuba Instructor didn't drown. Therefore it would also be unusual to assume Gauci drowned.

When or where did Castillo abandon Gauci? While sitting still at his Deco-stop?

 

[Bob DBF]

When or where did Castillo abandon Gauci? While sitting still at his Deco-stop?

That is what the judge believes, I know better but that is of no consequence in the verdict.