Sea World Orlando divers resign

[BuoyantC]

No one mentioned that if the air was turned off, there would be no bubbles after the first couple breaths. If this were the case, then perhaps the diver would have been visible on the bottom due to a lack of bubbles.

Unfortunately in this scenario, both people on the surface would have made errors by not checking the divers air valve, and not noticing a lack of bubbles. Both are simple mistakes that could happen to anyone anytime. It's amazing how lax we all get when diving becomes routine and comfortable.

 

[BladesRobinson]

It really does sound that SW screwed up scheduling the cleaning for before sunlight as a solitary dive with a spotter would be difficult to watch safely as the tank was cleaned, perhaps with clouds of dolphin dung? Other possible screw-ups would be complications of that poor scheduling, I think, and they were mean to force resignations.

I draw a different conclusion...

I think the people who resigned screwed up.

Why was Preito's distress not noticed prior to her going unconscious and sinking to the bottom? If those who were responsible for her safety could not see her because it was too dark, they should have grabbed a flashlight!

I'm not really buying into the "too dark theory" and I really believe that the individuals responsible for Preito's safety goofed up.

I don't like to speculate or make "guesses" without FACTS ... BUT ... it might not be unreasonable to guess that Preito's tank valve was in the "off" position based on what the newspaper reported. IF we make that ASSUMPTION, then who was the person responsible for checking her gear pack before she enteresd the water? Did Preito turn her air "on" and the person who checked her out turn it "off" because they weren't paying attention? Did they forget to turn her air on before she entered the water? Did they check to see if her LP inflator hose was properly attached to her BC? Did they check her air pressure before she entered the water? Did they check to make certain that the weight system was properly donned so it could be doffed easily if the diver went into distress? Did they put a burst of air in her BC before she entered the water so she wouldn't sink to the bottom accidently? Did they monitor her comfort level when she entered the water?

The fact is, WE REALLY DON'T KNOW.

None of the forum readers were involved in the investigation and we are only reading "third hand" information from a newspaper. That is NOT a reliable source!

My guess is the folks at Sea World did a thorough investigation and found fault with those resposible for Preito's safety. There is no way in heck I am going to second guess this decision without FACTS but I am certain the Risk Management Team at Sea World has more information to base their decision than we (the forum readers) do.

I will trust their judgement since they know more about this incident than the Orlando Sentinel reporters.

I am still of the opinion though that Yohn (the rescuer) rose to the occassion and did a great job making the rescue and Preito is fortunate to have survived this close call. I believe all involved learned a great deal and they are more likely to pay attention to detail in the future.

 

[Laustimus]

Hard to know what to think. The details are too vague, in my opinion. Still no idea why the victum was at the bottom of the tank.

I thought it was just me... what was she doing down there

 

[DeepDiver36]

I do not think this forum was ever intended nor does it act as a means to lay blame to any parties involved in an accident.

While the actual real facts are rarely, if ever, brought to light, we are left to use some common sense to guess as to what may have happened and how to prevent it from happening again. One could conclude, SW actions to move the dives to after sunrise may have been a results of their thorough investigation. If one accident or near accident is avoided as a result of this forum, then I think it has served its' purpose.

Reviewing and speculating on these accidents, especially when those involved are members of the board can make for a sensitive forum. Personally, I always take anything I read online with a grain of salt but try to leave with a little more common sense then I came with so I may be a better, more educated diver.

Although this is not the post to discuss this, their are posts on scuabboard related to accident rates of US divers compared to past years. It has not been tracked over the years, but that post reports that DAN has compiled the best numbers to date and they show we have as many accidents today as we did in the mid 70's. With more divers then ever in the water we may contribute a better safety record to better equipment and training and the ability to share our experiences amongst the masses allowing us to learn from others.

 

[pipedope]

This is just my own comments.
I don't have a copy of the diving procedures manual they use or know their system.
That said the story indicates to me a dangerous mix of sport and commercial procedures.

For a tender to be much good they need to be in contact with the diver. At the least a line for line signals. Each diver in the water needs a tender on the surface.
A good tender can tell a lot by the feel of the diver on the line. Even better is a com box but that would be way overkill on these tank dives. The sound of the diver breathing tells you a lot about what is going on.

In the absence of line tending you need a buddy in the water. The buddy pair must stay together and be able to watch each other even while doing the job at hand.

Personally, I prefer surface supplied gas with line tending and comms if needed. The tender can monitor the diver through the line and also monitor the gas supply and flow.

A spotter is not a tender.

 

[JoeV]

When I first began diving a few years ago, I read all I could about various diving accidents. Since being certified, and then working on various additional certifications, I became more lax in following all my procedures for safety. Not sure why I picked up on this thread, but it certainly reminded me to go back to the basics and follow all the safety procedures I have been taught for good reason. to get into serious trouble at 6-8 feet of water is a reminder to never get too complacent. We will never know what happened, but can only look to ourselves and try not to replicate the mistakes others have made.

 

[DandyDon]

That's so true, Joe. Been there, done that, luckily survived. You have to wonder if these divers took the risks too lightly? SW will probly use this to improve diver safety corporation wide, and that'll be good.

 

[JRScuba]

Andrea Preito has yet to make a comment?


Old rule: put regulator in mouth, breathe for 30 seconds, then enter water breathing same regulator. Another old rule: inflate BC atn surface prior to entering water, make sure BC inflates and holds preasure.

Agree with old rule: The only thing I could add is look at your gauge.
If it goes to ZERO there is something really wrong.

All of the assumptions are taught in O/W. How soon we forget them.

 

[scuba70]

Old rule: put regulator in mouth, breathe for 30 seconds, then enter water breathing same regulator. Another old rule: inflate BC atn surface prior to entering water, make sure BC inflates and holds preasure. [/quote]

How true that is. It's amazing how many incidents you read about that could have turned out differently with a proper pre dive safety check. Don't ever skip that step.

 

[DiverBizz]

Well, I just want SW to post the results of the investigation. Oh, wait, that will never happen. I am glad that the victim survived.