Whatever happened with "Drifting Dan?"

[Scott L]

Not irrelevant in the least. If the dive op that charters the boat provides their own DMs to cover the dive safety related functions, then I fail to see how the captain takes responsibility for a diver missed by the chartering entity's mistake. Ultimately the captain has accountability for the safety of the divers with respect to the boat's operation, and would have responsibility for the DM's conduct IF the DM were a member of the captain's crew. In this situation this apparently was NOT the case. If the DM failed to do an accurate account and did not notify the captain about the missing diver, the captain should have no direct responsibility for that aspect of the operation. The DM and the chartering entity should assume that responsibility.

Rainer and Valhalla, I think you are both off base in this case. Under a situation where the DM was part of the crew, I'd agree with you. However, that was not the case here. The chartering entity provided the DM and should be responsible. The DM was responsible for notifying the captain of any missing divers and failed to do so. It is my opinion that a DM who cannot accurately account for what was apparently a total of seven divers was not doing his or her job. I have worked on boats where the DMs were able to effectively deal with far more divers (over four times that number) because they required a visual check (and actually took the time to learn the faces and even the names of the divers on board).

Of course this is simply my opinion and I am not a lawyer... but that's why I see things clearly, rather than trying to obfuscate the issues. I have no personal ties with this and do not even remember what dive entity and DM was involved so I am not biased by knowledge of them.

I am not an attorney either but I am a career insurance broker and see the workings of tort law daily. You may be correct that the primary responsibility was held by the DM. It is my suspicion that the DM did not have coverage in place or did not have sufficent limits sought by the plantiff.

I have actually asked several local charter boat operataors/owners the past few months if they would have performed a roll call under such circumstances by whatever means and they emphatically answered yes with one describing a near disaster relying on only a voice responce. Someone misunderrstood and answered twice leaving a diver hopelessly afloat for over an hour. Visual confirmation is his practice from this point foward. By the way, I always enjoy your posts....

 

[merxlin]

Sorry, that doesn't cut it. The captain should know how many people boarded his boat at the dock and how many people are on board before he decides to head to a different site. Only he drove the boat away leaving a diver behind. His boat, he's in charge, his responsibility to ensure no one is left.

The "ultimate responsibility" has already been debated ad naseum in the previous threads on the incident. I have a hard time blaming the captain when the dive shop personnel who were responsible for the check in and check out have accounted for all of their divers. Others obviously feel differently, as I would had a roll call not been done.

On the plus side, since that occurred I know that some changes in how roll calls are done were made by almost all the boats here in So Cal. I personally started diving just after this happened and have never seen the chartering shop do a roll call on any boat, all (verbal plus visual) have been done by boat employees and yes sometimes even by the captain.

 

[Rainer]

That, I think we can all agree upon. Good to see some positives come out of this story.

On the plus side, since that occurred I know that some changes in how roll calls are done were made by almost all the boats here in So Cal. I personally started diving just after this happened and have never seen the chartering shop do a roll call on any boat, all have been done by boat employees and yes sometimes even by the captain.

 

[fnfalman]

The diver may have executed a bad dive, but his being left behind was uncalled for. I don't know who's responsible for what, but it was wrong for him to not being accounted for and left behind.

 

[Scott L]

The diver may have executed a bad dive, but his being left behind was uncalled for. I don't know who's responsible for what, but it was wrong for him to not being accounted for and left behind.

I agree.

 

[scjoe]

Although I think Dr. Bill is correct, it is not always readily apparent that the dive operation is being run by the shop that chartered the boat, not the boat.

I can understand how a quite, unassuming diver who gets on board without a buddy might get lost in a large, crowded boat, but how could they not notice that one of 7 was missing off of a boat the size of the Sunvdiver? Regardless of who he was or was not a buddy of, six people plus a dive master couldn’t see that the one “odd man out” wasn’t around anymore?

 

[merxlin]

............I can understand how a quite, unassuming diver who gets on board without a buddy might get lost in a large, crowded boat, but how could they not notice that one of 7 was missing off of a boat the size of the Sunvdiver? Regardless of who he was or was not a buddy of, six people plus a dive master couldn’t see that the one “odd man out” wasn’t around anymore?

.................. It is my opinion that a DM who cannot accurately account for what was apparently a total of seven divers was not doing his or her job. I have worked on boats where the DMs were able to effectively deal with far more divers (over four times that number) because they required a visual check (and actually took the time to learn the faces and even the names of the divers on board)............................

Just to clarify- All accounts I've read show the diver's on board count at 20-21. Does someone have other information that states 7?

Update- I just read one of the "news" reports from the current trial and it quotes the Divemaster responsible for the roll call as saying "Last week, divemaster Zacarias Araneta said that somebody answered for Carlock when he took roll, but he didn't know which of the seven divers onboard it was."

 

[Scott L]

Update- I just read one of the "news" reports from the current trial and it quotes the Divemaster responsible for the roll call as saying "Last week, divemaster Zacarias Araneta said that somebody answered for Carlock when he took roll, but he didn't know which of the seven divers onboard it was."

If he did not figure out that handy explanation himself the defense's legal team certainly would have.

 

[merxlin]

If he did not figure out that handy explanation himself the defense's legal team certainly would have.

That is consistent with the original story from the day of the event.

 

[Scott L]

That is consistent with the original story from the day of the event.

Fair enough...