Scuba diver goes missing off Catalina Island

[Bob DBF]

There was an experiment by UTD where a diver in a 7mm wetsuit dove to 90 ft and simulated a BC failure -- which is the same thing as no BC--

Diving without a BC is not the same as a BC failure. If it was, by your logic, no one would have survived the early decades of diving.

This thread is pretty ridiculous without even the most basic information wrt did she have a BC or not?

Yes, and unfortunately, I just couldn't help adding to it.


Bob

 

[Steve_C]

A full cylinder is partly ditchable in the sense that several pounds of air can be used/bled off.

 

[ChrisM]

1. I did a lot of Sundiver trips back in 2012 and previous, and every single time we paid up on the way back in. Maybe that's changed.

2. Accdg to the press article linked above, it says she splashed at 9:35. FWIW.

3. I dive with a wing so this doesn't really apply to me, but I am reading the ditchable weight thing as a red herring. You weight properly so that you are as neutral as you can be in the water. That changes of course over depth and time, but you find a good middle ground.

When I dive a 7 mil, steel tank and steel backplate (so that's what, 12 ish pounds?) I really only need a 3# belt, any more and I am too heavy. So 3# ditchable, the rest is all part of the weight system which generally makes me neutrally buoyant. Yes the wetsuit compresses at depth, but the tank also gets lighter as air is consumed, perhaps not at the same inverse relationship (but then again I don't dive particularly deep, and don't know at what depth full compression of a 7 mil occurs).

Likewise in warm water with a 3 mil, an AL tank and an AL backplate I wear no lead. I would have to overweight myself to get ditchable weight, and that obviously makes no sense. So "ditchable" v. "non ditchable" is not a sufficient metric alone to determine weighting issues IMO. This is probably getting way off topic (especially because no one seems to have actual, first hand knowledge of the facts here), but I've not to date (knock wood) had any issues with ascending without the use of a BC at depth regardless of the wetsuit thickness.

 

[drbill]

Agree with Bob... I started diving in 1962 or 1963 and didn't use a BCD until 1989. On that occasion it was mandatory equipment. However, the inflater was stuck and it was auto-inflating. The DM asked me what to do and I said I'll just disconnect it and dive without it (like I'd been doing for decades). On one dive to 200 fsw at Ship Rock I had a partial failure of my BCD (split seam) and had to swim up from that depth to the surface.

It would be great if someone could put to rest this BCD/no BCD question. However, it still won't tell us what actually happened to Laurel.

 

[BMC-9]

One of the questions I planned on asking was the statistics on divers left behind in California. But after reading the posts here, I realize there are no such statistics because, because no one reports them. If an incident happens and the authorities are not called into help search, they are not reported by the diver or anyone else on the boat.

Which is chilling to a consumer from outside the area, trying to pick an operation to entrust their lives with. If reviews are skewed because no one is letting anyone else know about the problems with dive operations, how are we, the outside divers, supposed to know whom to choose?

Whether or not that is actually true, that is the impression that is coming across. Is the diving business so booming in California, that a bad operator has enough friends and loyal customers to keep them operating? With good reviews from them and other divers, who experienced problems and do not report them; not wanting to get on the bad side of any other dive operations around and be labeled a “whistle-blower”?

Please excuse me if I sound very grumpy, because if it is happening in California, is it happening in other areas? A very chilling thought indeed to people reading this thread.

Luckily, all dive operations that I use, give my group a bottom time, whether or not a guide/DM, comes with us. Someone in the boat is always watching the top of the water, beginning, during and the end of the dive. And, after the dive, a triple count is done visually. I have never been on boat that didn’t show complete attention to my safety and to everyone else on the boat.

IF, I felt otherwise, I do know that, I WOULD NOT CARE WHO THEY ARE, everyone would know what had happened and why I would not use them again.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

. . . If an incident happens and the authorities are not called into help search, they are not reported by the diver or anyone else on the boat . . . If reviews are skewed because no one is letting anyone else know about the problems with dive operations, how are we, the outside divers, supposed to know whom to choose . . . Please excuse me if I sound very grumpy, because if it is happening in California, is it happening in other areas? A very chilling thought indeed to people reading this thread.

I think you're over-reacting a bit. You seem to be under the impression that problems are rampant, no one's able or willing to speak up, people are left behind or dying willy-nilly, and there's a huge cover-up going on. On top of that, this may be a trend happening worldwide. Not the case IMHO.

I would say that 99% of the dive operators locally and worldwide are conscientious and do a good job 99% of the time. But human error comes into play because whether it's operators or divers, we're all human and we occasionally make mistakes. See John's story in post #162.

You will find someone singing the praises of any given operator. You will also find someone who thinks they're the worst. You'll find people who had a great time and they'll be offset by someone who was going to give up diving after their experience with the same operator.

By the same token, there seems lately over the last few years to have developed an I'm-going-it-alone mentality and people tend to rely less and less on diving professionals who do this all the time, take to lots of people, and talk to other pros who also talk to lots of people. And even then, pro-to-pro or shop-to-shop, there will be differences of opinion.

Nothing's perfect and nothing's foolproof. You just do the best you can.

- Ken

 

[boulderjohn]

Please excuse me if I sound very grumpy, because if it is happening in California, is it happening in other areas? A very chilling thought indeed to people reading this thread.

How else could it be otherwise? Who would keep track of this information?

Can you think of any other activity in which this kind of information is available to you?

 

[Ellipsis]

Absolutely not. I've been booking boats in SoCal since 1988 and every diver on board is paid up front. I don't know of a single operation that says "Come and dive and just pay us at the end of the day." No-shows and "I didn't enjoy myself so I'm not paying" would be a financial death knell.

If you're comfortable with it, can you name any boats where this is the case.

Now if you're talking the CHARTER CHECK from a chartering group, yes, that's frequently done at the end of the day. But certainly not on a "We'll pay you if everything was OK" basis.

But the way you phrased it, it sounds like you're saying that the norm in SoCal if for individuals to pay at the end of the day and that's just not the case (other than galley bills for those boats that still charge a separate galley).

- Ken

Sundiver had us pay when we were just about back to the dock each and every time I dove with them.

 

[Dive Time Remaining]

One of the questions I planned on asking was the statistics on divers left behind in California. But after reading the posts here, I realize there are no such statistics because, because no one reports them. If an incident happens and the authorities are not called into help search, they are not reported by the diver or anyone else on the boat.

Which is chilling to a consumer from outside the area, trying to pick an operation to entrust their lives with. If reviews are skewed because no one is letting anyone else know about the problems with dive operations, how are we, the outside divers, supposed to know whom to choose?

Whether or not that is actually true, that is the impression that is coming across. Is the diving business so booming in California, that a bad operator has enough friends and loyal customers to keep them operating? With good reviews from them and other divers, who experienced problems and do not report them; not wanting to get on the bad side of any other dive operations around and be labeled a “whistle-blower”?

Please excuse me if I sound very grumpy, because if it is happening in California, is it happening in other areas? A very chilling thought indeed to people reading this thread.

Luckily, all dive operations that I use, give my group a bottom time, whether or not a guide/DM, comes with us. Someone in the boat is always watching the top of the water, beginning, during and the end of the dive. And, after the dive, a triple count is done visually. I have never been on boat that didn’t show complete attention to my safety and to everyone else on the boat.

IF, I felt otherwise, I do know that, I WOULD NOT CARE WHO THEY ARE, everyone would know what had happened and why I would not use them again.

I don't think you are far off the mark here. You have seen here that we have to be very careful what we say or it gets removed. Many of us have already voted with our wallets, but that did not stop this incident from happening. I am a firm believer that safety is no accident.

It reminds me of a story that a buddy that used to fly helicopter tours in Hawaii told me once. He was a very safety conscious pilot and made sure he mitigated all the risk he could to keep his passengers safe. He had many customers ask him to get closer to the beautiful waterfalls that Hawaii has to offer. He would respond that he was not safely able to get any closer to the falls. They would always respond that the other operators would fly closer. He then had to give a safety speech on how the other operators put their lives at risk because if the helicopter had to make an emergency landing they would have no where to go. Now I am sure that many folks who have no concept of the safety issues involved would say the pilots that got them closer to the falls were the better pilots, but this was clearly not the case. Probably got away with it 999 times, but....

The real risk is with new divers who don't yet fully appreciate all the reasons for the safety protocols and procedures. I know I have learned a lot along the way and what this incident has taught me is to report these issues to the Coast Guard as soon as you see them. The Coast Guard reinforced this as I and others have shared our experiences with them.

 

[Dive Time Remaining]

The no BC issue keeps following this accident, and again I hear from the local dive community grape vine here that she forgot her BC. Now how can someone dive with no BC? I've not seen a tank harness without a BC in all the years I've been diving. And then it hit me.

You may have something here as I heard she was borrowing boat gear. If she forgot at least part of her gear, she may have just decided to use gear that belonged to the boat. I don't know the maintenance of boat gear compared to personal gear, but I think you start adding links of an accident chain together with: forgets parts of personal gear, borrows gear that she is not familiar with, weight calculation not ideal, has issue with gear at depth, diving solo. It would appear that no one on the boat was really paying attention to what she was doing and the folks she may have asked for permission to use the gear certainly would not post that info here. Just a theory, but it makes as much sense as anything so far.