First off, I hope it doesn't come off like I'm hijacking this thread. Not my intent. But I think good questions deserve answers as well as some points simply need to be addressed.
Let's not lose sight of one thing no matter how you feel about all of this: Someone that many of us knew has likely died. No amount of blamestorning, justifying, hair-splitting, etc. can change that or bring her back. But hopefully, by examining all the aspects of what happened that day and truly learning from it, we can become better both as an industry and as consumers in that industry (aka individual divers) and not have to go down this same road again.
I'm going to combine my responses into one post:
. . . it appears from the vague discussion in the coast guard link from Phil that these procedures were not followed (not as in the "duh" because someone obviously left behind) but apparently that non-employees (ride alongs?) were somehow involved in the procedure?"
I saw the USCG thing Phil linked to and I think it's a bit confusing. Remember two things; (1) USCG does not have, and has stated their don't have, legal jurisdiction of diving per se [but they obviously have jurisdiction over boat operations], and (2) Many times the memos they put ut on diving are written by non-divers, so we in the diving community may not get the message the USCG is intending to convey.
My understanding is that the person designated as DM was a DM-certified crew member who was also part of their drug-testing program. This was not a case of someone non-qualified DMing &/or conducting roll.
I think the "ride-along" refers to people who might be guests of the boat and diving as opposed to paying passengers. They may or may not be perceived as crew by the paying passengers.
Most likely she went down to some max depth, then made a gradual ascent stopping at shallower depths including a safety stop, assuming nothing went wrong. In fact she may have spent most of her dive at a shallower depth. To calculate the air time you need to use the average depth multiplied by the times at each depth.
No question. But I wanted to do this with simple math, not calculus. So I just made a few basic assumptions, based on what she apparently said she was going to do, to keep it simple. I know it's not the way the dive actually would have gone.
(Eliminating your math) . . . It still leaves her coming out before the boat left so it would not change your argument.
I agree.
She may have drifted in a current and came up far from the boat and was too far to signal or swim to the boat before they left.
I don't think so. Fairly small site that slopes steeply. It's very hard to get far away. I'm told the current that day was fairly mild, estimated at about 1/4mph.
She had a problem and drowned but had the boat not left, her body may have been located and recovered.
True, but it wouldn't have changed the fact that she would not have been rescued. My point is simply that people are jumping to a convulsion that BECAUSE the boat left, that's why she died. I don't think there's a connection. But obviously, the boat shouldn't have left while she was in the water, and it's possible she could have been recovered to not only provide more clues as to what happened but - more importantly - to give the family closure.
Another question: most divers who solo dive carry a pony tank, in fact that is a standard.
I would disagree strongly that it's a standard. I think it's a good idea, but when you say "standard" you're invoking legal obligations that I don't believe exists. And before you point to any Solo Diving training standards, remember that the training agencies (all of them) continually say they may regulate TRAINING and set standards for TRAINING, but anything that's not training (like doing the diving outside of a class) does not involve them.
Did she solo dive with or without a redundant air supply?
Solo yes. Don't know about redundant air supply.
- Ken
