Yukon tangent thread

[ScubaSteve]

The point that I am trying to make is that one, they first couldn't figure out he was overdue. Meaning that someone can't squeeze 2 hours out of an AL8- at 100 feet. The other point is that they left. Meaning they could have afforded his the respect of an immediate retrieval from the bottom, attempted resuscitation sooner than 1.5 hours after death and notified the USCG in a timely manner, instead of diving another dive site and completely forgetting about him.

That's all. Whether or not he had a chance at resuscitation, whether or not you blame him entirely for his own death doesn't make a difference. He should have been afforded the opportunity and the respect of an attempt. But that would have been done by one of the other dive boats arriving at the Yukon, not the Humboldt.

The point that you continuously ignoring is that by the time his bubbles stopped, and someone suited up to retrieve him, the net result would almost certainly be the same.

I have not seen anybody say the Boat acted well or proper. You just refuse to let it go. They left....they screwed up. That did not kill this man - unless you can give a scenario where someone can die in 100' of water, stop breathing, someone notice, suit up, jump in, find the body, surface with it. get it to the boat and then revive them. You've been asked and refused to offer this. Let's try again. Can you offer this with times?

 

[Adobo]

Yes I was a county PSD Diver and could run you through the steps. But it's not even worth the time it takes to type and try and explain it to you. Because I can already see your response to that. He was brain dead anyway, right?

The sense I get from your replies is that if the dive boat had somehow detected earlier that the diver was in distress that somehow they could have done something to save him. If that is the point you are making, then please, help me learn something and put some details around how the process would play out.

The point that I am trying to make is that one, they first couldn't figure out he was overdue. Meaning that someone can't squeeze 2 hours out of an AL8- at 100 feet. The other point is that they left. Meaning they could have afforded his the respect of an immediate retrieval from the bottom, attempted resuscitation sooner than 1.5 hours after death and notified the USCG in a timely manner, instead of diving another dive site and completely forgetting about him.

That's all. Whether or not he had a chance at resuscitation, whether or not you blame him entirely for his own death doesn't make a difference. He should have been afforded the opportunity and the respect of an attempt. But that would have been done by one of the other dive boats arriving at the Yukon, not the Humboldt.

While that is sad and disturbing, I am more sad and disturbed at the fact that the diver found himself in a situation where he is out of gas at 100ft with no dive buddy.

 

[divemaster dave]

Can you offer this with times?

Refer to my previous post where I noticed my "friend" not "dive buddy" since we were both solo was overdue and I brought him another tank. This kept him from having an incident like this. No need to get into a recovery. I noticed that he was probably going to run out of gas he had 35 minutes of obligation and about 10 minutes of air left. At worst if I didn't jump in he could have had a chamber ride, probably not death. But it still saved him from a bit of trouble.

The area that they found him was at the signaling mast. If that was the last place they had seen his bubbles that's where I would start looking. Time to get a tank on, since if I was diving already had my drysuit on. Get to the bottom of 100'. To the signaling mast. Let's day 3 minutes. Now insert your snappy comment here.

The point that you continuously ignoring is that by the time his bubbles stopped, and someone suited up to retrieve him, the net result would almost certainly be the same.

Please provide the evidence that you have that he did not make it to the surface, struggle, or have a heart attack at the surface. Find no dive boat there to assist. And sink to the bottom. Since you obviously have inside info. Seems like most people concluded that he ran out of air on the bottom or had a heart attack right where he was found. I would like to know how this is seen as fact now. When no body really knows.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

Is there a lot to see above 30 feet on that dive?

@lamont: How many times have you done this dive?

At the Yukon dive site, I have seen various species of jellyfish in-between safety stop depth and about 60 fsw. I really like looking at the little copepods, salps, and shrimp-like critters in the water column. Others dismiss them as "sea snot." I feel comfortable characterizing my dive profiles at the site as "multilevel" rather than "square." I suppose that my definition of "multilevel" might be slightly different from yours. Most of the time our dive team will dip down near the sand (approx. 95 fsw) and work our way up the ship (approx. 60-65 fsw). Since the wreck lies on its port side, we generally work our way up the deck. Others may plan their dives at the site differently.

I share all of this to make others aware that assuming a square profile for a person diving the Yukon might not be very accurate. As I've said before, it will be interesting to learn more details about the victim's dive profile (if he was wearing a computer).

 

[divemaster dave]

@lamont: How many times have you done this dive?

At the Yukon dive site, I have seen various species of jellyfish in-between safety stop depth and about 60 fsw.

Great point. You are very correct. This year we have had a large amount of jellies in the area and photographers love to use them as subjects especially during their safety stops and ascent. Some divers have dedicated their entire dives to following them. Some of the pics that I have seen are unbelievable. The jellies can be found at all depths and even at the surface of course.

If you dive the wreck it's not square either there is 40 feet of profile to dive, from the at 65-70' deck to the structure in the sand 100-105'.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Refer to my previous post where I noticed my "friend" not "dive buddy" since we were both solo was overdue and I brought him another tank. This kept him from having an incident like this. No need to get into a recovery. I noticed that he was probably going to run out of gas he had 35 minutes of obligation and about 10 minutes of air left. At worst if I didn't jump in he could have had a chamber ride, probably not death. But it still saved him from a bit of trouble.

This has zero to do with anything here.

The area that they found him was at the signaling mast. If that was the last place they had seen his bubbles that's where I would start looking. Time to get a tank on, since if I was diving already had my drysuit on. Get to the bottom of 100'. To the signaling mast. Let's day 3 minutes. Now insert your snappy comment here.

My snappy comments often follow 37 pages of BS being spewed.....at least that was the case here. So, from the time that you see his last bubble, establish that he is in trouble, suit up (complete with fresh tank), jump in descend, find him, and surface all in three minutes. Just so I am understanding your post. I personally say that it would never go down that quickly but that is just my opinion.

Please provide the evidence that you have that he did not make it to the surface, struggle, or have a heart attack at the surface. Find no dive boat there to assist. And sink to the bottom. Since you obviously have inside info. Seems like most people concluded that he ran out of air on the bottom or had a heart attack right where he was found. I would like to know how this is seen as fact now. When no body really knows.

I have asked myself this as well. Nobody has proof of this......this is what forces people to speculate. You are laying blame for this man's demise on the Operator because they took off. Many other's obviously see this as an unrealistic conclusion.

 

[lamont]

Unless he spent the bulk of the dive above 30 feet, there's very little chance that he had more than 60 minutes of gas in his Al80. We know he was puttering around at 100+ in the sand for awhile, so that makes hour-long dives on an Al80 very unlikely. I'll bet money that the dive boat was still at the dive site when he was draining his tanks.

Assuming he wasn't doing a free ascent at hovering at 15 feet while he drained his tanks down for 45 minutes, he would have also been spotted by someone on the line as the rest of the divers were ascending.

Really, there's no way to twist and turn the facts into a situation where missing the head count could have changed the outcome, without coming up with some ridiculous speculation. The root cause is simply that he ran out of gas.

 

[Adobo]

Unless he spent the bulk of the dive above 30 feet, there's very little chance that he had more than 60 minutes of gas in his Al80. We know he was puttering around at 100+ in the sand for awhile, so that makes hour-long dives on an Al80 very unlikely. I'll bet money that the dive boat was still at the dive site when he was draining his tanks.

Assuming he wasn't doing a free ascent at hovering at 15 feet while he drained his tanks down for 45 minutes, he would have also been spotted by someone on the line as the rest of the divers were ascending.

Really, there's no way to twist and turn the facts into a situation where missing the head count could have changed the outcome, without coming up with some ridiculous speculation. The root cause is simply that he ran out of gas.

Well, in defense of DM Dave, if it were me lying at the bottom of the ocean, dead or not, I hope the boat doesn't leave without at least noticing that I'm not on the boat.

But I guess that is a whole other thing.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

In my previous post I acknowledged that nitrogen narcosis occurs at 100 feet and shallower. Testing under controlled circumstances or with experienced divers can show this clearly. An AOW class on their first deep dive in the open ocean is not, however, a sufficiently controlled setting. The mild narcosis most people experience at 100 feet is easily masked by stress, cold, water movement, familiarity, or other factors. I have tried a variety of different tests (puzzles, math problems, word puzzles, mental games, etc.) but none of them has demonstrated a repeatable outcome that was clearly attributable to narcosis. I was pleased when that particular waste of time was removed from my agency's AOW standards.

@Scot M: I see that you are a PADI instructor. I'm not sure how you were testing for narcosis previously.

Most of the local dive instructors I know ask the AOW students to perform a task on the surface and then have them do the same task underwater at 90-100 fsw. The problem with doing this is that the student is expecting it (mentally preparing for it/focusing on it)...and it doesn't control for learning.
I'd recommend having the student look at a number or series of numbers, do a novel math problem, work a word puzzle, and then recall the number/series of numbers. Compare this later on to the student's performance of similar tasks topside. One effect that many observe with narcosis is that it tends to narrow one's focus. Tasks take longer to perform and take a performance hit in accuracy. Task-loading is a fairly reliable way to reveal cognitive deficits due to narcosis. Try it if your agency's teaching standards allow for it. You'll be surprised by the results.

 

[ScubaSteve]

I do not think anybody has claimed the boat did not F up. Most people are not accepting the jump from "F up" to "the reason he is not here today"

Well, in defense of DM Dave, if it were me lying at the bottom of the ocean, dead or not, I hope the boat doesn't leave without at least noticing that I'm not on the boat.

But I guess that is a whole other thing.