Wes Skiles Noted photographer's death will remain a mystery, medical examiner says

[Cave Diver]

Back in those days were were diving 1.6 working, 1.8 resting, and sometimes going to oxygen at the thirty foot stop. Going to oxygen deeper was never an "approved" approach, it was one of those things that was done either to break another "rule" (e.g., time to fly) or because you were feeling tired, which everyone recognized to be, but no one actually admitted publicly, was sub-clinical DCS.

I know that Wes was an "old school" diver, meaning he'd been around and doing this stuff for a while. I wonder if he had adopted some of the newer, more conservative PO2's like 1.0-1.2 working and 1.4-1.6 deco? Or was he more of the "We've been doing it this way for a long time, so it's all good?"

Note - I'm not trying to imply anything bad about Wes, but this discussion has taken an interesting turn that's worth exploring a bit so I'm just wondering out loud.

 

[Rick Murchison]

...two hours of surface breathing O2 would take your from Group N to Group A. How much of a jump do you think it was to figure out that at 20 feet it was even better...

That's a very big jump indeed, since the N₂ gradient when breathing 100% oxygen is the same regardless of depth. (the reasoning behind just adding the 10 and 20 foot stop trimes together and doing them at 20' on oxygen) Indeed, as overall perfusion to remote tissues is usually better out of the water and warmer, offgassing should be better out of the water.
The benefit of depth isn't in nitrogen offgassing, but in bubble formation prevention during deco, or in bubble crushing to minimize damage when treating DCS. So, if you're on a deco schedule and on the way up on 100% oxygen, doing your 10 foot stop at 20' is a reasonable thing to do if you're not violating OTU limits as the extra depth retards bubble formation/growth, but after a dive with a completed deco schedule, absent any DCS by jumping back in the water rather than just breathig oxygen on the surface just adds oxygen exposure risk with no offgassing benefit.
--
Another misconception that seems to be running through this thread is "dying from (acute or CNS) hyperoxia." One doesn't die from CNS oxtox, they die from drowning during a convulsive "hit."
Rick

 

[lamont]

Another misconception that seems to be running through this thread is "dying from (acute or CNS) hyperoxia." One doesn't die from CNS oxtox, they die from drowning during a convulsive "hit."

I know on my part that isn't a misconception, it may just be sloppy English. Writing that every time gets tedious while I assume that most experienced divers understand that its not the oxtox that kills you but spitting your reg out during the convulsions/unconsciousness that does... The hyperoxia, however, is the disabling event in the accident chain, though, which leads to the fatality (and by "disabling event" I'm trying to use that term in the same technical sense as the DAN analysis of CCR fatalities), while the drowning that comes later is not so useful to discuss -- although I've drawn up my CCR wishlist (if I ever decide to pull the trigger and go over to the really dark side) and a FFM+BOV are on that list in order to try to prevent the inevitability of dying after taking a convulsive hit.

 

[IJS]

Noted photographer's death will remain a mystery, medical examiner says

Very sad. I enjoyed his work.

 

[lamont]

BTW,

Has anyone heard of any results of the analysis of the unit that Wes was diving?

I know that typically analysis of the unit is inconclusive, but while the medical report has been released now, there's been nothing much said about the unit. It might just be a negative statement that the unit was working and in good repair -- no issues like rob davies or richard mork incidents -- but that would be useful to eliminate that as a cause for concern.

 

[Cave Diver]

BTW,

Has anyone heard of any results of the analysis of the unit that Wes was diving?

I know that typically analysis of the unit is inconclusive, but while the medical report has been released now, there's been nothing much said about the unit. It might just be a negative statement that the unit was working and in good repair -- no issues like rob davies or richard mork incidents -- but that would be useful to eliminate that as a cause for concern.

I seem to recall seeing it posted in another thread (board?) that the unit was in working order. I'll see if I can find that statement.

 

[Cave Diver]

I seem to recall seeing it posted in another thread (board?) that the unit was in working order. I'll see if I can find that statement.

Ooops, my bad... :blush:

The statement I was thinking of was actually preliminary inspection

An prelimiary inspection of the equipment suggested no reason for the accident.

I can't find anything about a final inspection, but all the initial references say that medical issues were suspect. Since it seems that's been ruled out that buts a lot more emphasis on the equipment inspection. I wonder if the scrubber was tested for breakthrough?

I know one person reported recovering the camera he was using. Is there any chance it was recording during the incident? I'm guessing it's not likely that a professional would have left a camera rolling, but you never know...

 

[dumpsterDiver]

I know one person reported recovering the camera he was using. Is there any chance it was recording during the incident? I'm guessing it's not likely that a professional would have left a camera rolling, but you never know...

I found the camera. It was turned over to the police immediately upon coming in the inlet and reaching calm water. We did not "fiddle with" the camera in any manner and the thing weighed 60-85 lbs and looked incredibly complex; we were not even tempted to do anything to it.

However, based on my conversation with his dive buddy on that dive, Skiles signaled that he was out of tape and was heading to the boat on the upline. The police were obviously interested in getting a look at the tape, but from what I understood, the camera would not have been recording duing the incident.

It is my understanding that the police kept the camera and housing for months (I assume it has been returned by now, but I don't know). I have no lknowledge of what they found when opeining the housing, but it appeared to be in good condition and not flooded when recovered.

 

[Cave Diver]

I found the camera. It was turned over to the police immediately upon coming in the inlet and reaching calm water. We did not "fiddle with" the camera in any manner and the thing weighed 60-85 lbs and looked incredibly complex; we were not even tempted to do anything to it.

Thanks. I thought it was you, but didnt have a chance to search and be sure.

A couple of questions if you will:

Did you find the camera the same day, or was it a different day?

You say the camera is large - did you find it difficult to swim with, to the point that it could cause exertion?

Pure Speculation - I'm interested in an angle that if he were to have been in the middle of a cool sequence that he was in a hurry to get reloaded and back in the water and caused a breakthrough on the scrubber from CO2 from exertion. That might explain what happened, and why he would break off to make a solo ascent.

 

[lamont]

Pure Speculation - I'm interested in an angle that if he were to have been in the middle of a cool sequence that he was in a hurry to get reloaded and back in the water and caused a breakthrough on the scrubber from CO2 from exertion. That might explain what happened, and why he would break off to make a solo ascent.

Regardless of if it was specifically a factor in the accident, I think the drive "to get the shot" is obviously a risk factor in this kind of diving. Particularly with the desire to deliver and the publicity from the NatGeo exposure, it'd be awfully easy to get a bit of tunnel vision, and focus on the filming and forget that you're doing something inherently dangerous...