Try Scuba Accident..what happens next?

[Zef]

I don´t understand, why you are so focused on the calculations.
From what i read:
a) we don´t know the starting pressure (so everything is just an assumption)
b) the statement was, that at the time of ascent to discuss the laughing issue they were at 4m depth. I did not find that 4m was the average or max depth for this first part of the dive (please correct if i missed it)
c) we don´t know if the brief surfacing to discuss the laughing issue was counted in the following dive time.
d) when the instructor realized, upon planning to end the dive, that a diver was missing, he returned and started a search. So this time should clearly not be considered as pre-planned, when discussing if the dive was planned proper.

So for me there is way to much assumption in any given scenario.

The notion is that the instructor screwed up by treating his DSD clients like they were OW students or certified divers. Without all the details it is nigh impossible to make accurate conclusions of what exactly happened. But one can draw some conclusions based on the details that the instructor provided.

One dead diver found under water at @6meters. Given the details in the instructors statements it would not be unreasonable to think the diver got separated from the group and ran out of air and drowned. While the starting pressure is unknown one can make some inferences based on the common types of tanks used in that area and common fill pressures, coupled with the fact that most people new to underwater exploration do not have good air consumption rates....add in some anxiety that one can draw from the fact that the instructor had to surface with the student because they were experiencing water in their regulator while they were laughing under water, and it is possible to infer that the deceased diver may have used up the last of her air supply after becoming separated. Again this is just speculation, whether it is what actually happened or not, the bottom line is that the instructor screwed up and lost his client who was found dead shortly after he surfaced with the other clients.

It is also possible that a meteor fell from outer space and hit the diver thus killing her and nobody else noticed it....Occams razor postulates that "when one hears hoof beats, one should look for horses not zebras".

This also supports the narrative introduced by Ian Yarwood that highlights there may be systemic issues on Koh Tao with regards to the general mentality towards safety. Losing a DSD client is, to me at least, definitively a sign of either poor judgment, a poor attitude towards the safety of ones clients, or both. The fact that the DSD client died is tragic and the sad thing is the only reason why this incident has really received any attention is because of the death of the DSD client. Had that not happened this would not be on anyone's radar to discuss....but the discussion should not be on the death, it should be focused on the avoidable events that happened before the death, so that divers can learn from those mistakes, and folks reading through all of this could make an educated choice as to whether or not they want to vacation with that operator/instructor in the future.

-Z

 

[divinh]

Per the statements by the instructor in post 18 and 19 one can infer they absolutely surfaced to discuss laughing through the regulator...go back and read post 18 and the beginning of post 19. The instructor states he spoke to her and then they re-descended:

"where at minute 14 of diving rocio makes me the sign that he wants to go up, we're going up (we were 4 meters deep) and he tells me that I had caught a laugh attack and had the feeling of having water in my mouth, and I say that with the regulator in the mouth can laugh without problems that will not enter water, after this i ask if I wanted to follow , that we were next to the boat, that there was no problem that we had already dived and if I wanted we could cancel diving, which she answers to me that as we will cancel if she was having a great time and I was enjoying it a lot, I answer nahuel if I'm sure, I want to follow.

We go back down, and we continue to dive 18 more minutes,"

Also regarding my statement about her being found with regulator in her mouth, my mistake, I stand corrected, post 19 indeed states she was found without reg in her mouth. Thanks for pointing that out. It changes nothing, except it adds the possibility that she displaced the reg and did not know how to recover it and thus possibly drowned as a result...again preventable if under the proper care and guidance of the instructor.

That's not my reading the of the situation. Rocio could have signed that she wanted to go up and the instructor met her at 4m. She shows that she is laughing and he signs back, something like "okay", shows that he can laugh in the regulator, "okay", "follow?" and she signs back "awesome" ( \m/ ) and they both descend to the other divers. I can imagine the whole exchange happening underwater. The reason I imagine the whole exchange happening underwater is because there are two other divers waiting, one of them a DSD.

The detail, to me, doesn't mean anything either for the situation, as we have no idea how the regulator was displaced from her mouth. However, you emphasized the detail and said you had the read the account very carefully.

 

[divinh]

This also supports the narrative introduced by Ian Yarwood that highlights there may be systemic issues on Koh Tao with regards to the general mentality towards safety. Losing a DSD client is, to me at least, definitively a sign of either poor judgment, a poor attitude towards the safety of ones clients, or both. The fact that the DSD client died is tragic and the sad thing is the only reason why this incident has really received any attention is because of the death of the DSD client. Had that not happened this would not be on anyone's radar to discuss....but the discussion should not be on the death, it should be focused on the avoidable events that happened before the death, so that divers can learn from those mistakes, and folks reading through all of this could make an educated choice as to whether or not they want to vacation with that operator/instructor in the future.

You're ignoring the stats published in the other thread, stats that refute what Yarwood is implying.

Since you're a good reader of Accidents & Incidents, what about the DSD diver that died in Hawaii? Where's the Yarwood alert about Hawaii?

The way to learn from reports in Accidents & Incidents is to have as many facts as possible and not speculate or sensationalize the incidents.

 

[Zef]

You're ignoring the stats published in the other thread, stats that refute what Yarwood is implying.

Since you're a good reader of Accidents & Incidents, what about the DSD diver that died in Hawaii? Where's the Yarwood alert about Hawaii?

The way to learn from reports in Accidents & Incidents is to have as many facts as possible and not speculate or sensationalize the incidents.

Every one of your responses is just an attack on anything that you disagree with. You have offered nothing to move the discussion forward.

-Z

 

[Zef]

That's not my reading the of the situation. Rocio could have signed that she wanted to go up and the instructor met her at 4m. She shows that she is laughing and he signs back, something like "okay", shows that he can laugh in the regulator, "okay", "follow?" and she signs back "awesome" ( \m/ ) and they both descend to the other divers. I can imagine the whole exchange happening underwater. The reason I imagine the whole exchange happening underwater is because there are two other divers waiting, one of them a DSD.

The detail, to me, doesn't mean anything either for the situation, as we have no idea how the regulator was displaced from her mouth. However, you emphasized the detail and said you had the read the account very carefully.

Yes, yes....that must have been what happened because it is the most plausible way for the tragedy to have unfolded. No fault to the instructor, and we all should vacation in Koh Tao.

-Z

 

[oncor23]

You're ignoring the stats published in the other thread, stats that refute what Yarwood is implying.

Since you're a good reader of Accidents & Incidents, what about the DSD diver that died in Hawaii? Where's the Yarwood alert about Hawaii?

The way to learn from reports in Accidents & Incidents is to have as many facts as possible and not speculate or sensationalize the incidents.

Reading the account of the Hawaii DSD fatality...gotta admit that looks pretty bad too. Yarwood could have fun writing that one up. Neither of these fatalities should have happened.

 

[Zef]

Reading the account of the Hawaii DSD fatality...gotta admit that looks pretty bad too. Yarwood could have fun writing that one up. Neither of these fatalities should have happened.

No, no, no....Koh Tao is the garden of eden...must vacation there. No problems there. DIve instructors are great and super responsible. Local government, law enforcement, and media is transparent and forthcoming on all issues, nothing to worry about when visiting.

Anyone that says otherwise is the DEVIL, Bobby Bouché!!!

-Z

 

[Protondecay123]

A DSD diver is not the same as a certified diver. They are not expected to have the knowledge or experience to dive safely on there own with their buddy...otherwise they would be certified. They are not autonomous divers upon entering the water and it is a grave mistake by an ninstructor or dive guide to think otherwise. The guid/instructor are 100% accountable for the safety of their clients in this type of situation. 2nd DSD or not, this instructor was complacent in how he managed his group and lost a diver, quite literally...is he legally accountable? That is up to the legal system in Thailand. Is he morally, ethically, and professionally culpable? in my mind most certainly. Whether the bay is empty or full, the guide/instructor of DSD divers is responsible/accountable for getting his clients back to the surface safely. Any reason for anything shy of that is just a very poor excuse for not being more responsible with untrained/uncertified people in their care

My heart goes out to the family and friends of the woman who died in the incident this discussion thread has been revolving around. I can't begin to imagine their pain and loss.

-Z

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You can talk about agency policies, job retention, and what about..... all you want, but what you are diminishing is one’s responsibility to another human entrusted to their care! The hardest word to say is “No”. At some point you have to realize the dangerous conditions and refuse to enter that environment. Even if money or your job is at stake!

 

[Zef]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[\^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You can talk about agency policies, job retention, and what about..... all you want, but what you are diminishing is one’s responsibility to another human entrusted to their care! The hardest word to say is “No”. At some point you have to realize the dangerous conditions and refuse to enter that environment. Even if money or your job is at stake!

My tendency is to agree with what you wrote but I must point out that it is easy to state that from the position of not being faced with the dilemma. I have lived on an island and have lived in 2nd and 3rd world countries and know that decent jobs tend to be limited and it is really easy to get blacklisted throughout the area for taking a stand against an employer even if it is safety related. When I was attending university I took a stand on an issue with an employer and stated something along the lines of "this job is basically for spending money, it does not put bread on my table" and that was premise I used to quit the job. Now, my job/career certainly does put bread on my table for not just me but my wife and kids. I would be very hesitant to take such a stand again and hope to never again be in the position to need to contemplate a decision to do so. I have no envy for the instructors and divemasters that live and work in tourist centers around the world...I don't think the occupational hazards/risks that they have to put up with on daily basis are fully appreciated by many especially the non-diving public that want to engage in DSD type dives. Of course they have a choice, but for some the result of that choice might be to go hungry or worse.

-Z

 

[Protondecay123]

My tendency is to agree with what you wrote but I must point out that it is easy to state that from the position of not being faced with the dilemma. I have lived on an island and have lived in 2nd and 3rd world countries and know that decent jobs tend to be limited and it is really easy to get blacklisted throughout the area for taking a stand against an employer even if it is safety related. When I was attending university I took a stand on an issue with an employer and stated something along the lines of "this job is basically for spending money, it does not put bread on my table" and that was premise I used to quit the job. Now, my job/career certainly does put bread on my table for not just me but my wife and kids. I would be very hesitant to take such a stand again and hope to never again be in the position to need to contemplate a decision to do so. I have no envy for the instructors and divemasters that live and work in tourist centers around the world...I don't think the occupational hazards/risks that they have to put up with on daily basis are fully appreciated by many especially the non-diving public that want to engage in DSD type dives. Of course they have a choice, but for some the result of that choice might be to go hungry or worse.

-Z

I actually have a job that I frequently face that dilemma. I have numerous times told people who were above me "No" and clearly stand my ground when it was expedient to do otherwise. And it's easy when it's not your sister, cousin, aunt, mother or other familial relation and your welfare is at stake.Yeah, it's cost me at least one job and maybe a second. But when they went ahead and things unraveled, my conscience was clear. But what is unfortunate is that is a human being for which you are responsible that pays the cost for the expediency.