Scuba diver goes missing off Catalina Island

[Dive Time Remaining]

So let me understand what you are saying here Ken? Giving very specific and detail timelines of what happened with no such proof and drawing conclusions based on such is ok, but suggesting a very general chain of events based on pieces of info people on the boat have told us that by all means could have happened and calling it out as a theory is not?

 

[Ken Kurtis]

So let me understand what you are saying here Ken?

Apparently you don't understand so let me try again as that's not at all what I'm saying.

First of all, I haven't put forth a theory of what I thought happened. I have talked about what I think DIDN'T happen. (Big difference IMHO.)

What I've done (and what I feel I frequently do in these threads) is try to knock down what I think is bad information so we can focus on what we know, not on what we guess. In what you seem to be referring to, there was a"theory" put forth that there was a connection between her death and the boat leaving the site.

As I mentioned in #188, it's fine to have some "theory" of an event but then you need to test it out. You can't simply say, "I think this is what happened" and then don't scrutinize further. If Thing 1 happened, then Thing 2 had to have happened, which made Thing 3 happen, etc.

I had one detail that I felt was specific, time in the water. I had some other generalities (deco time, average air consumption time of the general diving population) that I labelled as such. I used those parameters to say that I felt the theory didn't hold up and that there isn't a connection between the two because she would have had to have surfaced before the boat left and that therefore, the boat leaving without her (WHILE INEXCUSABLE - LET'S BE CLEAR) didn't factor in.

What I took umbrage at was the post (which since seems to have been removed) where it was said that she borrowed gear, she was unfamiliar with it, her weight was wrong, the gear had some vague problem at depth, and all of this contributed to her accident because - to top it off - no one on the boat was watching the water. That's not theory, that's creative writing.

So no, I don't have a problem with multiple theories being floated, but when they don't stand up to scrutiny, abandon them instead of saying "Well, it COULD have happened." Better still, do some vetting of the theory BEFORE it's put forth so it can stand up on its own weight.

- Ken

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Giving very specific and detail timelines of what happened with no such proof and drawing conclusions based on such is ok . . .

One other thing: If you think what I (or others) have posted is wrong, give some details and reasons why. Knock a hole in it. I'm not saying I'm right 100% of the time. And maybe there's new information I don't have or perspective I hadn't thought of. Provide it. Again, if you put something forth as a possible scenario, it should stand up to scrutiny.

- Ken

 

[diverrex]

It's been some time since I've dived Ship Rock. If a diver surfaces on the other side of the rock than the boat would the boat be able to see the diver?

 

[Ken Kurtis]

It's been some time since I've dived Ship Rock. If a diver surfaces on the other side of the rock than the boat would the boat be able to see the diver?

Possibly not and that's a valid point to consider. I'd GUESS that at the waterline, Ship is maybe 60-80 feet wide (and rises 50-60 up), so big to block the view of a diver who surfaced exactly opposite where a boat was.

- Ken

 

[scubadada]

Ken, there are several of us that are confused about you posts, I'm not the only one.

What really went wrong? A diver went into the water, she may or may not have been on the roster, she failed to surface within a reasonable run time (your calculations) and nobody raised the alarm and nobody looked for her in a timely manner. As far as I'm concerned, that's really it, the boat really screwed up. I would expect much more from any boat I was on. The issues regarding equipment are most germane to the question regarding why she did not surface on time. The fact that the boat left the site without her is just atrocious, after the primary errors had already been made. Personally, this is completely indefensible. I would definitely pass on diving on this boat. Very sad

 

[ChrisM]

I cannot understand why the people who were on the boat and know the info first hand are staying silent. Facts are facts and they're going to come out eventually anyway. When there is a death the accident needs to be analyzed and publicized. The diving community needs to know what went wrong so accidents are not repeated; that's how the sport can be made safer.

Agreed. I'm assuming that the CG is investigating and that the results of that investigation will eventually be made public (Ken?). And I guess we'll know then what there is to know.

That said, I don't know what the load was that day but from the GUE post above it appears that at least 3 passengers are very loyal to the boat and not willing to write about it. Problem is, that just lets the rumors fly. I haven't been on the boat in years but have been hearing stories from my wife who works with someone that heard "x, y or z" about the incident. None or all of which may be true. I understand why certain people may not want to say anything due to liability exposure but not the passengers really.

And I think I mentioned it above, typically dive news in Southern California spreads like wildfire but that's not the case here. Which is odd to me

 

[ChrisM]

As a lawyer that deals with experts and bias every day, I've got no problems with Ken's prior services for sundiver and his theoretical analysis here (and as he has pointed out, he's torpedoed any chance of being designated as an expert here by his public comments). If his conclusion is correct- and we'll likely never know that- it's based on a set of assumed facts and makes perfect sense. And he's reiterated (how many times now?) that leaving a site without all on board is never acceptable under any circumstances.

Oh, and some are taking Ken's....ummmm.... Verbosity as bullying. It's not really, and you would likely feel much different about it if you were having this discussion over a beer instead of on the Internet

Just my view from the cheap seats

 

[Wookie]

Seems to me that there are only 2 facts in this case.

A diver failed to return from a dive. No fault here, doesn't matter why she didn't return to the boat, she didn't, and that's all that pertains to that fact. It isn't important that she did or didn't have a heart attack, was or wasn't familiar with the gear, was or wasn't manifested (that will be part of the CG investigation, which will not be made public unless it goes to the ALJ), surfaced or not, a diver failed to return from the dive. No one can find fault with any party, this is purely on the diver.

The boat left the dive site without checking everyone back on board. That's a fact. That's also inexcusable. There is no excuse for not knowing someone is missing. Can't justify it, can't excuse it, can't make it better.

I have lost a diver. I knew it before all of the divers had surfaced, we were on the radio with 10-15 oilfield boats within 10 minutes, and we had CG air assets in 2 hours We searched for 3 days, until the widow called off the search. In that case, the facts were that a diver failed to return from his dive, and we searched for the lost diver for 3 days. In this case the diver failed to return from the dive, and the boat just left.

 

[scubadada]

That said, I don't know what the load was that day but from the GUE post above it appears that at least 3 passengers are very loyal to the boat and not willing to write about it.

My friend, C Dub, was a member of a tight, 3 member GUE tech group that dived off the boat on the same day and stated that they would continue to dive the Sundiver. They do not need anyone on the boat as much as other divers, they have each other. If there was any problem underwater, they would have each other. If there was any problem on the surface, they would have each other. There is no possibility that the boat could ignore a late run time or leave the site for any of these divers. Unfortunately, this was not the case for the solo diving woman who was not looked for after an expired run time and was left at the dive site.

I'm often satisfied by good transportation to and from the dive site, but, the boat does have certain responsibility for me. I often assume this implicitly, that is probably a mistake on my part.