Scuba diver goes missing off Catalina Island

[ChrisM]

We aren't conducting trial by Internet. Which is why your assumptions to support your categorical conclusion that moving the boat had nothing to do with her demise are improper. They may be good argument for a jury (which is what I said) but they're not good scientific method

You don't know the boat moving had nothing to do with what happened to her. Nor do I. We can make guesses, but at the end of the day that's all there is

 

[C Dub]

I was on the boat that day, part of a 3 man GUE Tec1 team.

Given the inevitable litigation, it is inappropriate for me to make any specific comment on all this speculation.

However I think it is very relevant that 2 of our team, plus a different 3rd GUE, jumped right on the boat the next day with zero concerns over the safety of the dive operation. The original 3rd team member simply could not get off work. We all continue to dive on Sundiver regularly.

 

[Hatul]

There was a recent Coast Guard Bulletin which may be related to Laurel's disappearance:

http://www.professionalmariner.com/...f-crew-requirements-passenger-accountability/

The accounting recommendations are not the ones followed. Rather the first name is called and checked off when someone answers "here". The last name, time in and time out are not recorded.

 

[ChrisM]

Personally I don't think it's all that relevant to the issue of what happened to her. No offense meant, just my opinion. I dove with Ray the weekend after Carlock got picked up by the Boy Scouts, and I never had any qualms about diving off that boat after that. Doesn't mean that the proverbial pooch wasn't you know whatted....Same here.

The most curious thing to me about this is that the So Cal dive community is fairly small and well connected on the net, but we didn't find out about this fact until weeks later. Whoever was in charge of containing info did a really good job, I would have thought the fact that the boat pulled anchor and moved, and then had to go back, would have come out pretty quickly. That we found out via a newspaper article is old school, I think...

 

[dumpsterDiver]

I was on the boat that day, part of a 3 man GUE Tec1 team.

Given the inevitable litigation, it is inappropriate for me to make any specific comment on all this speculation.

However I think it is very relevant that 2 of our team, plus a different 3rd GUE, jumped right on the boat the next day with zero concerns over the safety of the dive operation. The original 3rd team member simply could not get off work. We all continue to dive on Sundiver regularly.

Don't you DIR guys dive a strict buddy system? If this is so, I would think that you would expect that your buddy would say something to the captain if he started to leave a dive site without you.. yes?.. How is the presence of a tight group of buddy divers on a boat relevant to a dive boat forgetting to account for a single (solo) diver? You guys are relying on your buddy not the captain right? Does the fact that you are not worried that he would forget a 3-man buddy team on the NEXT day after the accident - give us a warm and fuzzy that things were handled well on the day before?

to think that the roll call and the boat moving had anything do with this tragedy simply doesn't add up


Also, the conclusion/assertion/opinion (by Ken above) that the boat had nothing to do with the accident is pretty weak. why? ... because nobody saw her on the surface, therefore she must have been dead on the bottom. Seriously is that a good conclusion?

The conclusion that the boat did not leave the dive site until after she was dead (on the bottom) is nothing more than a simplistic assumption.

If the crew was so lax that they did not realize a diver was overdue by 45 minutes (or whatever the math provided assumes) - and they failed to check the surface and subsequently left the dive site.... Then why is it a a "Given" that the crew could not have also been "lax" about monitoring the surface during the entire time on site? What if the diver had a problem and ascended early?.. If they didn't look for her when she was way, way late - then why the hell would we go on the assumption that they would diligently be searching (monitoring) the surface for her way BEFORE she was expected to surface? I just can't make that conclusion.

In other words.. if they didn't look for her on the surface after she should have been on the surface, then why would we buy into the assumption that they MUST have looked for her (or attentively watched the surface) for her to ascend early???

As I previously mentioned, the fact that she never showed up on the boat under her own power around the time we would expect her to surface... leads one to SUSPECT that she probably had a problem on the bottom... but this is an extremely simplistic assumption. It certainly does not negate the possibility of other scenarios- including that she ascended early and got away from the boat on the surface.

With TSM's loss, the husband and crew knew immediately that she was lost, so it IS a very valid conclusion that they immediately made a very good, complete and valid search for Lynn on the surface. These are very different scenarios.

Also it was described that the boat returned to the dive site to search. From Ken's math (which I assume is correct) there is essentially zero possibility that she was still alive underwater after all this time.. So the divers were attempting a body search/recovery at this time. YES? Well if the crew is ultra- responsible etc. Why would they NOT call the USCG about a missing diver BEFORE the dead body search?

At this time (when her absence was initially discovered) , the ONLY hope would be that she drifted off on the surface alive (and freezing cold) - or maybe clinging to the island? Why not alert the authorities IMMEDIATELY when they realized she was missing? There should be no big "rush" to recover a dead body, but the lost diver call should have been made ASAP so as to enhance the possibility of her safe recovery on the surface.

Delay in notification of the potential of a diver drifting off on the surface in the open ocean could have resulted in her death due to being hit by a boat, hypothermia or delay in addressing a medical condition. It is hard for me to reconcile the stated time line - as presented in the thread. In addition, the notification of the missing diver and the underwater search are in no way mutually exclusive. They could have initiated a surface search by others (i.e., make the radio call) while they looked for her dead on the bottom.

It sux to have to make the call on a lost diver... I've done it several times and also been the "victim" (i.e., lost diver) but, it is better to be embarrassed that a diver got away on the surface than to delay notification of authorities which could literally save a life.

The fact that people apparently don't see an issue with the time line and delayed notification leads me to suspect personal bias rather than objective analysis is in play here.

They left Ship around 11:15AM. The site they went to was Yellowtail Point, about 3 miles and 10 minutes away. It was at that time they realized Laurel had not been accounted for and was not on board. (add in another 5 minutes to re-roll call.) Then then headed back to Ship Rock, so another 10 minutes, 25 minutes total. They searched the surface around Ship (which as you know is a very small area but another few minutes) and then they put divers in the water to look. Shortly after that (I don't know if it was 2 minutes or 10 minutes), they put out the radio call of a missing diver.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

We aren't conducting trial by Internet.

It was a light-hearted comment Chris. Don't take it so literally. I'll add a smiley face next time.

Which is why your assumptions to support your categorical conclusion that moving the boat had nothing to do with her demise are improper.

I disagree that that's what I was doing. Once the boat movement became known, the tone of some comments became that moving the boat factored in to her demise so what I'm doing is saying, "Let see if that makes any sense." And I can't come up with a scenario and numbers, based on what I know about diving and divers, where that would seem to come into play. I'm not saying I'm 100% right and I hope that I'm being very clear that I'm talking in generalities and suppositions in the absence of hard evidence but in a hope that we can all understand things about this better.

Even if we take the comment that you made about maybe she went to 30 feet, the numbers still don't work. Using my math, that's 2atm which is an underwater rate of 1cfm and if she split her time between there and 66 feet (3atm), you've still got an average rate of 1.25cfm which using every bit of a 72cf tank yields 58 minutes. Again, this would have had her surface 22 minutes before the boat left.

Even if she had done her entire dive at 33 feet, using my air consumption numbers, she still would have had to surface due to lack of air before the boat left. Again, I'm not saying I'm 100% correct but I'm saying no one's offered any plausible scenario as to how this would have happened other than to say that the boat left and this is bad.

I think people also forget (not to get too graphic about this) that once you go unconscious underwater, you've got roughly 5 minutes before permanent brain death sets in. That's not a lot of time to be found. And in all my years of looking at accidents, I cannot recall a single instance of a missing diver being found underwater and successfully revived. So the odds of a successful rescue are pretty small.

So let's go hypothetical and assume for a moment that the roll call DID discover her to be missing. The roll call was done right before the boat left so let's assume it was done at 11:10. Maybe it takes another five minutes to get divers in the water which is 11:15. Again, I'm trying to imagine a best-case scenario where she's still alive when divers come looking for her and the numbers just aren't there, IN MY OPINION.

I can't find the comment but someone opined (might have been you or someone else), isn't it better to start a search sooner rather than later, implying again that the boat leaving and coming back affected the outcome? And while the knee-jerk reaction is "But of course" the reality is that if you're already dead, it doesn't matter.

And all of this ignores the possibility that whatever happened to her could have happened early in the dive. Suppose she had a heart attack (just to be clear I'M NOT SAYING SHE HAD A HEART ATTACK - THIS IS TOTALLY HYPOTHETICAL) 20 minutes into the dive which would have been around 10:15? Even if the roll call would have discovered her to be missing at 11:10, it would have been too late.

They may be good argument for a jury (which is what I said) but they're not good scientific method

In the absence of specific evidence, and labeling it all as guesswork and hypothetical, I'd say it's as good as we can do for now, until her computer is found which can hopefully provide some more definitive answers.

- Ken

 

[EagleDiver]

If believing (or wanting to believe) this diver never made it to the surface helps us deal with the complex feelings involved with both liking a dive operation and being concerned with them making what appears to be a serious mistake, then believe it. But it still doesn't change the fact a boat left a site without all its divers aboard. No dive boat should ever leave a site without accounting for everyone in their charge. Any less an expectation would be irresponsible.

 

[Ayisha]

Well, since we're assuming many many facts here one might also assume that the time between the boat leaving and returning (whatever that might be) might (MIGHT) have played a factor in her rescue or the search for her

All of this is speculation. Maybe she changed plans and did a 30 foot dive for an hour and a half. No one knows what happened

...In other words.. if they didn't look for her on the surface after she should have been on the surface, then why would we buy into the assumption that they MUST have looked for her (or attentively watched the surface) for her to ascend early???

As I previously mentioned, the fact that she never showed up on the boat under her own power around the time we would expect her to surface... leads one to SUSPECT that she probably had a problem on the bottom... but this is an extremely simplistic assumption. It certainly does not negate the possibility of other scenarios- including that she ascended early and got away from the boat on the surface.

Any of these scenarios are possible and it doesn't appear that anyone can disprove them at this point, just as it can't be proven with the current information at this time that the victim never surfaced.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

But it still doesn't change the fact a boat left a site without all its divers aboard. No dive boat should ever leave a site without accounting for everyone in their charge. Any less an expectation would be irresponsible.

I agree with you and have said so in previous posts. My point simply is that I believe the accident and the boat leaving the site are two separate issues that are unconnected. I take issue when people make an inference that had the boat not left, Laurel would possibly still be alive. Based on the assumptions that I believe to be in play here, I view them as two separate and regrettable incidents. And if people want to try to connect the two, fine. But make some logical argument and produce a line of reasoning as to the cause-and-effect. Don't just say, "Well this was bad."

- Ken

 

[EagleDiver]

Ken, it WAS bad to leave Ship Rock with a diver still in the water, no matter what condition that diver may have been in. And I am not sure you can discount a scenario where she may have surfaced on a side of the Rock out of view of the boat. If you get caught up in the dive it's easy to travel right around the pinnacle. She may not have had the time to swim back to where the boat might see her. A scenario like that is why the onus is on the boat to make sure all divers are aboard.