Spiegel Incident

[Atom]

I have also seen operations take people out to these locations that were not diving on computers. They were diving by watch. I think a lot of the time the operation is responsible to say no to a customer if they are not equipped properly for the dive or lack the experience required.

I don't know... diving with a watch + table usually requires more awareness to depth/time on the part of the diver so I would expect a diver still using a watch/table to do ok. Of course there's always the possibility of complete incompetence on the part of the diver, but a diver properly using a watch/table should be even safer than one using a computer since he probably won't be riding the NDL like some people do on their computers.

 

[Atom]

When I dove the SG with one dive op in Key Largo I was surprised that the gave me an Aluminum 80cuft not pumped up to the max pressure I did a quick calculation and realised I had about 74 cuft. In my opinion to give some one anything less than a min 100 cuft to dive a wreck at this depth is dangerous and incompetent. This is one of many low air incidents they have had on the SG, next time I go it will go with a dive op that have a much better selection in including pony bottles and doubles.

I'm not sure it's such a bad idea, less air to bend yourself with ; ) The dive op I was with gave a pretty good briefing that included good info on planning the dive and tips on planning a route on the SG, and the important "don't try to see the whole ship in one dive" tip.

If you're low on air it's not because the tank is too small, it's because you didn't monitor your gas. Now you might feel the dives are too short with 80s and that might be true for people using nitrox.

 

[Blue Sparkle]

Valhalla, I believe they were on their own boat.

TSandM, would you mind explaining how you were trained to hold the valve? I haven't quite been able to find a "comfortable" position to settle into with that, and I have accidentally hit the wrong one a couple of times (I was able to quickly switch back, and the situation was not as critical).

(I hope this question is not too much of a diversion, but if it is please let me know and I will start a new thread.)

Carrying new big heavy steel tanks.. wonder if they were wearing lead for aluminum tanks, that could certainly explain the runaway from 30 feet.

dumpsterDiver,

I'm really new at this, so I'm following along and learning things (and as a result, likely to make mistakes in my thought process). But if, just hypothetically, they were weighting for aluminum 80 tanks that they had previously owned, wouldn't that have been more weight than for the new steel tanks? (Because the aluminum tanks become buoyant near the end of the dive)

So wouldn't that have made a runaway ascent less likely, because they would have been overweighted? Or are you thinking that if they were overweighted, then that would have meant more need for inflation of BC, and so that's why it might have contributed?

Somehow this incident is one that I'm really taking to heart. For one thing, it has lessons that are really applicable to me (not that all of them don't, of course) as I learn to make a dive plan, make good ascents, etc. Also, I was diving in KL on that day, and had been considering a first deep dive on the SG (it would have been with instruction though as I'm not that experienced).

B.

 

[Scott L]

So apparently my initial speculation was probably correct. If they had simply been carrying pony bottles, they would probably have been fine. Carrying new big heavy steel tanks.. wonder if they were wearing lead for aluminum tanks, that could certainly explain the runaway from 30 feet.

Also if they were spearfishing, especially at 130 feet, depending on a buddy to help you when you are concentrating on killing a fish is not my idea of a good plan. You just absolutely have to have your own redundancy or be willing to accept the risk of death or paralysis if you choose to dive without a plan B. So sad.

That is all very sound advise IMO. Although many tec divers would argue I like the benefit of an air-integrated computer with a remaining bottom time function while hunting. It has probaly saved me a few times while in the throes of battle with bugs and fish...

 

[boulderjohn]

I have to say that with several hundred dives in Puget Sound, in dry gloves with thick liners, this has never happened to me. Maybe it has to do with how I have learned to hold the inflator. .

TSandM, would you mind explaining how you were trained to hold the valve? I haven't quite been able to find a "comfortable" position to settle into with that, and I have accidentally hit the wrong one a couple of times (I was able to quickly switch back, and the situation was not as critical).

It could be the design of your inflator. There was a thread in another discussion board (The Deco Stop) about this problem with the one I own, and the OP ended up getting afree replacement from the manufacturer (who was participating) with a different design. I believe the original design has been changed in the ones now sold for that reason. The inflate button was pretty much flush with the hose, and it was easy for the fingers to slip over it. Most inflator buttons protrdue out quite a bit so that it takes more of a conscious effort to hit it.

 

[ianr33]

So wouldn't that have made a runaway ascent less likely, because they would have been overweighted? Or are you thinking that if they were overweighted, then that would have meant more need for inflation of BC, and so that's why it might have contributed?

B.

If a diver is overweighted then they will have more air in their BC. That extra amount of air will expand more as the diver ascends,possibly causing a runaway ascent.

A perfectly weighted diver in a thin wetsuit will have very little air in their BC at the end of a dive. Maybe their bouyancy increases by one pound between 60 feet and 30 feet. Not much air to dump on ascent. If they are grossly overweighted though the buoyancy change between 60 feet and 30 feet might be,lets say,10 pounds. Thats a lot of air to dump. If it doesn't get dumped fast enough then you can get a runaway ascent.

 

[Blue Sparkle]

If a diver is overweighted then they will have more air in their BC. That extra amount of air will expand more as the diver ascends,possibly causing a runaway ascent.

Thanks - that makes perfect sense now.

Vahalla, I'm not sure how they are related, but someone with the same last name (user ID) as Matthew has posted a number of facts here. He/she seems reliable in stating what he/she does know for a fact or is not sure about in a very non-defensive way (considering how easy it would be to get defensive or upset in this situation). It seems as if this person is a close relative.

B.

 

[Ayisha]

I think you said that none of them were diving computers, so you're talking about their depth gauges then. You can set those to record the max depth of a dive, or forget to do so and leave the previous max on there, I think; I haven't had one in years since I switched to computers, but I think so. Perhaps Andrew had an old reading of 150 he left on his?

That is also what I was thinking when it was stated that they were not using computers, so presumably they were using analog gauges. I think you might be right that Andrew quite likely did not reset the max depth back to "0" before beginning that dive. I know I certainly forgot to reset the max depth back to "0" more than once back when I had analog gauges, and didn't realize until later.

Carrying new big heavy steel tanks.. wonder if they were wearing lead for aluminum tanks, that could certainly explain the runaway from 30 feet.

Wearing new big heavy steel tanks while possibly being weighted for avg AL tanks would certainly explain a runaway ascent that would be very sudden and challenging to control in the shallows.

I think you guys may be onto something...

 

[Web Monkey]

Nothing is going to change the fact that this happened. But, especially given that divers on the SG don't appear to have much choice about what they can use for a starting gas volume,

The dive was dangerous from the beginning. It was "Defective by design" to use one of my favorite software terms. Unless the published depth was completely incorrect, an 80 simply isn't enough gas to do the dive safely and maintain a reserve to handle a buddy's OOA emergency or any amount of deco. Any gas failure or diver error on this dive is almost guaranteed to result in injury or death to one or more people.

The divers most certainly have a choice. They can choose to bring their own tanks or not do the dive or do shallower sections of the SG.

education MAY help people make a better decision about what DIVE they do using that gas. Although an uncontrolled ascent clearly appears to have been the proximate cause of this injury, it was initiated by a diver who was anxious about being low on gas; had he planned carefully, that anxiety might never have occurred, and the ascent might have remained under control.

Education would help, although it's unlikely that most A/OW divers will ever get the education required to look at a dive, know their SAC rate, their buddy's SAC rate, do the calculations and arrive at a decision about whether or not that particular dive is safe.

Although minimal gas calculations are covered in a few different places in various OW/AOW SCUBA classes, divers typically aren't made aware that it's possible to incur a deco obligation that they don't have the gas to cover, and that their buddy probably doesn't have enough gas to help them at that point.

Terry

 

[boulderjohn]

The dive was dangerous from the beginning. It was "Defective by design" to use one of my favorite software terms. Unless the published depth was completely incorrect, an 80 simply isn't enough gas to do the dive safely and maintain a reserve to handle a buddy's OOA emergency or any amount of deco.

They weren't diving 80s.