Unknown Woody From “Dive Talk” DCS and Medical Journey

[SlugLife]

You replicate the dive profile all you want, but the condition of the diver will vary day to day. Two other people were on the same dive all three of them cleared their deco obligations on their DC and only one got bent.

If the condition of the diver is changed, it's not an identical dive.

Are you suggesting clones? Parallel universes? Time loops? That would be a sucky time loop where you just get bent, over and over again.

To clarify exactly what I meant:

You could take the same diver, with the same dive profile, in the same location, same dive-time, same temperature, and all the same conditions you could possibly measure and control, and one day they get bent, the other they do not. There are enough tiny variables that are too difficult to measure and control.

For example, if someone has a food-allergy (or even if they don't), anything they ate in the previous 48 hours may affect their blood-pressure, breathing, heart-rate, or mental-state.

I'm not talking about a mythical universe, where we could replicate 100.000000% of everything. If you could, then theoretically they should either get bent every time, or not every time. Such discussions are rather pointless, because to replicate conditions in that way would be impossible.

 

[CT-Rich]

To clarify exactly what I meant:

You could take the same diver, with the same dive profile, in the same location, same dive-time, same temperature, and all the same conditions you could possibly measure and control, and one day they get bent, the other they do not. There are enough tiny variables that are too difficult to measure and control.

For example, if someone has a food-allergy (or even if they don't), anything they ate in the previous 48 hours may affect their blood-pressure, breathing, heart-rate, or mental-state.

I'm not talking about a mythical universe, where we could replicate 100.000000% of everything. If you could, then theoretically they should either get bent every time, or not every time. Such discussions are rather pointless, because to replicate conditions in that way would be impossible.

Reminds me of Schrödinger’s cat. The diver is bent and unbent until the come out of the water….

 

[Cthippo]

Reminds me of Schrödinger’s cat. The diver is bent and unbent until the come out of the water….

That is actually a really good way of looking at it. There are a multitude of factors that contribute to the probability of DCS, but until you surface you don't really know if your number is up or not. Some of those factlrs you can influence, some you can't, and sometimes it's just not your day.

 

[johndiver999]

Well, not necessarily true. Divers sometimes experience symptoms on the ascent. I 've delayed surfacing when I felt a little weird and I know of others who are 100 % convinced that they felt bubbles forming on ascent and delayed surfacing and walked away with no injury.

On another note, I find it interesting that so many people look at this situation and feel that everyone has to "choose a side". Anyone else who gets bent is viewed as a victim - especially if they followed their computer. Not here though, they want a rectal exam and who knows what else.

Yet we have people saying I never got bent, I follow my own limitations and I never take chances and you shouldn't either. Which I find very hard to reconcile with reality - the guy looks to be in his 60's at least and is doing decompression dive that has 70 min deco (was it?). This activity by its very nature is "pushing the limits" and it is quite possible somebody is going to get a bent a little from time to time, if this is the type of adventure one is going to pursue - not to mention getting stuck and all the rest. It is like comparing picnickers to mountain climbers and demanding they have the same risk tolerance.

Then we have the defenders of DAN, initially saying they doubt the story and DAN is great, but when DAN steps forward and "more or less" completely validates woody's narrative, they still seem to defend DAN and instead focus on the victim's mistakes - doubling down on the attacks.

It's strange that people can't look at both parties in this scenario and objectively understand that neither performed well, yet that does not exonerate the other party from responsibility.

 

[SlugLife]

What we got so far, wasn't a detailed accident breakdown or analysis, which is mostly leaving us guessing so far based on limited details and likely red-herrings. For Woody's best interests, I hope there is something identifiable, even "it turns out we're dummies, and ignored X rule." That's something which can be more easily fixed and addressed than, "turns out I'm getting old and it's a freak accident."

With all scuba, there is a degree of risk-tanking, and some activities pose even more risk such as cave-diving, deco-diving, solo-diving, and so on but many of us do some of those risky activities anyway.

 

[CT-Rich]

What we got so far, wasn't a detailed accident breakdown or analysis, which is mostly leaving us guessing so far based on limited details and likely red-herrings. For Woody's best interests, I hope there is something identifiable, even "it turns out we're dummies, and ignored X rule." That's something which can be more easily fixed and addressed than, "turns out I'm getting old and it's a freak accident."

With all scuba, there is a degree of risk-tanking, and some activities pose even more risk such as cave-diving, deco-diving, solo-diving, and so on but many of us do some of those risky activities anyway.

But life seldom gives satisfying answers. “ I’m getting old and it was a freak accident” may turn out to be the only answer we get. I wonder if His. Gear was broken down before they took him off island. Is there a way to tell if there was any channeling forming in the sorb that may have allowed for some build up of CO2 in the loop.

The underlying cause or causes may never be known.

 

[Wallowa]

But life seldom gives satisfying answers. “ I’m getting old and it was a freak accident” may turn out to be the only answer we get. I wonder if His. Gear was broken down before they took him off island. Is there a way to tell if there was any channeling forming in the sorb that may have allowed for some build up of CO2 in the loop.

The underlying cause or causes may never be known.

Skipping the uncertainty of the cause of the hit [tons of unknown variables] I am still concerned [even after 19 pages of this thread] if D.A.N. will provide quick and effectual transportation and treatment for injured divers that have their insurance. Delayed treatment/transportation that is avoidable is one matter but if this occurs due to administrative red tape or business policies that endanger the diver needing treatment that shouts BS and fraud. Either you can trust D.A.N. to have your back or you can't. I have been a member for decades but now doubt the ethicality and effectiveness of the D.A.N. organization. If all these years the safety net that D.A.N. supposedly provided me and my divers was a facade and merely Dumbo's feather; then shame on them and us for trusting without verification.

Hopefully my condemnation of D.A.N. is in error; but "if there is doubt, there is no doubt".

Phil

 

[KevinNM]

The DAN statement was an admission that things went wrong and how they intend to fix it so it won’t happen again.

 

[Cthippo]

Talk is cheap, only time will tell if they follow through. I very much hope they do follow through and fix the issues.

 

[Nitrogenius]

Just watched the video when I stumbled over this thread and while I haven't digested the whole thread here yet I wanted to repost my comment to the youtube video as it might have some takeaways that help this discussion here as well, while probably a lot of those points I made might have already been adressed..

I responded to a guy that had these take aways:

"My takeaways:
1) Relieved and glad that Woody is going to be OK.
2) Undeserved hits happen.
3) It’s who you know.
4) The meeting w/CEO of DAN needs to be transparent. I mean LIVE streamed.
5) My trust in D.A.N is broken now.
6) Gus and Brian ROCK !"

here my response:

well my takeaways would quite differ:
1) agreed
2) if the hit was undeserved or not is where it starts questionable along with Gus and Woody not acknowledging how they participated in the evolvment of events.arguments why the hit might have in fact not been so undeserved:
A) potential lack of proper hydration: 90% of DCS cases especially in warmer areas of the world like the carribean are attributed to Dehydration, this is your first line of defense ESPECIALLY in REMOTE areas with DIFFICULT access to a chamber!
B) using air as diluent on a dive with the necessity to navigate a major restriction (where it is known to them that it also is difficult to navigate and folks having been stuck before)
C) taking no extra precautions after developing that headnache underwater (potentially worsening the situation)
D) "working" during final ascent (taking the staged Oxygen) despite having had early symptoms
Point A being the most severe potential contribution here, what is tobe learned and recognised (but already widely established in advanced diving education and best practises) is that merely choosing conservative decompression values is not enough to protect from decompression and a hit that happens in hot areas due to lack of hydration is anything else than an undeserved hit!
3) hmm.. not sure what you are getting with that point, but I would use this point to stress proper trip preparation: It is clear from the description that the both did not do ANY preparation into how to handle a potential decomprerssion emergency. Best practises diving in remote location is at MINIMUM before doing any diving having established the emergency chain rather than relying on a thrid party provider to get active when the emergency already happened! So before you would go in the water having followed somewhat resonable practises (not even best practises) you would know where the next chamner is, what hours they serve and how to get there! Best practises would involve to already have checked how such transport is dealt with financially, have any necessary paperwork READY, ideally have the parties involved already informed. At least clarified with DAN (if you already rely on them) what the procedures are in a potential emergency and likely at the level of the operation the tow have (with their film folks etc.) to maybe even have looked into any in water recopmression options given the long and difficult access to the next chamber!
4) yes agreed!
5) They certainly screwed up, however it is YOUR OWN life, so always be concious on what you actually have insured and what not and be proactive especially when diving remote locations! So yes absolutely ROAST DAN as they screwed up badly and if it came to a fatality this might have even been judged as manslaughter rather than wrongful death due to the knowledge of the severity of the condition
6) Nope, I disagree here particulairly due to the lack to adress and get into their own responsibilities in the series of these events.
7) additional notes:
- Why to adress an obvious DCSII that late and try to adress it with such little measures as only giving oxygen, particularily when they had the navy chmaber guy with them ?
-Already adressed the lack of preparation for such emergency in general: So folks if you do rec dives at remote locations one should already make oneself aware of chamber conditions etc. But for sure once you engange in advance diving, this is a MUST. It totally blasts my mind how one can conduct such dives and not having a well baked plan for a dive emergency especiually given the history of the two and the accidents and near misses they already have participated in.
- what ties into the lack of preparation is the whole credit card story. When I travel to way less exotic location I am 100% aware and have double checked, that my cards are activated for the foreign use. With the remote location and thus a lot of things why the card might have to adress urgent stuff I might even have informed the card agencies of my stay to prevent issues. And for SURE I KNOW my limits on my cards and what I can use them for. It seems completely intransparant what the limits of the cards were that have not been used and as well it is completely intrsnaparent what the actual limit on the so well praise Amex Platinum was. The cards that did not work might have as well simply maxed out, so the expecation is if they did not give you enough credit limit when you were in good shape that then they waive their limits, because you call them and tell them it is an emergency? If they would operate that way, how would that affect credit card fraud? And then to the Amex.. Cool that it worked, however this is an AMEX Platinum! That is a high end, huge fee card, that apart from a lot of insurance perks and concierge services (that is part of the fee you actually hgave paid for) comes usually with a pretty high credit limit. Also means that if you are not creditworthy enough for that line of credit you are not getting it, but when you are getting it, it A is likely that those spending that needed to be done were within the credit limit (so what is there to thank AMEX for - other than influencer advertising intentions maybe?) or if over the limit they know that they have a client that is genereally good for a high credit so much likely to default than ANY credit card customer as you would likely percieved with a standard day to day low limit credit card as the others in question might have been (in fact the red one shown almost looked like a BOA DEBIT card but that might be wrong), lastly thewhole topic might even be covered by one of the travel insurances that is tied to the card as well as secondary coverage, which they might have been aware when "approving" those payments, so not really sure how much of a great savior Amex was here as it might all have been very well within their ordinary business tied to this high tier credit card. Again all this tying into the topic of lack of preparation for such a trip.
So given that while i apprecite the general transparency of the two in a lot of cases it seems that practises that are surel ways from best prctises in the industry are being "normalised" and at that level of diving they do in the meanwhile nothing than following best practises should be normal. They absolutely lack a reflection on their own mistakes that very well could have prevented the incident from happening in the first place but at minimum have streamlined the process and resulted in a much faster treatment and therefore less dangerous situation overall.I surely hope such reflection takes place eventually as otherwise if the two continue to conduct such advanced dives in such "casual" manner, this will not be the last accident and the next one might have more severe consequnences.
So please, please Woodie and Gus try to really learn from this lesson.. The answer is not necesarily to take it more slow, but to generally better prepare and plan trips and individual dives and their logistics.