Yukon tangent thread

[Blue Sparkle]

Yes that is true. I agree with you on that, Thalassamania.

What I meant was, what if the person had a heart attack and did die, even with a buddy. That can happen, and to me that says that we can't say the "inverse" of what you are saying, which is that a buddy can always make a difference in every fatality.

I don't mean to imply that a buddy is not potentially helpful. But that is not exactly what I was saying. I was addressing the fact that The Engineer stated that it was avoidable, and that the boat (crew) was at fault. I disagree that that is a given, with what we know at this point.

I think that speculating on what might have happened is fine, but at this point "pronouncing" what did happen, as sure fact, and especially implicating a business, is not cool.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

This will be somewhat off-topic but I think it needs to be said. Welcome to the group, but . . .

I have a problem with letting absurd comments go uncorrected...it's a weakness.

If you intend to take people to task for absurd comments, you might want to stop making them yourself. (What's good for the goose, etc., etc.) To whit:

Many certified divers these days literally cannot swim.

Wanna back that up with some hard facts???? "Many"????? Both PADI and NAUI still mandate a 200-yard swim test for the basic class. There are also floating, drownproofing, and other watermanship skills. Yes, some people barely get by. Yes, some people who get certified are not great in the water. But the statement "Many certifiied divers today literally cannot swim" simplies defies credulity.

. . . but it happens every single day, and it is becoming more common.

Again, wanna back up your unsubstantiated opinion with some facts? I've been teaching dving for 30 years. I know most of the shops in Los Angeles (30+) and many of the instructors so I think I've got a good picture of the range of teaching skills in our area. I personally supervise over 500 divers a year on our local charter boats plus I see plenty more when I'm at the Avalon Underwater Park as well as when I travel abroad on the 4-6 foreign trips I lead each year.

Your allegation is not only false, it is NOT happening "every single day" and it is NOT "becoming more common." And if you want to tell us that you know a shop or instructor that's doing exactly what you allege, then I'm going to suggest that you have a moral obligation to turn them in to their certifying agency for standards violations. NO ONE wants bad instructors to continue to teach.

If you want to develop any modicum of credibility here, stick with the facts, not some wild accusations. I note from your profile that you've checked off "100-199 logged dives" as your experience level. While that's nice, I might suggest it hardly gives you the breadth of experience to make the claims you're making.

Photographers are, in fact, notorious for being lax on paying attention to anything not directly involved with their pictures.

I'm going to sound like a broken record but . . . wanna substantiate that with some facts?

As for slamming the dive operation, I'm not. I have actually heard very good things about them in the past. However, this was an avoidable incident. Hopefully they learn from this and make some changes to avoid letting it happen again.

Finally . . . something about the accident that this thread is about.

Whatever happened to DIVER RESPONSIBILITY?

Here are some things to think about:

1. Once any diver leaves a boat, there's nothing that anyone on the surface can do to control that dive/diver.
2. This particular diver apparently chose to dive solo (which I personally don't have a problem with - not for everyone though).
3. This diver knew he was diving on a wreck.
4. This diver chose to take a camera with him.
5. This diver apparently (asusming the OOA info is correct) failed to monitor his air supply.
6. An unconscious diver can survive underwater without air/oxygen for 4-6 minutes before irreversible brain death sets in.
7. Ignoring whether or not the boat left the site, had a roll-call been done right then and there when they thought the last diver was up, and he was discovered missing at that point, and a diver was sent down to look for him, by the time this (A) would have been discovered, (B) a diver dispatched, and (C) victim found and brought to the surface from 100 feet, (D) that 4-6 minute window would have long ago closed.

You're right in stating that this was an avoidable accident. But it was up to the diver, not the boat, to do the avoiding. And the solution (again assuming the OOA story is correct and the only factor) is pretty simple:

WATCH YOUR AIR AT ALL TIMES
& SURFACE WITH AT LEAST 300-500psi.

End of rant (for now).

- Ken

 

[AfterDark]

The boat has every right to deny a diver's request to dive solo, regardless of certification and experience, and many boats strictly enforce the buddy rule. I can't say I've ever been on a boat that doesn't. They are responsible for the safety of their passengers, and if they decide to let someone do something outside of the accepted standards, they can and will be held liable for it. If there aren't criminal charges stemming from this, you can bet there will be substantial civil penalties. You can thank this kind of reckless behavior for the recent increases in liability insurance prices for dive boat operators and the subsequent higher rates that we all pay to use these boats.

How can a activity that has a cert for it be "something outside of the accepted standards" there must be some acceptance for it as a realitively safe and doable activity before there can be a cert for it. I'd say the boat op is responsible for passenger safety not diver safety. If the boat sinks and there are no life jackets then yes he's responsible. If a cab driver delivers someone to a dive site and they drown is the cab driver responsible? The problem with diving is the same with most things, the refusal of people to take responsibilty for themsleves. Makes me sick.

 

[AfterDark]

Hey Ken great minds do think alike! You write it much better than I.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Even a heart attack is not a guaranteed fatality if there is a cognizant and competent buddy.

Nor does it guarantee survivability.

I don't remember the exact stats from the DAN Fatality Workshop I attended back in April but of the 900+ fatalities studied over a 10-year period, my impression is that maybe 10-15% were deliberately solo, another 35-40% were involved in buddy separation (accidentially solo in my book), and the rest (50% or so) had buddies with them.

Too often I see posts that claim "If only he'd had a buddy he'd be alive today" and that simply isn't so. (And just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of making that broad claim.)

"Buddy" does not equal "Survive".

"Solo" does not equal "die".

Solo divers get in trouble and survive, and buddy teams get in trouble and die. And vice versa. There's no hard-and-fast rule, though I'll freely concede that your options to solve a problem are very different with a buddy than without one.

End of this rant . . . for now . . . maybe . . .

- Ken

 

[Scott]

Sounds like the owners of the Humboldt have some serious explaining to do. Allowing a man to dive alone, performing photography on a deep dive, and then following it up with no roll call at the end of the dive...that all goes beyond just an honest mistake and ventures dangerously close to gross negligence. This was a tragedy that could have been prevented simply by enforcing the most basic rules of diving.

Why does the Humbolt need to explain why they let a solo diver take photos on a deep dive?

 

[Thalassamania]

Face it, we'd all like to think that most all scuba accidents are avoidable (except those that aren't) and if there is not buddy we'll never know if this was one of the ones that wasn't. It's kind of a strange problem.

 

[TheEngineer]

How do you know this? Your statement reads as fact.

I mean, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the diver should have been prevented from diving without a buddy - by the dive boat. And that there was another diver on the boat, solo, who buddied up with this diver.

And that they went to depth and the diver had a massive heart attack at 100'

How would that have been avoidable? How would it have been the boat's fault?

Now, we don't know what happened; I am just speculating on one possible scenario. But you make it sound like you know for sure what happened, and that it was avoidable, and that it was the fault of the boat operator. I don't understand that from what we "know" here so far.

If he had a heart attack with a buddy, he at least would have been brought back to the boat in enough time that he *might* have been saved. No guarantees, of course, but laying on the bottom of the ocean is not a cure for heart attacks, last I checked.

However, a witness of this incident already stated that he was brought back with an empty air tank. It defies reason to think he simultaneously ran out of air AND had a heart attack at the same time. If he did, he was one unlucky SOB, no doubt about it. Granted, much can and is being speculated at this time, but we know for sure he was diving alone and that he is dead. The primary reason people don't dive alone is to avoid becoming dead. The decision to let him dive alone on a deep dive was made by the boat and it was within their power to deny him that privilege. That makes it at least partly their fault. There is a reason basic guidelines exist. If they want to operate outside them, that is their choice, but with that choice comes responsibility.

 

[Blue Sparkle]

I disagree with you, The Engineer, but we each have our own opinion and I can agree to disagree.

One thing I thought of though: Isn't it possible for a diver to go OOA as a result of a medical problem (in other words, have a medical problem that occupies one for too long)? If that's the case,we can't be sure that a "careless" OOA was the primary cause of death just because the diver was found OOA, right?

I don't say that it wasn't a "careless" OOA, only that we can't know that for sure at this point in time.

 

[ZenDiver.3D]

All of it is important. I classify watermanship under physical conditioning, but I agree that it is a skill that is not properly evaluated when people are getting certified by most agencies. Many certified divers these days literally cannot swim. They aren't just poor swimmers, they are people who, without fins and a flotation device, would drown if placed in water deeper than they could stand in. It is unfathomable to me that such people can get a diving C-card, but it happens every single day, and it is becoming more common.

You are on a nice rant, however you are completely wrong. Where do you get this drivel?

If you want, I can go edit my post to read "Hello. Are you crazy?". I have a problem with letting absurd comments go uncorrected...it's a weakness. Yet you make posts like the one above.....

Photographers are, in fact, notorious for being lax on paying attention to anything not directly involved with their pictures. I'm not saying all of them are bad divers nor am I claiming that photography in itself is reckless. But it is a condition that should be taken into consideration when doing a spot evaluation of a diver you have never met, especially if they are requesting permission to do something outside the normally accepted standards.

As for slamming the dive operation, I'm not. The term "grossly negligent," that you put out there sure seems like a slam.I have actually heard very good things about them in the past. However, this was an avoidable incident. You know this was avoidable, how? Hopefully they learn from this and make some changes to avoid letting it happen again.

How can a activity that has a cert for it be "something outside of the accepted standards" there must be some acceptance for it as a realitively safe and doable activity before there can be a cert for it. I'd say the boat op is responsible for passenger safety not diver safety. If the boat sinks and there are no life jackets then yes he's responsible. If a cab driver delivers someone to a dive site and they drown is the cab driver responsible? The problem with diving is the same with most things, the refusal of people to take responsibilty for themsleves. Makes me sick.

I absolutely agree.

Face it, we'd all like to think that most all scuba accidents are avoidable (except those that aren't) and if there is not buddy we'll never know if this was one of the ones that wasn't. It's kind of a strange problem.

I agree.