Article on Death In Ginnie Springs

[Ayisha]

I am not a technical diver and I am a very beginner to cave diving, but I always thought that gas with higher then 40% oxygen require oxygen clean tanks and regulators. I also was of the opinion that this would prohibit filling such tanks with air. The community discussing in this thread does not seem to consider this as an issue. Am I wrong or is the above norm an european one only?

bold added

Carlos had a full mix/blend station at home, so he was able to fill whatever he wanted.

 

[Omisson]

So, he was arrogant (does not bother me and it is fairly common in the Tec Diving world).

Taking an Alu80 for deco is perfectly normal on a dive like the Andrea Doria - BUT IT WOULD NOT BE NORMAL TO FILL IT WITH AIR NOR WOULD IT BE NORMAL TO MARK IT AS O2 WHEN IT IS FILLED WITH AIR.

So, it was alleged in this respectable forum that Carlos filled an O2 marked tank with Air and did this for his Andrea Doria dive trip and then took the same tank on his fatal dive in Ginnie (but as we know for fact that tank was not filled with Air at all, but filled with O2, and properly marked as O2).

I call the above internet recount of alleged events by posters dubious or suspicious to say the least.

Gian,

Have you ever dove the Doria? Please don't lecture northeast wreck divers on Doria protocols. You don't know them. In both the shops I work with on Long Island there are no less than 10 Doria divers amongst us- as well as one guy who has more Doria dives than anyone I know alive and he's the type who would still dive the Doria on air if it were an option.

You do know the Doria original and up to the late 1990s -they were ALL Air dives - right?

Many dive the D with an air reserve bottle as a universal "go to" in an emergency on that wreck. Also as an air break when doing deco. While Trimix is now standard for the dive and rebreathers commonplace - the old school guys do what worked for them and that often includes a 21% bailout which can be used everywhere but the sand -within reason -as a contingency.

Also- as an aside Getting blown out on it happens all the time - leaving you with excess bottles and mixes all the time- I could dive at 9am and not get back in the rest of the day because conditions change so drastically- an expensive three day boat trip for a single dive. But that's the Doria.

In this case The bottle was premarked for O2 (dedicated) but as his diving buddies mentioned he frequently filled premarked bottles with mixes not conforming with their labeling. There is nothing dubious about that. It was an unfortunate byproduct of his apparent - cowboy dive style.

 

[Stoo]

So your premise is - everyone is a liar/cheat/unreliable unless they pass your sniff test? Seriously?

I have a friend who until recently headed up the Ontario Provincial Police Dive Team. He told me many years ago that when they investigate a dive accident, they ASSUME the death was murder, until either something proves it was not, or that there was lack of evidence that it was. I think it's important to remember though that the police investigate crimes, not accidents. Once a crime has been ruled out, then any further investigation becomes someone else's "problem"... Up here, typically the Coroner would call an Inquest which is empaneled to call witnesses and make recommendations. They cannot lay charges however.

 

[Omisson]

I am not a technical diver and I am a very beginner to cave diving, but I always thought that gas with higher then 40% oxygen require oxygen clean tanks and regulators. I also was of the opinion that this would prohibit filling such tanks with air. The community discussing in this thread does not seem to consider this as an issue. Am I wrong or is the above norm an european one only?
Thanks
Patrick

First- clean air can be put in any 02 clean tank (21% oxygen but properly filtered).

Non-issue.

Second- did his own fills.

---------- Post added January 30th, 2015 at 01:57 PM ----------

They were not interviewed by the Police (early recount was that an instructor conducted the interview with both/all witnesses present at the same time) and the Police did not follow proper procedure when interviewing potential crime scene witnesses (my understanding from the article).

The story they allegedly put forward (as recounted on the internet) is implausible, although it is possible, and, equally possible, that they believe it to be true.

Now you are a crime scene expert?

But your reliance on this "article" is misplaced. Read the threads of the eyewitness accounts. The police on scene interviewed the witnesses and had the instructor do the gas analysis at their direction...

There was no crime scene - it wasn't a crime. There was an accident scene.

 

[Ayisha]

A very valid testimony if it is from a person unrelated to the incident and unconnected to the the deceased - provided he/she was present and directly witnessed the events he/she is recounting.

Were there any witnesses in this case that fit those parameters?

Yes, there were a few other cave divers present nearby when Carlos' team was preparing to dive and they witnessed them gearing up and overheard the conversation about analyzing the O2 bottle and Carlos' response that he was sure it was air and had filled it himself 2 weeks earlier.

Those witnesses were not part of Carlos' team, were present during the analysis conversation, and directly witnessed the events. Those cave divers are around, if they choose to speak publicly.

 

[Basking Ridge Diver]

I have a friend who until recently headed up the Ontario Provincial Police Dive Team. He told me many years ago that when they investigate a dive accident, they ASSUME the death was murder, until either something proves it was not, or that there was lack of evidence that it was. I think it's important to remember though that the police investigate crimes, not accidents. Once a crime has been ruled out, then any firther investigation becomes someone else's "problem"... Up here, typically the Coroner would call an Inquest which is empaneled to call witnesses and make recommendations. They cannot lay charges however.

Although I understand your point - I am second generation Newfoundland - St Johns - my point is this occurred in the United States. We believe in a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. So I took that stance since the "accident" occurred here - using American law and customs...

 

[Ayisha]

It's the same in Canada, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I think Stoo is just referring to the way the accident scene is handled in order to not contaminate evidence until foul play is ruled out. Stoo please correct me if I am wrong.

This is the way that I responded in a discussion regarding the OP's concerns about the sheriff's investigation in a FB post, which I think sums it up pretty simply:

"True, the sheriff's investigation is to rule in or out foul play. Once foul play is ruled out, the police hand over the case to the Medical Examiner's office. The ME's job is to determine cause of death, not the trigger that caused death. Unless the ME is a diver and you are lucky enough to talk to the ME, you will rarely get a trigger from the ME or police. The police and ME investigated to their natural conclusion. There was no basis to require forensic analysis. The oxygen content and the reported symptoms of seizure at depth were enough".

 

[Lorenzoid]

I have a friend who until recently headed up the Ontario Provincial Police Dive Team. He told me many years ago that when they investigate a dive accident, they ASSUME the death was murder, until either something proves it was not, or that there was lack of evidence that it was. . . .

Interesting. Well, that's just not how it is here, at least in most of the US as far as I'm aware. By the way, did he mention when the "until" part kicks in? I mean, how far do they dig before they determine there is "lack of evidence"? That seems to be the difference. In the US, the authorities generally just don't take the investigation any further than what they hear and observe on the scene if that is sufficient to satisfy them there is "lack of evidence."

Although I understand your point - I am second generation Newfoundland - St Johns - my point is this occurred in the United States. We believe in a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. So I took that stance since the "accident" occurred here - using American law and customs...

I'll add that we also believe in minimizing the use of limited resources of departments that are already stretched thin until the taxpayers agree otherwise. Maybe dive accidents SHOULD get more resources, but from what I have read, they are presently treated much like any other accident.

 

[HIGHwing]

Now you are a crime scene expert?

Gianamerri is an expert on all things after the fact, incident, or accident. No matter what anyone does, he can name a better procedure they could have used. No matter what someone builds, he could design and build it better after the accident. He could write better standards, compel increased industry compliance to his better standards, could design a better CO2 sensor & application of the sensor in current rebreathers, and when called upon he can re-design existing rebreathers in the absence of existing test data & knowledge of why design compromises were selected by the manufacturer.

That's my take.

Do not doubt the poster, he will quote a piece of something and promptly derail the thread.

 

[PfcAJ]

He's got a little bit of a point about air being a weird gas for the Doria. Crappy bottom gas and a crappy deco gas.

But it I still think o2 in a bottle marked o2 isn't a big surprise.