TSandM: Missing Diver in Clallam County, WA

[Kevrumbo]

FOR ALL THE SPECULATORS:

Here's a novel concept: Instead of pulling wild theories out of your butts and then vigorously defending these not-supported-by-any-known-facts statements, especially in light of the fact that Lynne's husband has stated that at least one of these has upset him greatly and he's trying to be respectful of the others, maybe everyone take a step back, share stories of Lynne, grieve publicly or privately, offer support to Peter, understand that sometimes "we don't know" is the best we're going to be able to do, and stop trying to be the Sherlock Holmes of dive accident investigation shouting "Eurkea!!!" (And yes, I know that was Socrates but I'm mixing metaphors to make a point.)

- Ken

Occam's Razor, Ken: the purpose here is to offer some common physical factors (i.g. Exertion w/ CO2 Retention; diver history of Vertigo; sudden changes in depth/pressure affecting buoyancy & perhaps ear equalization as well) that when combined with challenging open ocean conditions (i.e. Current at depth & downcurrents) --they can overwhelm even the most skilled, best prepared, trained & experienced of Advanced Recreational Divers of which Lynne Flaherty most certainly was one. . .

Rule Out: Incapacitation, black-out and loss of consciousness due to Alternobaric Vertigo combined with exertion CO2 toxicity/Hypercapnia --which could explain why Lynne did not signal distress with her Primary Light, as well as try to locate & stay with her dive buddy (Peter) at depth, and finally not being able to surface following standard Lost Buddy protocol. . .

 

[gcbryan]

Shutting down this sub-forum would be the last result that Lynne would favor I'm sure. Ken has started a similar thread just below so I can't see how he would be in favor of that idea.

The whole horizontal vs vertical thing is a non-issue, as mentioned, it only takes a second to make that adjustment.

I do agree with others that possibile scenarios shouldn't be wildly improbable or disrespecting the victim with their improbability.

 

[EFX]

You are barking up the wrong tree... Read the first hand account of the dive... she was vertical not horizontal.
Secondly, changing trim takes about a second, not long enough to be that big of an issue...
Got to love the internet[emoji2]

I'm not barking up any trees. I read the account. Peter Guy states when he LAST saw her she was vertical. Before she went vertical she presumably got caught in a down current. That is the segment of the dive I'm addressing. And I am assuming she was horizontal just prior to being swept down by the current.

Yeah, changing trim takes just a couple of seconds. But changing trim and kicking against a very strong current in hopes of arresting a fast descent takes considerably longer. I never said anything in my post that Lynne wasn't in proper trim or trying to get to vertical trim before arriving at 130 ft. The current simply overwhelmed her despite being very skilled, using proper judgement, and executing the proper countermeasures.

Yeah, ya gotta love the internet especially when posters can't read the posts.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Shutting down this sub-forum would be the last result that Lynne would favor I'm sure. Ken has started a similar thread just below so I can't see how he would be in favor of that idea.

Just to be clear, I am NOT advocating shutting this forum (or even just this thread) down. And I agree with gypsyjim that this forum attracts its fair share of , , and s. All I'm suggesting is thinking about what you're posting before you hit SEND. If you're shedding new light, asking a new question, speculation or otherwise, and giving people something to think about, fine. If you're posting to essentially defend something you previously claimed and the essence of your post is "I was right" perhaps think twice about saying that and letting sleeping dogs lie.

- Ken

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

I have to say, Lynne was probably (or was) the most loved person on Scubaboard of all time, even by people who never met her.
This is the worst thing I've ever been faced with personally on any message board and I'm sure many others here to, so of course it's going to be a very emotional time for all of us. I think of it every day since it happened and I never even met her. That's how extraordinary she was.
Speculating about what happened is natural because we all want answers.
But for respect to Peter and all that personally knew her, just please keep it in the back of your heads that she was Lynne, not some anonymous diver somewhere.
In other words, no pissing matches please. She wouldn't have wanted that and would have been the first to jump in and calm things down.

 

[redacted]

I have never used a dry suit. If a diver is vertical and venting a dry suit, I assume through a raised arm, and a severe medical event (like a heart attack) occurs, does the venting action stop or continue?

 

[AfterDark]

I have never used a dry suit. If a diver is vertical and venting a dry suit, I assume through a raised arm, and a severe medical event (like a heart attack) occurs, does the venting action stop or continue?

If the arm stays up yes, until the pressure in the suit equals the ambient then it will stop.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

Occam's Razor, Ken: the purpose here is to offer some common physical factors (i.g. Exertion w/ CO2 Retention; diver history of Vertigo; sudden changes in depth/pressure affecting buoyancy & perhaps ear equalization as well) that when combined with challenging open ocean conditions (i.e. Current at depth & downcurrents) --they can overwhelm even the most skilled, best prepared, trained & experienced of Advanced Recreational Divers of which Lynne Flaherty most certainly was one. . .

Rule Out: Incapacitation, black-out and loss of consciousness due to Alternobaric Vertigo combined with exertion CO2 toxicity/Hypercapnia --which could explain why Lynne did not signal distress with her Primary Light, as well as try to locate & stay with her dive buddy (Peter) at depth, and finally not being able to surface following standard Lost Buddy protocol. . .

Kevrumbo,

Those physical factors may or may not have been part of this accident scenario; we simply do not know. Without recovering Lynne, and her instrumentation, there really is no way of telling. We don't know how fast/slow the descent was, or the ascent either. Nor do we know what happened to loose visual contact.

Concerning Occam's Razor, usually fatalities are not simplistic. I have done a number of fatality investigations in my time as a safety and health professional, and have used a Systems Safety technique called a Fault Tree Analysis (fault in the system, not personal fault-finding). In this technique, we have a top event, such as the actual resulting fatality. Then we look at all the potential factors that could have caused this accident (not talking specifics here). From there, we go down the list to see whether these were "and" factors or "or" factors (must happen in conjunction with another factor, or could cause the accident by itself). We take each of these and analyze it to see what corrective actions we can devise, find root causes, and look at process changes. It is a comprehensive process, but until there are good facts for the accident, we cannot go further. We "issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner and only when founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter." We don't have that knowledge in this specific case with Lynne.

Now, I have a question for you who dive nitrox. Have you ever had an oxygen tolerance test? When I went through the U.S. Navy School for Underwater Swimmers in 1967, we were put into a chamber, taken to 3 atmospheres absolute (66 feet sea water), and made to breath oxygen for a period of time (I cannot remember whether it was 5 or 10 minutes). We had several people convulse or go unconscious. These people were excluded from the school, as they could not handle oxygen at higher levels. So is this a prerequisite to using nitrox now?

Undersea Biomed Res. 1986 Mar;13(1):91-8.Screening for oxygen intolerance in U.S. Navy divers.

Butler FK Jr, Knafelc ME.
Abstract

All U.S. Navy diving candidates are screened for their tolerance to hyperbaric oxygen by taking an oxygen tolerance test (OTT). During a recent experimental oxygen dive series at the U.S. Navy Experimental Diving Unit, three divers were noted to be reproducibly oxygen sensitive. These three divers were then given additional OTTs to see if any evidence of central nervous system oxygen toxicity would be detected by these multiple tests. The additional OTTs did not produce any signs or symptoms of oxygen toxicity in these already proven susceptible divers. A subsequent review of the records of the Naval Safety Center yielded a total of 1347 OTTs from 1 January 1972 to 31 December 1981. A review of diving accidents reported during this period revealed that 26 episodes of oxygen toxicity were noted during OTTs for a derived failure rate of 1.9%. Analysis of oxygen toxicity episodes encountered during operational Navy diving for this period found that 9 episodes of nonconvulsive oxygen toxicity were seen in mixed gas diving and 3 episodes of nonconvulsive oxygen toxicity were noted in closed circuit oxygen diving. Conclusions from this paper are: Screening for oxygen intolerance is complicated by intraindividual variation in oxygen tolerance; U.S. Navy diving using 100% oxygen during the period studied has had an acceptable safety record according to the data on record at the Naval Safety Center; the OTT as currently administered by the U.S. Navy does not identify all individuals who are relatively susceptible to oxygen toxicity; those individuals who do fail the OTT are unusually susceptible to oxygen toxicity; and because of the need to continue to identify these unusually susceptible individuals, the OTT should continue to be administered to U.S. Navy diver candidates.


PMID: 3705251 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Screening for oxygen intolerance in U.S. Navy divers. - PubMed - NCBI

SeaRat
John C. Ratliff, CSP, CIH, MSPH
NAUI #2710 (retired)

 

[EFX]

All I'm suggesting is thinking about what you're posting before you hit SEND. If you're shedding new light, asking a new question, speculation or otherwise, and giving people something to think about, fine. If you're posting to essentially defend something you previously claimed and the essence of your post is "I was right" perhaps think twice about saying that and letting sleeping dogs lie.
- Ken

I hope you weren't thinking of me. Clearly, there's a difference between a "right-fighter" and someone who is simply trying to explain a POV in the face of misunderstandings and outright accusations of imagination and attributing improper motives. I feel I'm in the latter category. I think I've given a reasonable explanation of what happened (yes, it's speculation despite my tone. Geesh, it can't be anything but...I wasn't there). I fully agree with you that we ask questions. Plenty of posters did this prior to my responses. And yes, why isn't anyone asking me questions regarding my response??? I'm done defending (if that's what you and other posters think) and I will only respond to questions regarding my original post.

Peter Guy, I'm sorry if my posts have offended you. That was not my intent. I too, although a newcomer to SB, appreciated Lynne's posts for their balanced views. She articulated often difficult topics in a manner consistent with her skill and training. I especially enjoyed her medical perspective and gentle criticism.

 

[BRT]

Kevrumbo,

Those physical factors may or may not have been part of this accident scenario; we simply do not know. Without recovering Lynne, and her instrumentation, there really is no way of telling. We don't know how fast/slow the descent was, or the ascent either. Nor do we know what happened to loose visual contact.

Now, I have a question for you who dive nitrox. Have you ever had an oxygen tolerance test? When I went through the U.S. Navy School for Underwater Swimmers in 1967, we were put into a chamber, taken to 3 atmospheres absolute (66 feet sea water), and made to breath oxygen for a period of time (I cannot remember whether it was 5 or 10 minutes). We had several people convulse or go unconscious. These people were excluded from the school, as they could not handle oxygen at higher levels. So is this a prerequisite to using nitrox now?

SeaRat

Nobody is diving oxygen at 3 atmospheres. Probably everybody would convulse eventually at 3 atmospheres. Very few convulse at 1.6 atmospheres even in long term exposure. I'm not sure the test would be relevant. Kind of like seeing who threw up after drinking 3 quarts of water and then not allowing them to drink 1 quart. The dose makes the poison.