Scott L
Contributor
A serious LOA situation would dictate an immediate verticle ascent with no time to swim to mooring line...
Spiegel Incident
- Thread starter schu1842
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
A serious LOA situation would dictate an immediate verticle ascent with no time to swim to mooring line...
DavidInNH
Contributor
Scott L
Contributor
I was diving on the SG on this past Saturday with the beautiful weather, flat seas but poor visibility. There are 4-5 mooring lines I believe but if an emergency ascent is in order one must motor up...
skdevlieger
Registered
Blue Sparkle:
Probably because although they followed similar profiles Matthew got hit very,very,hard but Andrew did not.
PFO is always a strong possibility when someone is badly bent for no obvious reason.
__________________
from skdevlieger....
I am trying to learn from this as well. Can you tell me what PFO is?
Last edited by a moderator:
I
idocsteve
Guest
Yes but you are approaching this situation differently than Matt and his buddies (from what I understand).
You are doing "predive planning", and taking into consideration such relevant factors as tank capacity, depth of the site, and Air Consumption.
It appears Matt and company strapped on their gear and said "Let's do this!".
In which case it was a nonplanned recreational dive which in all likelihood exceeded No Decompression Limits and was exacerbated by an out of control ascent, poor gas monitoring, and poor buddy skills.
From reading the victims Blog pages, my guess is the only predive planning they did was to say a group prayer before hopping off the boat.
Paddler3d has had some interesting experiences. I don't know any instructors personally who do not teach this.
OK, let's try to get back on track.
Much earlier, before we got the very helpful specific information that helped clear up a lot of the confusion, I said that the news item that said that what should have been a 20 minute ascent was only 5 minutes was problematic. It made no sense whatsoever given what we knew.
Then we learned that they were really not diving the Spiegel Grove but were only in its vicinity, and that they were diving 119s instead of 80s. We learned that they really were at 135 feet, which made so sense when we thought they were diving the Spiegel Grove. We learned that the 20 minutes concept came from the newspapers, not the divers.
Lamont made some helpful posts about possible decompression obligations, and suddenly the 20 minutes quote becomes interesting. Maybe this was a rare example of accurate reporting, rather than inaccurate reporting. (Although in very poor journalistic form.)
What if the reporter knew their bottom time and depth and consulted with an expert to find out what the ascent time should have been?
If so, then the 20 minutes might have been accurate, although good journalistic practice would have required the reporter to identify the source of that information. (Good journalistic practice requires it in any event--if a reporter had sent the article to me as it was written, I would have circled it and written "according to whom?"" in the margin.)
And so,there really is no point in going forward with this until we know the answers to a couple of questions that have been asked several times.
Much earlier, before we got the very helpful specific information that helped clear up a lot of the confusion, I said that the news item that said that what should have been a 20 minute ascent was only 5 minutes was problematic. It made no sense whatsoever given what we knew.
Then we learned that they were really not diving the Spiegel Grove but were only in its vicinity, and that they were diving 119s instead of 80s. We learned that they really were at 135 feet, which made so sense when we thought they were diving the Spiegel Grove. We learned that the 20 minutes concept came from the newspapers, not the divers.
Lamont made some helpful posts about possible decompression obligations, and suddenly the 20 minutes quote becomes interesting. Maybe this was a rare example of accurate reporting, rather than inaccurate reporting. (Although in very poor journalistic form.)
What if the reporter knew their bottom time and depth and consulted with an expert to find out what the ascent time should have been?
If so, then the 20 minutes might have been accurate, although good journalistic practice would have required the reporter to identify the source of that information. (Good journalistic practice requires it in any event--if a reporter had sent the article to me as it was written, I would have circled it and written "according to whom?"" in the margin.)
And so,there really is no point in going forward with this until we know the answers to a couple of questions that have been asked several times.
- What plans, of any, did they have for decompression?
- What was their total bottom time?
David_57
Contributor
IMHO what happened in this accident could of happened to many occasional rec divers, mistakes were made and I am sure all of us on this board have made them. The difference with this accident is the the injured diver was not lucky and ended with terrible injuries. All we can do is learn from this accident by discussion on this thread and hope we never find our selves in the position this diver and his family are in. Hopefully time, family support and his determination will help them get through all this and the outcome will be positive.
Could you tell us where you got this information?
Here is what we got from skdevlieger:
With any ascent, fast or slow, his tank would not have gained air.
- Status
Similar threads
