Scuba diver goes missing off Catalina Island

[Ken Kurtis]

Here we go again.

So my theme today is "Did you actually read what I wrote?" If I had said, "He shot him in the head with a gun" why do you read it as "I'm happy he shot him in the head with a gun and that's a good thing."

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?

Could you please (serious question) point me to where I said and assured anyone they were watching the surface during the dive. Here's what I said in #184: "The botched roll call doesn't mean they weren't watching the water for anyone in trouble while people were diving, it means they didn't do the count right at the end." I said just because one didn't happen, you can't assume the other didn't happen. I didn't say it DID happen. I haven't expressed an opinion on it. But you're doing what is generally a great lawyer trick at trial: Find one thing wrong and then assert that everything else must be wrong too.

None of that is convincing to me.

Not what I'm trying to do, quite frankly. Think what you want. But if something is posted that I think is factually wrong, having nothing to do with my relationship with Sundiver but with an appreciation for accuracy and truth, yes, I'll call someone on it.

If the crew provided you detailed information about exactly when she went in . .

Best guess and clarified somewhere in this thread as such. Newspaper said she went in at 9:35AM.

. . . but they won't tell you what gear she was diving with, won't confirm that her name was on the roster etc. etc.

Maybe they don't know. Maybe I didn't ask. Maybe I don't have an opinion in that specific area.

Then I just don't buy the assumption they were watching the surface.

Zero logic in making that connection.

. . .obviously they don't normally forget to call people's names before they leave the dive site . . .

Actually, you don't know that. In all seriousness, you don't know what their normal procedures are. HYPOTHETICALLY, they could never call roll but if they always left a dive site after all divers were aboard, the net effect would be the same as having called the roll. Similarly, they could regularly botch the roll call by omitting names but if the people they didn't call are actually back, no one's aware of the roll call error and it has no real effect. (I know this is going to come back to bite me in the butt as someone's going to think I'm advocating this but I wanted to make the point. Besides, I like to live dangerously.)

. . . so assuming that everything ELSE was being handled perfectly by the crew is a stretch.

Again, WHERE have I made that assumption, since that's what you seem to be implying.

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.

Hallelujah!!!!! We agree!!!!

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 . . .

Red Letter Day!!!!! We agree TWICE!!!!!

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.

You seem to be under the impression that someone with Sundiver is controlling all the info. What's been discovered so far is (1) Diver presumed dead, (2) Boat left site not knowing diver wasn't there let alone presumed dead, (3) Diver may have been diving without key piece of gear, (4) Diver was solo, (5) Dive op was involved in similar incident a dozen years earlier, and (6) Dive op may have tax/legal issues.

How does ANY of that reflect favorably upon Sundiver? If they were really in control of the info, why on earth would they let any of that out?

I'm going to say something here that I was working on when the thread was locked down.

I think some of you don't understand what an expert witness does (or at least how I operate - Glenn Egstrom does it this way too). Sometimes what we're saying to whomever we work for is, "You don't have a case and you should settle." Sometimes we say, "We've got problems over here but we're on solid ground over here." And I just finished a case where I told the attorneys that I'd do my best to provide some cover but don't ask me this, this, or this because there's no defense or rationale I can provide and I'll side with the plaintiffs.

If you think what an expert does - at least me - is ask the attorney what they want us to say and then we go cash a fat check, that's not how it is for me. (I can't speak for other experts.)

And to Chrism"s comment about my . . . verbosity (I prefer the term "thoroughness") . . . being perhaps misconstrued as bullying, that's not my intent. I LOVE a good vigorous discussion. I try to make my points in as detailed a way as possible so as to avoid confusion about what I am saying. I am apparently failing miserably, at least here. I KNOW I come off as long-winded. (See my comment in #85.)

I also have no intention of making this the "What Does Ken Think" thread (see my comment in #96). And since we seem to be plowing the same ground over and over and over again, I'm going to do my best to exercise restraint and decline to post further in this thread. (However, anything I perceive as a direct attack/question on my character or integrity WILL likely get a response.)

If anyone really wants to talk about things, I'm happy to discuss this with you privately. I can be reached at kenkurtis@aol.com as well as at 310/652-4990. Contact me if you like.

- Ken

 

[Jax]

Ken Kurtis insists on logic when the audience obviously has no wish to engage therein nor any obvious abilities to do so.

Good luck. I understand what you are saying (all four or five times) and believe this is a case where we will never know the full story.

 

[Sam Miller III]

Yes, Ken is an Expert Witness, and I strongly suspect a good one!

I also suspect there will be litigation as a result of this accident and Ken will be involved. I only hope he will testify on behalf of the diver rather than the boat.

I have been an expert witness many times beginning with a murder via spear gun in 1957/8 (?)

However, my major contribution as a expert witness was in 1962 involving a diver resting on a float which had the then new red and white diver flag displayed who was struck by a power boat and severally injured. It was an awesome responsibility for me as an Expert Witness; the red an white flag was only a few years old, had not been recognized as a flag of recreational diving and never litigated in a court of law.

We prevailed! The flag received recognition in a court of law, it was officially recognized as the flag of recreational diving.

And after that many many more expert witnessing and consulting until may retirement

Ken, we have never met and probably never will meet, but I would like to commend you for your insight and patience in this matter, So many experts.....

SDM

NO I am, not a Public Safety diver !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LA Co UW Instructor UICC 11
NAUI Instructor #27 a
PADI Instructor #241 or 2241
etc etc
retired

 

[merxlin]

Now that the thread is reopened, I'd like to add a few opinions and zero facts. I want that noted up front.

I have been on Sundiver boats for over 10 years, starting in 2005 (not long after the other incident). I would venture to guess that they run more dive trips per year than any other So Cal boat. I have made at least 300 dives with them, from half day trips to multi day trips. I am a paying customer and not a dive professional although I was a DM candidate (for a shop- not a DM on the boat) for a few of these dives. I have been part of a group, a buddy team, and I dive solo on occasion. I know the owners and most of the crew members. And I will dive with them again.

I will say that the normal procedure for their divers is that all paperwork is checked before we leave the dock, with waivers signed and names on the roster. I am not saying that I know that all the people on the boat were on the roster every time. That is not my responsibility or my business. I do know MY name and the people I dive with were on there.

I believe that I was always checked off as being in the water when I jumped in. Again, I do not look at the roster so have to assume I was. I know sometimes times were listed, sometimes they were not. I will say that on every dive a roll call was done after the dive, even if we were not changing dive sites (not always on other boats I've been on). Roll call was always handled the same way- you could only answer for yourself, and a visual confirmation. I've been called up from a bunk, out of the head and out of the shower to face the person doing the roll call. I've seen the captain question the DM and make them redo the roll call. This has always been handled very seriously on the trips I've been on.

I have been on board when divers went "missing" and seen the crew react as I would hope they would, including the call to the coast guard. Luckily they were just divers separated from buddies and showed back up to the boat without incident.

I say this not to excuse what happened when the boat moved, but to voice my opinion that this was not a normal occurrence in my numerous experiences. Obviously something was different that day.

As with many experienced divers, I know I have been lax some times with my procedures and dive plan. I am an adult and a certified diver, and therefore responsible for my own decisions while in the water. Most dive ops here give you that freedom- they do not check your profiles or dive plans, or babysit you - nor do I see how any deck hand or captain can watch 20 divers, all going different directions, all the time. Again, once I splash it is my opinion that it is up to me to have a safe plan and execute my dive safely. I appreciate that freedom, but with it comes personal responsibility.

So let's address roster procedures and roll calls, and adequate accountability for the divers on board and how to make certain that we are always accounted for- we have that power. How many of us have ever asked a dive op what their procedure is for accounting for divers in the water? We should, and if we don't like the answer we dive with someone else. Maybe there is a better-than-the-rest procedure to implement on all boats so it is uniform, and you know what to expect. And I'll bet that such a system can come from one of us since we are the ones it impacts the most.

I have no idea what happened to Laurel that day. But I think that the takeaway from this thread should be what we as divers can do to minimize things like this from happening again. That is what this forum is for, not to be judge jury and executioner. We need to separate the two issues- the diver's death and the boat's leaving the scene. It's natural that we want someone to blame- to say "if not for that, this would not have happened". But in most instances that isn't the case. No one wants to think that something like this can just happen to them, but the truth is sometimes things hit the fan and do just happen.

 

[Hatul]

Interesting. She had a serious episode before where she was lobster hunting deep, ran out of air and spent time in a chamber.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Interesting. She had a serious episode before where she was lobster hunting deep, ran out of air and spent time in a chamber.

So do you find that relevant?

Was she more likely to repeat the accident or to avoid it after paying a significant penalty?

 

[Buliwyf]

So do you find that relevant?

Was she more likely to repeat the accident or to avoid it after paying a significant penalty?

It's relevant IMO. The "pressure chamber" thread is the most terrifying thread on here. Not because divers needed to use it, but because a dozen divers from here had to use it and the thread sounded fairly normal.
"Oh, yeah, I screwed up and woke up in a pressure chamber, No big deal."
"Hey, I've been in that same FL pressure chamber, should say Nick was here on the inside, look for it next time you're in it."
LOL. Some of ya'll are insane.

I don't see how it's going to matter in court whether or not she was dead before or after the boat left without her. Either way, the boat left without her. They're pretty much screwed. And death, because she was left behind, is far more likely. 1 odd screw up is more likely than a diver royally messing up, on the same day the boat crew does.

The fact that this isn't insanely rare is a huge complacency issue with diving. Even on just simple snorkeling trips, it became readily apparent, that there's little room for error. We were on our own as soon as we jumped overboard, and naturally, we had a "don't be the last one back on the boat" mentality right from the get go.

 

[ChrisM]

If it can be proven- which I posit it will never be- her condition at the time the boat left is hugely relevant to legal liability. That's been rehashed many pages ago. But not so relevant to the greater discussion here about how to prevent it from happening again

 

[scubadada]

This whole thread could have been entirely different.

Had the Sundiver recognized that the diver was late, taken appropriate local action, and notified the appropriate agencies for assistance, we would all simply being saying how sad it was that a diver was lost and were there any things we could learn from the incident (medical condition, gas management, equipment issues...)

Unfortunately, it did not play out that way and we are 220 comments into a, sometimes heated, discussion. I know for me, this story is frightening. We all use new operators from time to time and most of us probably do our best to pick ones that are highly regarded and have a good reputation. All I really want is to be safely and accurately dropped at the beginning of my dive and safely picked up in a timely manner at the conclusion of the dive.

 

[Steve_C]

I have never dove from the big boats (over night capable) but have dove on a number of midsize and small boats. What i have noticed is that there are the list of customers and then the crew. Sometimes crew dive solo during the SI. They will notify crew/captain that they are going but they are not part of formal roll call. Some times a guide/instructor will not have a customer show up and they will just come along and seem to be unofficial crew. Point is that if some one like the missing diver is not on the paying customer list without hard data we have no idea how her dive was handled. What the practice is for paying customers tells us nothing about how they handle others. So do we know for a fact even whether she was on the diver list or not?