Scuba diver goes missing off Catalina Island

[Storker]

I'm quite fine with a boat providing just a taxi ride and perhaps a site briefing, nothing more. That's how we do it over here. What I don't understand is why there apparently aren't common and established routines to ensure that everyone jumping into the water is counted properly.

For my type of diving, there's always a dive leader topside. Every buddy team, or - if solo diving is accepted - diver give their max depth and max run time. Plus tank size and pressure. This is put into a standardized form. The dive leader notes down the time the diver/buddy team goes under and writes the estimated time for surfacing. When the diver/team surfaces and boards, the exit time and preferably also exit pressure is put into the form. The "problem" for the diver is that they have to stick to their max run time, because if they go (significantly) over that, they risk that the dive leader calls in rescue services due to a missing diver¹. The good thing is that we have a written record and don't have to rely on oral roll calls, with their inherent risk for missing that a diver never surfaced, like what apparently happened in this case.



¹ Which is why we naturally give our MAXIMUM run times and usually surface a little before that...

 

[scubadada]

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.

My son and I have recently dived off the Spree with Capt Frank and deck/divemaster Mel. The boat is a prototype for safe diving. Each tank gas analysis and pressure must be recorded by the diver. Water entry is logged and dive depth and time is recorded promptly on return by Mel. Diver return was personally confirmed a second time, by Capt Frank, by direct diver interaction, after every dive. On the surface, this may seem a little draconian. Believe me, I know that I would never be left in the water beyond a reasonable run time or left behind at a dive site while diving on the Spree. I can't give a dive operation a higher recommendation.

 

[BMC-9]

Fact #1. Diver went into the water.

Anything that occurred below water can only be speculation and theory without forensic evidence. There could have been an equipment failure, a medical event, an act of nature, or diver mistake. Any of these are a possibility and since none of us were with the diver, cannot be summarily dismissed.

Fact #2. Boat operation did not keep track of all of their divers and left the site without one diver.

We all agree: Very, Very Bad and Indefensible.

Can Fact #1 and Fact #2 be connected? That is the question……..

One argument is that since the diver did not surface before the boat left, the boat leaving did not play any part in death. Based on conclusions from assumed facts that has been given to support that, the diver did not surface.

On the other hand, another argument could be made that since this was an obstructed-view dive site, diver could have surfaced on the other side of Ship Rock. If and it is only an if, but still possible, the diver surfaced in distress, was not able to communicate to the boat and not seen by the boat before departure. This cannot be proven that it happened but again, it is still a possibility and should not be ruled out. If it did happen, then the boat leaving did play a part in the diver’s death.

At this time, there is no forensic evidence to prove 100% either way.

Since I am not from that area and not privy to any conversations that are made off of SB, there might be more facts that can be added to either argument.

And unless a detailed incident report has been published, everything has been word of mouth.

Given the fatality, it might be months before all the facts come out.

 

[Wookie]

Can Fact #1 and Fact #2 be connected? That is the question……..

It doesn't really matter. The diver went in the water. That's on her. The boat left her. That's on them. Anything else is obfuscation.

 

[MMM]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

Apparently some of you did not take the opportunity to read the special rules for this forum that I posed last time this this thread was closed. So it's being closed again for moderator review and probably some of the actions I foreshadowed. Marg, Senior SB Moderator

---

Thread reopened.

 

[RJP]

Given the fatality, it might be months before all the facts come out.

I've been reading these types of threads/reports for the better part of a decade... and and can't offhand recall ever seeing "the facts come out" for a single one.

Maybe this time will be the first?

 

[Wookie]

I've been reading these types of threads/reports for the better part of a decade... and and can't offhand recall ever seeing "the facts come out" for a single one.

Maybe this time will be the first?

Nah. It is not in anyone's interest that the facts come out. I have been prohibited to tell the story by families before.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

If anything ever happens to me I'll haunt the family members that try to keep the facts from coming out and they all know it.
Usually though in these cases they do not. Even after it gets to the lawyers little comes out unless you really dig for it or know the parties involved.

I have several files here on various accidents that have been provided by attorneys, families, and public records. Some of it is just so much opinion and conjecture. Others are actual undisputed facts. There are eyewitness statements in some of them.

I had planned at some point to just say the hell with it and post it all as it is public record for the most part. However certain events have changed my mind and I am now going to use those files for my own information and writings to try and make the activity safer without the gory details.

I also want to keep my sources of info feeding me stories and providing said info.

Why she had the problem is something we wish we knew. Badly. That way perhaps we could say, write, or plan something to avoid a similar incident with another diver. However without a body that info is lost. Unless eyewitnesses contact someone with more info. I have had that happen and kept the information confidential and only used the abstracts of it in public postings and papers.

The events following are things we can use to develop plans and procedures. That is what we should be focusing on in the absence of other information.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

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

It may well be creative writing... I am very far from convinced that the crew was diligently monitoring the surface for early ascending (and late) ascending divers. How can you provide such an assurance? You make this assumption why? Because the crew told you? Because they usually watch the surface? None of that is convincing to me. If the crew provided you detailed information about exactly when she went in, but they won't tell you what gear she was diving with, won't confirm that her name was on the roster etc. etc. Then I just don't buy the assumption they were watching the surface. Clearly things were different this day, obviously they don't normally forget to call people's names before they leave the dive site, so assuming that everything ELSE was being handled perfectly by the crew is a stretch.

I don't view ANY of the proposed scenarios as "theories".. they are nothing more than educated guesses, none of which can be tested without the release of more information.

We could break this discussion down into two simple questions: Was the crew's actions potentially responsible for the fatality or was the crew's actions unrelated to the fatality?

My personal opinion from reading this thread and being around diving for a long time is that the crew had NOTHING to do with the fatality, but this is simply a guess based on my estimation of the odds of various scenarios.

The more that we see that only certain information is being released, the more that we are given assurances that the crew was not in any way responsible - the less I am inclined to believe it.

 

[drrich2]

"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."

No way to know for certain, but there are potential reasons that vary with who the person is.

1.) People don't want to incriminate themselves. If someone is individually at fault, and knows it, probably gonna keep quiet.

2.) People don't want to incriminate their friends. If a fellow staff member is a buddy, some people wouldn't broadcast info. that'd incriminate him. And if you do incriminate someone, is there anyway he can distort things & find a way to incriminate you (even falsely)? If the guy lies and says you agreed to cover for him while he used the bathroom, can you prove you didn't?

3.) Many people won't incriminate their boss/company. There are ways that can come back to bite a person. Even if the 'truth' is going to come out, the company might wish to apply some spin, damage control, what-have-you, as to the manner in which that happens.

4.) Broadcasting that you know something could amount to volunteering to be subpoenaed to testify. Many people don't like jury duty; imagine how some might react to this.

5.) You gain pretty much nothing.

6.) Most other people on the boat may not know what happened. If she didn't have a buddy, it's quite possible the other customers weren't paying attention & making mental notes about what she was doing. If you stopped me at the end of a boat trip & started asking detailed questions about someone I didn't dive with, I wouldn't know.

Richard.

P.S.: In medical research & educational presentations, when a researcher or presenter has a prior relationship with the company behind a discussed product (e.g.: got paid to do research or promote the product), that is to be disclosed as a potential conflict of interest, but it doesn't mean his input is written off. Others are free to apply whatever additional scrutiny/skepticism they wish. Ken's distant prior relationship with Sun Diver is like that; a potential conflict of interest that has been disclosed. I see no problem with that.