Ok I missed the part that they had to go after the other diver but: the article does mention that they possibly hoped that she would float when releasing her and even mentions that it is the ONLY case where they are allowed to let her go.
Policewoman missing - Paris, France
- Thread starter DandyDon
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
uwxplorer
Contributor
Again, I don't want to sound picky, but their protocol is to let go the lifeline only if the weight belt has been released, the tank has been removed, and the BCD is inflated (read in Une série d'erreurs humaines à l'origine de la mort de la policière niçoise lors d'un exercice dans la Seine? in French, but not paywalled).
Clearly none of these conditions were met.
Yea but you said that the OTHER article didn’t say this and you are now quoting a different article (not that it is very important)
Dan
Contributor
Yea I was referring to the bit you mentioned:
It says that the tap was closed. The article is saying that either she didn’t have fast enough reflexes or that they didn’t do proper checks: but the article (I assume) is probably not written by a scuba diver and it is not obvious whether she could have reach the tap if it was closed, so not too sure about her reflexes.
The article also mentions that: after seeing her raising her hands, they couldn’t pull her in so they cut her free because they thought it could have helped us to get her free from entanglement and float. But if she couldn’t inflate, they just killed her, although it is possible she would have drown regardless.
Like everyone else said, it seemed to have been poorly planned.
There was another bit mentioning that this police unit refused help from a unit to recover her body, and also they found a body at some point but the guy doing the scans forgot to write down the coordinates.
Usually I would dismiss most conspiracy theories but there are, in this story, a lot of red flags indicating that they may have tried to cover up.
@DandyDon , I am glad you didn’t die and didn’t get featured in your favourite section of the board
Incidentally from my 20-ish dives, valve closed is the one of most common mistakes I have found during buddy checks: many people close the valve after prepping the kit and then forget to open it when putting the kit on their shoulders.
It’s not a rookie mistake. It happened to me last week in Socorro. I have been diving for 14 years and just completed 780 dives. As we were about to back roll from the RIB, I made a quick breath check on my primary. After a couple suck of the air, I found it stuck with no air. Before the RIB pilot counted to three, I yelled to stop and asked my dive buddy to open my tank valve.
Another pair of divers had to bail out from a dive because one of them was OOA at 50 feet depth. It turned out that he didn’t open his tank valve all the way. So at 50 feet, there was enough ambient pressure to stop his reg from functioning.
I love to dive. I have spent several weeks over the years walking along the seine looking at the water. I have never for one second wanted to dive or swim in that water even at low current. I also would not eat a fish I knew came from there. In my view it would be 0 viz in an urban sewer with who knows how much trash and machinery dumped into it over the centuries.
uwxplorer
Contributor
I did indeed look for some contradictory report, as the statement in the first article (which you quoted correctly) looked suspiciously questionable. I guess it is journalistic license.
Some of the statements sound credible, some seem to be interpretation and journalistic embellishment. Keep in mind that the Journal du Dimanche is not really an investigative magazine, but rather has a wide audience and goes for the guts.
The article to read is the one that broke the story (Canard Enchainé), but unfortunately it isn't available online, AFAIK.
So I think you should know that in English you should have said ‘the article is incorrect’ rather than:
And that was my only point there.
If you disagree, let’s agree to disagree because it is a distraction from the important issues.
uwxplorer
Contributor
I do not disagree for sport, and getting the fact right in incident and accident discussion is a paramount issue.
My "not what was said" statement was referring to the circumstances surrounding the lifeline release. This I have no reason to suspect the veracity of, although I haven't read the police report, so I have no reason to call the article's statement incorrect, but your summary of it was. It makes sense that a overwhelmed crew decided to go for the second diver (swimmer really) in distress, deciding to put the life of the first one in danger. I am not judging the crew, which the different reports say were lacking training, to make a fatal decision in the heat of the event. If they had not gone after the second swimmer, he may very have ended up the victim. What would any of us have done?
Then there was your statement on the unit's protocol. You reported what was written in the article correctly, but as it sounded absurd, I looked for more information, and the best I could find was the other statement (quoting a Union official, who should know what he is talking about).
I am no accident expert, but I have seen, in a case that touched me personally, how a police report (itself with its share of minor mistakes) was misinterpreted or oversimplified in a coroner's report to the point of making it impossible to figure out what was the cause of the fatality. Sometimes non-experts will drop a few points, or interpret or rephrase others, not meaning to do harm, but effectively damaging facts beyond repair.
I am trying to avoid this here, even though the root cause, lack of proper training, is pretty apparent in this tragic accident.
Makes all sense, would be easier if we had access to all the documents from the investigation and if there was more transparency in this case.
Instead we have to rely on journalists like you said.
NAUI Wowie
Contributor
On my last liveaboard channel islands I completely set up my rig and had the air fully open went to grab something out of my bag and turned around and saw someone closing my air with my bcd on it to fully closed. I stupidly didnt say anything or make a scene but walked back and opened it fully again.
Similar threads
