Scuba diver goes missing off Catalina Island

[Dive Time Remaining]

I believe the term we are looking for is Duty of Care here. Look it up and you will see what I mean. With your relationship with Sundiver I have no reason to question your timeline of events Ken, but did they meet their Duty of Care for this diver? Where the industry standards of having an active certified and insured DM on board supervising the dive met? Was that DM logging times in the water for each and every diver? When a diver did not return to the boat after a given time, did the DM organize and lead a search? Many unanswered questions but do you believe Ken that the proper Duty of Care was complied with? If they would have followed industry standards and practices could have the results been much different today?

 

[Michael Mercer]

Your information is NOT correct. Let me see if I can clarify the timeline for you. (And the caveat to add is that I am in no way saying it was OK for them have missed her on the roll call. By the same token, the boat left based on the DM reporting everyone back so it's not like they left knowing a diver was unaccounted for.) What follows is my understanding of the times.

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.

I think where you're getting confused is looking at that time, which was probably 11:45-Noon, and the time Laurel is reported to have gone in the water, 9:55AM, and coming up with 2 hours. Yes, that's a 2-hour time period from initial splash but that's NOT two hours that they thought she was missing and did nothing.

There also seems to be, I think, a misconception that Laurel could have surfaced during the time the boat was absent from Ship and had the boat been there, all would have been well. I don't think that works out time-wise and here's why. (And again, the caveat is that this is my understanding from the information I have at hand.)

I'm told Laurel submerged around 9:55AM. (Some have said she went down as early as 9:35 but you can use either time. She also dove solo which I personally feel was her choice so it's not something I would criticize her for doing or the boat for allowing. Diving solo, as many of you know, is extremely common in SoCal.) My understanding of her plan was that she was going to go down to about 80 feet or so, and do some stretches for a few minutes that helped relieve some of her chronic pain. Then she was going to hunt for lobster. I believe she was diving an HP 72cf tank but the key factor here is not the pressure but the volume of 72cf.

Let's look at deco time limitations. At 80 feet, deco tables give you about 35 minutes. If you go down to 100 feet you're in the 20-minute range. If you come up to 60 feet, you've probably got 50-55 minutes. So the point is that if you are diving at these depths, you're probably going to run out of no-deco time (assuming a multi-level dive) in 60 minutes or less. That would have meant, from a no-deco standpoint, she should have surfaced shortly before 11AM at the latest.

Let's look at air consumption limitations. Although I knew Laurel (she was on our Chamber Day Committee last year and this), I never dove with her. So I'm just going to use some general numbers.

An average diver in SoCal (cold-ish) waters has an average surface air consumption rate of 0.75cfm (cubic feet per minute). That number's based on some studies I've done over the years. A good diver who's not working hard might get that number down to 0.50cfm. For the sake of argument, let's use that lower figure.

At 66 feet (3atm), your effective rate would then be 1.5cfm. At 99 feet (4atm), your rate would be 2.0cfm. Let's split the difference and say then that the average rate for this dive at depth would have been 1.75cfm.

If you want to have 500psi left left in an HP 72cf tank which fills to 3500psi, that's 14% of your pressure left in reserve, so you can use 86% of the tank's volume of gas on your dive. 86% of 72cf is 62cf. Diving that by the presumed usage rate (1.75cfm) you come up with a dive time of 35 minutes (to be at 500psi). Even if you kept breathing on the tank and sucked it dry, you'd only extend that to 41 minutes.

So from an air consumption standpoint, and using 9:55AM as a start time, Laurel should have surfaced somewhere between 10:30 and 10:35. The boat was still at Ship Rock at that time.

From a no-deco standpoint, she could have stayed for maybe 60 minutes (and that would have far exceeded what I'm calculating her available air time at). That would have brought her up at 10:55. The boat was still at Ship Rock at that time.

So no matter how you cut this, from the information I have, if Laurel completed her dive normally, she would have surfaced while the boat was still at Ship Rock. If she had some sort of a problem - whether that was medical, mechanical, or animal - it would have happened even sooner in the dive while the boat was still at Ship Rock. The boat left 15-20 after what I'm calculating as the latest she should have surfaced so the boat's departure, I believe, didn't factor in to this and is a red herring.

Again, while I am in no way excusing anyone involved for not accounting for all divers to be on board and then leaving based on an incomplete roll call, to think that the roll call and the boat moving had anything do with this tragedy simply doesn't add up. Laurel should have surfaced under every scenario before the boat left and the fact is that no one reports seeing or hearing her during that time period. This all leads me to believe that she never made it back to the surface.

- Ken

 

[Michael Mercer]

We need to remember she was diving Ship Rock not a drift dive or Farnsworth. Any experienced diver as Laurel was would know to hang out in the shallows or on the Rock if the boat was not there.

 

[ChrisM]

I believe the term we are looking for is Duty of Care here. Look it up and you will see what I mean. With your relationship with Sundiver I have no reason to question your timeline of events Ken, but did they meet their Duty of Care for this diver? Where the industry standards of having an active certified and insured DM on board supervising the dive met? Was that DM logging times in the water for each and every diver? When a diver did not return to the boat after a given time, did the DM organize and lead a search? Many unanswered questions but do you believe Ken that the proper Duty of Care was complied with? If they would have followed industry standards and practices could have the results been much different today?

Your last question is the relevant one, as all the prior questions (I'm just gonna take a stab in the dark here) is no, they did not comply with the standard of care here, the fact of leaving without all divers aboard establishes this pretty much.

Switching my hats here (and he certainly doesn't need me to speak for him) what Ken is saying is that even if they violated the standard of care, it would not have changed the outcome because -under his scenario - there was an incident that occurred during the dive, and even if they had stayed and initiated a reasonably timely search, she still would have perished.

Or in other words, even though they violated the standard of care, that violation did not cause her harm (as it would have occurred even if they did not violate the standard). We can all sit around and assume and opine to our hearts content and come up with answers that satisfy us one way or the other, but if this ever saw a courtroom the answer would depend on the burden of proof, more specifically whether it was a criminal proceeding (beyond a reasonable doubt? maybe not) or civil (more probable than not). This will be aided by experts who will tell a jury of non divers (likely) that yes it likely caused it and here's why or no it didn't and here's why.

But unless a computer is found that gives insight as to what actually occurred we'll never really know

 

[Ken Kurtis]

I may not "need" you to speak for me Chris, but you did it accurately eloquently and - as importantly - succinctly. ("Succinct" never being one of my strong suits.)


- Ken

 

[Hatul]

Perhaps the boat leaving would have made no difference to saving Laurel, but a good argument can be made that had the boat not left the dive site, at least her body could be located and recovered.

 

[EagleDiver]

Ken and Chris - you are already arguing a liability court case (and we all know what hair-splitting can go into legal discussions), but that's not the point. The point is a boat left a diver behind. The full consequences will be left to courts and lawyers to work out, but none of that will change the fact a boat left a diver behind. The focus should be on why that diver was overlooked and how to prevent a recurrence.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Of course we will never know. If she never reached the surface and thus died on the bottom, then the crew was not responsible. Pretty simple to understand that conclusion (and now, also WHY certain people are promoting that idea).

Even though I would judge this to be the most likely scenario, it does not mean that it happened.

In fact, if she sunk down and died on the bottom, then why wouldn't her body be found soon after? This simple fact tends to refute Ken's conclusion that his client "must" not be culpable for the death.

If she was wearing a thick wetsuit and no BC and she died on the bottom, is it reasonable to assume her body would be heavy at depth and would tend to stay where she died?

However, as described, she may well have come to the surface and drifted away (either alive or dead) and was unseen by the crew. What supports this conclusion?:

• Her body was never found on the bottom
• The crew never looked for her on the surface after she was first overdue and could have been on the surface alive.
• If the crew did not look for her after she was due on the surface, we have little reason to think they would look for her before she was due on the surface.
• It is my understanding that there is no evidence that she had any pre-existing medical problems and was also a good diver.
• The crew exhibited multiple "failures". Failures to check divers in, failure to do an effective roll call, failure to perform a surface search when she was overdue, failure to activate an emergency call in a timely manner.

for all we know she was behind the island and ascended early because her regulator started leaking and she was floating off a good distance from the dive site, with no BC, weighted down with lobsters and her head barely out of the water.. waiting for pick up when a fishing boat ran her over.

As I mentioned much earlier in this thread, I was involved with a diver fatality that also occurred when a roll call failure was made. I have many reasons to doubt the missed roll call was associated with the fatality in the situation I was involved in, but in this situation.. there is no way I could be confident in that conclusion.

 

[BMC-9]

As a diver not familiar with either the area or the parties involved:

Duty of Care – yes violated by leaving the dive site without all divers aboard.

Time frame and calculation of air in tank – diver should have been up before boat left.

Dive Plan – as solo diver – It seems from Ken’s statement that the diver planned on going to about 80 feet, doing stretches and then hunting for lobster. Did boat have a designated lookout for their divers just in case? Counting heads as they came in? Especially for those solo divers?

Obstructed view of dive site – could diver have had an event that brought her up on the other side of Ship Rock and not able speak or to signal boat? With large group of divers, could noise from clanking tanks, talking and boat motor have drown out any sound that she might have been trying to make?

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Since we now seem to be entering into presuming-facts-not-in-evidence mode (not unusual in threads with over 100 posts), let me make a couple of things crystal clear about me:

This simple fact tends to refute Ken's conclusion that his client "must" not be culpable for the death.

I don't have a horse in this race. I am not retained by any party for any reason. I do feel an honest discussion of the various scenarios can lead to not only understanding this accident but also may prevent future ones and that's my sole motivation, whether anyone cares to believe that or not. In fact, posting in these threads sometimes makes it LESS likely for me to be retained because the lawyers feel I've revealed my thoughts too much. I think helping the dive community think about and hopefully understand these issues is more important than whether or not I get a retainer check.

In fact, if she sunk down and died on the bottom, then why wouldn't her body be found soon after?

Some of the rescuers have said that the Sargassum is so thick - 5 to 6 feet - that it's possible she still could be hidden from view, despite multiple multiple dives around the rock to locate her. I have't dove it lately so that's second-hand info.

And now for some quick fact-checks:

If she was wearing a thick wetsuit and no BC . . .

I don't think it was established that she was not wearing a BC of any sort. There was a hypothetical "no BC" post made early on that has somehow morphed into "she wasn't wearing a BC." I don't think that's correct.

The crew never looked for her on the surface after she was first overdue . . .

Not true. The DM-on-duty would have been watching the surface pre-roll call and when the boat came back they did a surface search around Ship Rock before deploying divers.

It is my understanding that there is no evidence that she had any pre-existing medical problems . . .

Not true. She had a history of chronic pain. I have been told - but do not know as an absolute fact - that she was also on some sort of disability.

. . . for all we know she was behind the island and ascended early because her regulator started leaking and she was floating off a good distance from the dive site, with no BC, weighted down with lobsters and her head barely out of the water.. waiting for pick up when a fishing boat ran her over.

I'm guessing you're unfamiliar with this specific site - small and a mile offshore - and are now simply making stuff up. Uncool.

- Ken