Three dead in Poland last week

[Hiszpan]

I think the plan was too ambitious for the first dive of the trip.
Why not go to 20-30m first, without fixed plan, and test everything, including yourself?
It is the deepest lake in Poland, with steep shores dropping ultimately to a 108m. Whenever I went there diving, if a Friday-after-work to Sunday trip, I have never either started diving straight after arrival on Friday (after all day's work),nor chose to go to the "wooden paddle boats" at 35m on our first dive (diving OC on air). Always felt some respect for that place.

Looking a bit wider I have an impression this fatality is another one of those where everything seems to have been done according to the rules/training/protocols, but fatality still happened nevertheless. Are we missing something?

 

[uwxplorer]

I think the plan was too ambitious for the first dive of the trip.
Why not go to 20-30m first, without fixed plan, and test everything, including yourself?
It is the deepest lake in Poland, with steep shores dropping ultimately to a 108m. Whenever I went there diving, if a Friday-after-work to Sunday trip, I have never either started diving straight after arrival on Friday (after all day's work),nor chose to go to the "wooden paddle boats" at 35m on our first dive (diving OC on air). Always felt some respect for that place.

Looking a bit wider I have an impression this fatality is another one of those where everything seems to have been done according to the rules/training/protocols, but fatality still happened nevertheless. Are we missing something?

Beside the reason that triggered Diver 1 to bailout (and not get any better having done so, the breathing mix being a likely contributing factor), treat any problem as a potentially deadly one, is to me the take-home lesson. I am revisiting dive logs with this in mind. In particular one where one of my two buddies showed me a dead cell warning and decided to go back to the boat, and refused that I accompanied him to it, so I could stick with my other buddy, who was already on the wreck, out of range for signaling. He made it safely back, but I can't imagine what I would feel if he had not. We clearly did not have the proper protocol to handle this dive properly.

 

[stuartv]

I also have acknowledged that the experts have indicated that grabbing hold of the buddy and coming straight up without any visual or physical guideline was impractical/impossible to do safely. I'm surprised by that conclusion, but do not refute it.

I don't think anyone said it was impossible. It's simply that it was SAFER to do it the way it was done.

From everything everyone has posted about the bottom topography, it sounds to me like swimming along the bottom did constitute ascending. It was just ascending at an angle, instead of a free ascent straight up.

If you want to go up and you have a choice between a free ascent or following the bottom up, and following the bottom still gives you a good ascent rate AND gets you out at a more favorable spot, why would you not?

 

[fsardone]

It seems like most of the CCR divers who have commented are in agreement that the diver actually did not have an appropriate mix of gas in his bail out cylinder. A poor choice of BO gas may have contributed narcosis to a situation where he was already in trouble...

I'm still very much a newb on CCR, so take my thoughts with a big, fat grain of salt. But, it seems to me that everything about diving a CCR requires staying just a bit further "ahead" than diving OC does.

[...]

On CCR, you have to stay further ahead. One example (in my mind - not everyone will necessarily agree, I suppose) is maintaining awareness of the gas you are breathing and your physiological response to it. Staying far enough ahead to recognize the signs and symptoms of an impending CO2 hit, or a hypoxic or hyperoxic event. That can mean realizing you're breathing rate is becoming elevated. It can mean realizing that you feel "wrong". It can also mean seeing a high or low ppO2 # on your computer. Or a red flashing light on your HUD. Whatever. And there are many more things to pay attention to than just the specific things I mentioned. I'm just giving an example to try and illustrate my point.

Which is that, in my opinion anyway, there is an extent to which a CCR diver HAS to catch things before they progress to the point of incapacitating the diver. Because, as you have alluded, having a buddy be able to "save" you is a much more tricky proposition than having a buddy that can save a diver on OC. Especially if the CCR diver is diving with a normal DSV and not a BOV (Bail-Out Valve). If the diver has a BOV, then there is some chance that his buddy could "save" him by simply flipping the switch/lever on the BOV to switch the diver from breathing on their loop to directly breathing on OC, breathing their bail out gas. With a DSV, getting an incapacitated diver onto known good breathing gas is probably impossible. You'd have to take the DSV out of their mouth and close it and then put an OC reg in. If they are really incapacitated, that is just not happening.

Are you a flyer?
This is EXACTLY what we say in flying! Being behind the aircraft: react to events, being ahead planning and proactively manage the events. When you fall behind it becomes more and more difficult getting back ahead and avoid missing things. You become more task saturated and, at a point, unable to cope.
This is when you ask for a delay vector (extend a path) to ATC or give tasks to the copilot (if you have the luxury of one).

I think the plan was too ambitious for the first dive of the trip.
Looking a bit wider I have an impression this fatality is another one of those where everything seems to have been done according to the rules/training/protocols, but fatality still happened nevertheless. Are we missing something?

And a loud YES again. We are missing risk management and decision making (Human factors) following rules is worthless if you are not thinking.
I am in the military (still AD) used to fly in combat. In a couple of weeks I will go back to the squadron for my twice a year recurrency training. I will fly get theoretical instructions, sims and emergency sims and the go fly a very simple profile. A flight that I could do in my sleep 20 years ago and now requires me to be "prepared" for it.

So some rules have been modified to require recurrence training in my world. In the diving world ...? Not yet and I do not think we should have those rules but we need to be aware that capabilities are a perishable good and good judgement needs to be cultivated.

A superior (pilot diver) is someone who use his superior judgement to avoid situations that would require his superior skills.

Cheers

Fabio

 

[johndiver999]

I don't think anyone said it was impossible. It's simply that it was SAFER to do it the way it was done......

rjack's earlier comment on this thread:

Controlling 3 sources of buoyancy (wing, drysuit, counterlungs) while also controlling 3 sources of buoyancy in a bailed out buddy is pretty much not going to happen. (even on BO the counterlungs need to be vented).

I paraphrased this comment as impractical/impossible. It seemed that his conclusion/opinion on this matter was generally accepted by the experts on this thread?

 

[stuartv]

rjack's earlier comment on this thread:

Controlling 3 sources of buoyancy (wing, drysuit, counterlungs) while also controlling 3 sources of buoyancy in a bailed out buddy is pretty much not going to happen. (even on BO the counterlungs need to be vented).

I paraphrased this comment as impractical/impossible. It seemed that his conclusion/opinion on this matter was generally accepted by the experts on this thread?

I'll give you that one.

Sometimes (often?) I take things quite literally. So, "pretty much not going to happen" did not equate to "impossible" in my mind. But, your point is fair enough.

 

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

You're putting words in my mouth! I don't recall suggesting in any way "charging" anywhere

You are deflecting on a minor technicality. But OK, here's my response to your "We can fix bent. We can't fix dead" quote again, worded to capture exactly what you were implying:

It is easy to proclaim something catchy like this and sound wise when judging the event in hindsight with the outcome known, but invoking the stated principle is much more fraught when the event is evolving. Put yourself in the shoes of Diver 1. Up until the separation nothing had happened that gave him cause to think that completing a safe decompression up the slope was an unrealistic goal. At that point ascending to or toward the surface sufficiently quickly that one or both divers suffer (probably) serious DCS almost certainly did not look like the best option". It is easy to say that it might have been in hindsight - maybe (and maybe not because both of them might have ended up bent and dead). But at the time I would have been going for a safe outcome for both divers and would have made the same decision.

While we are on it, it is worth noting that we can't always "fix bent"; a fact also relevant to decision making in this setting.

but we all know that any given situation is more easily resolved in shallower water, rather than deeper.

Not if you are struggling to maintain neutral buoyancy in mid water with a virtual ceiling overhead, particularly when the alternative option is ascent up a hard sloping bottom.

And yes, I agree that trying to sort a problem simply at depth is always desirable, but at the point where things start to go sideways, I think heading "upwards" isn't a bad idea.

They were heading upward, back the way they came up the slope.

Simon M

 

[newmanl]

Are we realistic in evaluating our capabilities to handle issues underwater? How wide is our safety margin? Should we increase it after a period of inactivity? Are we accepting eccessive risks? How can we assess our risk?

All great questions. Fabio nailed it - to me this is the very essence of the human factors aspect in recreational diving. The assessment of risk is up to the individual involved. We don't have a governing body to assess the risks for us and don't have to abide by any formal mitigation measures. Every recreational diver - be it rec, tech, wreck, cave or RB, gets to assess the level of risk for themselves, and implement, or not, whatever mitigation measures they see fit. As Fabio asks, "Are we realistic in evaluating our capabilities to handle issues underwater?" I'd suggest we, as a community, are not realistic. If our little dive community here in the PNW is any indication of the greater state, then any instruction (if it actually happens) on thorough dive planning, gear-matching, bubble-checks, modified S-drills and flow-checks are simply going the way of 'hands at 10 and 2' (or is it 9 and 3 now... its been a while!) right after the test is done! I can't breathe underwater, so I treat every dive the same - with a thorough assessment of the risks and detailed mitigation measures developed with my buddy or team.

Lee

 

[eleniel]

'hands at 10 and 2' (or is it 9 and 3 now... its been a while!)

Lee

I think its 4 and 8 as the ideal with 9 and 3 as an option, due to airbag deployment concerns.