Police Diver Drowns

[DeepSeaDan]

It is indeed tragic when people dive beyond their capabilities.

In Ontario, there exists specific diving regulations ( O.H.S.A. 629 - 94 ) defining what activities underwater constitute a "diving operation" & the minimum requirements needed to perform such operations. The Act defines diving operations as follows:

"diving operation" means work performed underwater by divers or work performed on the surface in support of divers, and includes underwater inspection, investigation, excavation, construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of equipment, machinery, structures or ships and the salvage of sunken property"

The Act goes on to stipulate the restrictions placed on the use of s.c.u.b.a. in diving operations, including:

Prohibitions on S.C.U.B.A. Use

36. (1) The diving supervisor for a diving operation shall ensure that S.C.U.B.A. is not used by,

(a) a diver working near or in an operating underwater intake;

(b) a diver working near or in a pipe, tunnel, duct or other confined space;

(c) a diver working at a water control structure;

(d) a diver using any power tool, hoisting device, explosive, burning equipment or welding equipment;

(e) a diver placing any materials underwater in a way that poses a risk to the health or safety of the diver;

(f) a diver operating at depths in excess of 100 feet; or

(g) a diver working in a diving operation to which Part XI applies.

(2) For the purposes of clauses (1) (a) and (b), a diver



The activities of the unfortunate police officer & his buddy certainly fall under the auspices of the Act & I am certain the Ministry will conduct a full investigation of the fatality.

These regulations were drafted in large part due to such tragedies. Most rec. divers have no experience/training in performing serious work underwater.

It is very unfortunate this reality must be reinforced with yet another needless death.

Regards,
D.S.D.

 

[Bubble Boy]

pt40fathoms once bubbled...
Further information that cannot be confirmed, as their source is not through "official" channels, stated that; the vehicle was being lifted by only the two divers involved, no surface support, and without surface supplied air. When the Const. became trapped the dive shop owner had to rush back to his shop to get extra tanks. When he returned, it was too late.

This information is incorrect. Lets not start rumours.

 

[PhotoTJ]

;-( It's a shame, let's hope we can learn from any mistakes he may have made, and dive safer.

 

[pt40fathoms]

Bubble Boy once bubbled...

This information is incorrect. Lets not start rumours.

What part is incorrect, please be specific. I will then go to source and get clarification. Accuracy is important in matter such as this.

 

[Bubble Boy]

pt40fathoms once bubbled...


What part is incorrect, please be specific. I will then go to source and get clarification. Accuracy is important in matter such as this.

I quoted the section that was not correct. Go to your "source". You are painting an image that is incorrect. What is your motivation behind this?

 

[Dundas]

DeepSeaDan quoted the Occupational Health and Safety Act, this would ONLY apply if the diver was being paid or otherwise compensated for the work being done.

If the diver was being compensated, then the Act would apply and the regulations would be required to be followed.

If he wasn't being compensated (and therefore not technically working), the Occupational Health and Safety Act would not apply.

From the initial report it seemed that two friends were diving together, perhaps even 1 friend doing a favour for the other. It didn't seem to be part of the police diving team. My guess, the Health and Safety act would not apply. BUT that's likely what the Ministry of Labour is trying to figure out.

Either way, it's a sad event.

My sympathy to the family and co-workers

Jeff

 

[pt40fathoms]

Bubble Boy once bubbled...

I quoted the section that was not correct. Go to your "source". You are painting an image that is incorrect. What is your motivation behind this?

What you quoted was this:

"Further information that cannot be confirmed, as their source is not through "official" channels, stated that; the vehicle was being lifted by only the two divers involved, no surface support, and without surface supplied air. When the Const. became trapped the dive shop owner had to rush back to his shop to get extra tanks. When he returned, it was too late."

So let me see if I got it right. I will break down the quoted paragraph and try to figure this out.

1) "the vehicle was being lifted by only the two divers involved"
* Are you saying that they were in fact not lifting a submerged vehicle, and that more that the two divers were involved?

2) "no surface support"
* So you are countering this by stating that they did in fact have surface support?

3) "and without surface supplied air"
* You are claiming that they did in fact have surface supplied air?

4) "When the Const. became trapped "
* Are you also stating that the Const. did not in fact get trapped?

5) "the dive shop owner had to rush back to his shop to get extra tanks"
* Am I to believe this to be false as well, and that the owner of the dive shop did not try to supply more air?

6) "When he returned, it was too late"
* So now he made it back in time and this is all just a bad dream?

I await your response.

 

[Bubble Boy]

pt40fathoms once bubbled...


What you quoted was this:

"Further information that cannot be confirmed, as their source is not through "official" channels, stated that; the vehicle was being lifted by only the two divers involved, no surface support, and without surface supplied air. When the Const. became trapped the dive shop owner had to rush back to his shop to get extra tanks. When he returned, it was too late."

So let me see if I got it right. I will break down the quoted paragraph and try to figure this out.

1) "the vehicle was being lifted by only the two divers involved"
* Are you saying that they were in fact not lifting a submerged vehicle, and that more that the two divers were involved?

2) "no surface support"
* So you are countering this by stating that they did in fact have surface support?

3) "and without surface supplied air"
* You are claiming that they did in fact have surface supplied air?

4) "When the Const. became trapped "
* Are you also stating that the Const. did not in fact get trapped?

5) "the dive shop owner had to rush back to his shop to get extra tanks"
* Am I to believe this to be false as well, and that the owner of the dive shop did not try to supply more air?

6) "When he returned, it was too late"
* So now he made it back in time and this is all just a bad dream?

I await your response.

This does not even warrant a response. You said you had a source; well then talk to the source and get your facts right. In small towns there are lots of rumours. Facts are facts. This is an unfortunate accident that does not need any fabrications added to it. The truth will come out.

 

[Waterborne]

This information is incorrect. Lets not start rumours

I quoted the section that was not correct. Go to your "source". You are painting an image that is incorrect. What is your motivation behind this?

This does not even warrant a response. You said you had a source; well then talk to the source and get your facts right. In small towns there are lots of rumours. Facts are facts. This is an unfortunate accident that does not need any fabrications added to it. The truth will come out.

Bubble Boy, I believe pt40fathom's post does warrant a reply. In all three of your posts, you have cited his information was incorrect. Yet you do not back up these statements with any facts. If you do have facts then, by all means, present them and set the story straight. If not then stop spouting about incorrect information. One might ask what your motivation is?

 

[Wardborgford]

On the radio, a few more details have come to light.

The vehicle was being lifted with lift bags, and according to the report, they "had problems" with the lift bags "slipping".

Further information that cannot be confirmed, as their source is not through "official" channels, stated that; the vehicle was being lifted by only the two divers involved, no surface support, and without surface supplied air. When the Const. became trapped the dive shop owner had to rush back to his shop to get extra tanks. When he returned, it was too late.

Under the category of "fact", this dive shop owner has been fined in the past for diving for hire without a commercial license. He is also known in the diving community around here as someone who takes great risks with poorly maintained equipment and training. This incident although tragic, does not come as too great of a shock when we see he was involved. It's a shame that a good person had to die to hopefully shut this person down for good.

(edit) A criminal investigation has been started, no charges I was hearing alot of different "well known facts and sources say" so I decided to ask the OPP and RCMP themselves out around Kenora. Same result. Would not want anyone else beside me under the water or if I needed help, but Fraser. Seems stories are changing with the investigating. Hope too many people do not make up their minds and influence people before all facts are in and hearsay can be put aside. Sometimes I wish we would investigate all the hearsay and make them accountable instead for false stories because already some diveshop people have gone back on some "facts that they spread!"