Two fatalities in Monterey

[Blue Sparkle]

@Blue Sparkle: Why should they have no air in their BCDs? This implies that they had simultaneous BCD failures...or that they purposefully dumped all of the air in their BCDs prior to trying to ascend. Is this the way OW divers are taught to ascend?

Well, I admit it might be a stretch and was just one possible scenario. And I don't have cold water experience to go on. For my usual warmer water dives I probably would not have any air in my BC after about the first 1/4 or so of my tank was used up. So by the time I would be low on air (or, heaven forbid, OOA), I would not have anything in my BC. I realize it is probably different for cold water, which is one reason I'm asking tentatively.

I can't speak for how all OW divers are taught. I was taught to slowly/continuously let air out of my BC as I ascended because it expands (thus causing one to ascend too quickly). In practical use, because of where I dive, I don't usually have any air in my BC by that point in the dive, so to ascend I take a deeper breath and float slowly up (still breathing of course), or, if I need to give some oomph I swim up a bit (there are exceptions such as a thumbed dive early on with a fullish tank, where I might have air in my BC as I begin my ascent).

Would it be unreasonable to think that they were at depth with enough air in their BCDs to compensate for wetsuit compression? (In other words, that they were neutrally buoyant at depth at the time of the incident.

No, not at all. And I'm thinking it's likely they did have air in their BCs, since they presumably had lots of exposure protection on.

Unless.... say they were trying to share air or get started sharing air, and they were having problems keeping close enough together in the surge, maybe one of them was inhaling sharply because of being stressed and so started rising too quickly and they had relatively short hoses so they were getting separated while trying to share air, and so then they dumped air from their BC(s) to try to get under control and get to the same depth...

Maybe that brought them closer to the bottom and then it seemed easiest to get squared away on the bottom if they were close to it anyway after dumping air to get back together.... Clearly, I have no way of knowing. And I'm not trying to argue ridiculous scenarios that are so pie-in-the-sky that they are annoying. I'm also not trying to advocate or defend any position on weights (I have my opinions, but I'm not trying to be defensive, is what I mean). I'm just working through what I've been reading here.

As for your scenarios, I think they could spark some very useful discussion. Perhaps you could start a thread in the New Diver forum on it.

I will consider that, thank you.

Blue Sparkle

 

[Ken Kurtis]

I think what has bugged me with some of this dicussion is the train of thought that seems to be saying "this should never happen so you should never need to do it". Yet two young men ARE dead and ditching weights MIGHT have made a difference. Impossible to know either way for sure.

There are also very real concerns raised about the aftermath of a weight ditch that include embolism and other outcomes (rapid ascent) that some feel could lead to embolsim. (I am surprised that no one has seemed to think you could actually survive a weightless ascent to the surface, from almost any depth, without incident. Yet it's also been posted that you can do a CESA without any problem.)

But there's a middle ground to all of this as well and I'm sure some people have never been exposed to it and others may have forgotten about it. And I just recalled it now, as I was about to turn the computer off and go to bed.

So indulge me in one last pontification (for today).

When I first became a NAUI instructor in 1980, what we were teaching was not so much a total dumping of the weight belt (and yes, as a last-ditch choice - but also one that had to be chosen fairly quickly). What we were teaching was that you took the belt off (and this will work with pocketed integrated weights as well) and HELD THE WEIGHT BELT IN YOUR HAND AS YOU ASCENDED. If you made it to the surface, you could either put the belt back on, or still ditch it from the surface. And if you passed out on the way up, your hand would go limp, the weights would drop, and your buoyancy would eventually carry you to the surface.

I think this method answers a lot of the concerns and objections that have been raised. It allows you to do a weighted controlled emergency ascent to the surface if you can. It also effectively ditches the weights if you can't. It possibly slows down the ascent and might lessen the concern of embolism since you probably (please note all the qualifiers) made it off the bottom and part way up and so you'll be ditching your weights at a shallower depth than at the bottom.

It may be an "old" technique, but I think it's worthy of some thought.

Pontification over, time for sleepification.

- Ken

 

[Adobo]

Good point Ms Marple

Here is how this could work. When I was the vic on the last unconcious diver rescue I intentionally relaxed my jaw and went totally limp, to make it a little more realistic for my buddy . First, the reg would not fall out easily. After it finally fell out it free flowed until stopped.

CO poisioning is like hypoxia; you slowly drift away while breathing.

Again, bad gas is pure speculation at this point but fortunately easily confirmed or dismissed.

Unfortunately, the public version of the coroner's finding will be death by drowning - duh. Other results, like sign of stuggle, blood anaysis, gas analysis, etc. will probably never make it 'to the surface' due to legal CYA.

Im a strong opponent of more government but boy am I happy that we have the NTSB in aviation. Those reports teach you more than all the books covering the happy path.

So you are speculating that 2 divers got bad gas but not the other 17? And then, they both lost consciousness during the dive at which point both of them had regs free flow to the point that their tanks were emptied?

 

[Jim Ernst]

And his "worst peice of advice I have ever seen in this forum" remark is so beneficial to discussions here - fine.

I am well aware that all too many victims drown with weights still on - often having never drilled on ditching since OW class, and sure if you need to drop them to get up in the first place - do it as it beats the alternative of not getting up, but if big shot rudeness helps gets the message across - fine. My statements about normally, generally was right one, but whatever. Get some more people to click his Like.

Ok, we weren't. I can see it as a more viable option in cold water with buoyant suits, less appealing in tropical waters - but if that's what y'all teach for everyone everywhere everytime, ok fine. Then, weights first if separate but I suppose that's given.

Yes Don, I am sorry buddy, I forgot to add that, In the cold water with 7 mil makes a bit of diff....And I should have added A few other things I did not add to the scenario...

 

[Jim Ernst]

PADI rescue class?

But what if that gear (e.g., inflated BCD) is what's keeping the troubled diver on the surface of the water?
There was a Point Loma incident (October 2009) in which the acting DM was trying to rescue a panicked diver at the surface who had become entangled in the kelp. The DM freed the diver from his BCD prior to ditching the diver's weightbelt. The incident did not have a good outcome.

I could understand teaching that a rescuer should strongly consider ditching some or all of the victim's gear if it aids with the rescue. It's one of several options. And, if gear ditching occurs, it should be conducted in a sensible order.

In this Monterey incident, I could certainly see rescuers coming to the conclusion that ditching the victims' gear would expedite recovery to the surface where attempts at resuscitation could commence.

I see your point, But Yes, During PADI Rescue Class we are to teach while doing rescue breaths we are also removing the gear at the surface, But the weight belt is one of the first things to go, Again At the surface!!!

 

[ItsBruce]

I think what has bugged me with some of this dicussion is the train of thought that seems to be saying "this should never happen so you should never need to do it". Yet two young men ARE dead and ditching weights MIGHT have made a difference. Impossible to know either way for sure.

There are also very real concerns raised about the aftermath of a weight ditch that include embolism and other outcomes (rapid ascent) that some feel could lead to embolsim. (I am surprised that no one has seemed to think you could actually survive a weightless ascent to the surface, from almost any depth, without incident. Yet it's also been posted that you can do a CESA without any problem.)

But there's a middle ground to all of this as well and I'm sure some people have never been exposed to it and others may have forgotten about it. And I just recalled it now, as I was about to turn the computer off and go to bed.

So indulge me in one last pontification (for today).

When I first became a NAUI instructor in 1980, what we were teaching was not so much a total dumping of the weight belt (and yes, as a last-ditch choice - but also one that had to be chosen fairly quickly). What we were teaching was that you took the belt off (and this will work with pocketed integrated weights as well) and HELD THE WEIGHT BELT IN YOUR HAND AS YOU ASCENDED. If you made it to the surface, you could either put the belt back on, or still ditch it from the surface. And if you passed out on the way up, your hand would go limp, the weights would drop, and your buoyancy would eventually carry you to the surface.

I think this method answers a lot of the concerns and objections that have been raised. It allows you to do a weighted controlled emergency ascent to the surface if you can. It also effectively ditches the weights if you can't. It possibly slows down the ascent and might lessen the concern of embolism since you probably (please note all the qualifiers) made it off the bottom and part way up and so you'll be ditching your weights at a shallower depth than at the bottom.

It may be an "old" technique, but I think it's worthy of some thought.

Pontification over, time for sleepification.

- Ken

1. I was going to read the whole thread before posting and noting that I was trained to remove and hold my weight belt.

2. I am not as good a diver as many here. However, i am pretty good with accident management. One key is to have pre-planned responses for unexpected events. You should not have to sift through a lot of options or take more than a moment or two to decide which one to use. (As Don noted elsewhere, when something goes wrong underwater, you have the entire rest of your life to solve it...however long or short that may be.) Removing and holding your weights fills the requirement very nicely.

3. Re dumping gear. In rescue, I was taught that in towing an unconscious diver, to dump gear. But consider: Where is your noise making device? If you need to drag the diver onto the beach, into the car and to a hospital, where is your car key? The usual answer to the first is “on the BC inflator hose.” The answer to the second is “in the BC pocket.” As a result, I carry a whistle and car key on a necklace inside my wetsuit.

 

[vshearer]

Look.

You do not EVER have to do this.

.

Wrong.

 

[SeaHorse81]

What we were teaching was that you took the belt off (and this will work with pocketed integrated weights as well) and HELD THE WEIGHT BELT IN YOUR HAND AS YOU ASCENDED. If you made it to the surface, you could either put the belt back on, or still ditch it from the surface. And if you passed out on the way up, your hand would go limp, the weights would drop, and your buoyancy would eventually carry you to the surface.

This is probably the most valuable piece of this thread so far, for me, and makes such sense after the detailed discussions of why you should and why you should not ditch weights immediately. It allows you to make the necessarily fast decision while providing the option to change tactics should that be called for, and seems to radically improve your odds of getting to the surface while at least potentially mitigating the necessity of a too-speedy ascent.

I agree with the thinking that I'd rather be at the surface with an embolism than dead on the bottom in otherwise perfect health.

 

[mdb]

When I was first trained in San Diego by the old style NASDS instructors we were taught to drop the weight and do a "blow and go" free ascent in any emergency.

We were often in kelp forests and were also taught how to navigate when you hit the surface in heavy kelp.

I have had the experience of a panicked "buddy" looking for donor air in relatively shallow water-60-80 fsw-he kept my regulator, I made a controlled ascent to the surface, flaring and exhaling, as taught.

I side with SeaHorse81.

"I agree with the thinking that I'd rather be at the surface with an embolism than dead on the bottom in otherwise perfect health."

 

[Adobo]

When I was first trained in San Diego by the old style NASDS instructors we were taught to drop the weight and do a "blow and go" free ascent in any emergency.

We were often in kelp forests and were also taught how to navigate when you hit the surface in heavy kelp.

I have had the experience of a panicked "buddy" looking for donor air in relatively shallow water-60-80 fsw-he kept my regulator, I made a controlled ascent to the surface, flaring and exhaling, as taught.

I side with SeaHorse81.

"I agree with the thinking that I'd rather be at the surface with an embolism than dead on the bottom in otherwise perfect health."

So your suggestion is that an out of gas diver head for the surface which is 60-80ft away even when his buddy is ~10ft away?

You guys are proposing actions that become complex when a diver is stressed. Personally, I would rather focus proactive measures to such as properly planning a dive such that, short of a regulator failure, you don't have to choose between a CESA from 60-80ft or going to your buddy for a gas donation.