Catalina Diver died today w/ Instructor

[DiveNav]

..... I'm familiar with the underwater terrain at the Casino Point UW Park, and a person really has to try to get to a depth where narcosis might be an issue. There are no steep drop-offs in that area. As I recall, there's a moderate slope all the way down to about 90 fsw...where it flattens out even more.

That is not correct ..... just swim on the surface to the south-east buoy, drop there and then swim <20 yards South East and you are in 100ft.

Alberto

 

[Teamcasa]

... I'm familiar with the underwater terrain at the Casino Point UW Park, and a person really has to try to get to a depth where narcosis might be an issue. There are no steep drop-offs in that area. As I recall, there's a moderate slope all the way down to about 90 fsw...where it flattens out even more.

Only if you go North/North East. Going South, it's not hard to get below 100'

 

[Bubbletrubble]

That is not correct ..... just swim on the surface to the south-east buoy, drop there and then swim <20 yards South East and you are in 100ft.

That SE buoy marks the boundary of the UW park, right? And if directly below that SE buoy is a contour of 100 fsw it couldn't get much deeper than that within the confines of the UW park. Of course, swimming east or southeast will take one deeper and beyond the boundaries of the UW park -- I am not disputing that at all. By describing the UW terrain there, I was merely trying to suggest that there are no incredibly steep drop-offs or sheer walls where an AOW student could get freaked out by looking down into a black abyss. The setting provides context. After all, a question was raised regarding what caused the panic in the chain of events. If anything, he/she would look down and see...sand/kelp/rock (especially with 50 ft vis). Contrast a deep AOW dive at Casino Point with one at a wall dive site, such as Scripps Canyon (La Jolla). There's a big difference.

Only if you go North/North East. Going South, it's not hard to get below 100'

Yup. I recall navigating to the Sue-Jac and looking downslope (east?) to see a sandy bottom that was probably around 100 fsw...but I think that's very near the boundary of the UW Park. IIRC, swimming NE from the steps eventually gets one to the Valiant...but that's quite a long underwater swim and definitely outside the boundaries of the UW Park.

OK. We've established that max depth was around 65 fsw. The incident occurred during initial descent. The dive was part of an AOW or deep diving specialty class (instructor was present).

Hmmm. Any info regarding the victim's cold water diving experience?

 

[Hawkwood]

I have seen this done but PADI just changed that standard recently. I believe it now must be at least the 3rd AOW dive. (Hopefully a PADI indtructor will verify/correct this).

Well, I'm not an instructor, but do read the Training Bulletins.

The First Quarter 2009 Training Bulletin introduced a change to the Standard regarding the Deep Adventure Dive: “Do not conduct the Deep Adventure Dive as the first or second dive of the program”

The Third Quarter 2009 Training Bulletin withdrew that change in place of risk assessment and assessing the diver's readiness as to when is the appropriate time to conduct the deep dive.​

 

[Bubbletrubble]

Well, I'm not an instructor, but do read the Training Bulletins.

The First Quarter 2009 Training Bulletin introduced a change to the Standard regarding the Deep Adventure Dive: “Do not conduct the Deep Adventure Dive as the first or second dive of the program”

The Third Quarter 2009 Training Bulletin withdrew that change in place of risk assessment and assessing the diver's readiness as to when is the appropriate time to conduct the deep dive.​

Wow! I'm surprised it took this long to implement such change. I'm even more surprised that the language in the training bulletin was softened up to the extent that it is now a "judgement call" whether the diver is ready for the deep dive on AOW dive #1. Was the original change deemed too restrictive?

Thanks for the info, Hawkwood.

 

[Jax]

Wow! Leave it to the judgement of the instructor. . . . and I've been reading " http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/basic-scuba-discussions/310348-good-buddy-dive-natzi.html " [sic] . . . . okay, y'all scared me, now.

 

[Hawkwood]

Wow! I'm surprised it took this long to implement such change. I'm even more surprised that the language in the training bulletin was softened up to the extent that it is now a "judgement call" whether the diver is ready for the deep dive on AOW dive #1. Was the original change deemed too restrictive?

Thanks for the info, Hawkwood.

Without opening up a debate as to AOW and when/how it should be presented, the rationale for the change in the First Quarter 2009 Training Bulletin was simply for: "Increased diver experience. This change ensures that the diver has experienced at least six training dives (four Open Water Diver course and two Adventure Dives) before participation in the Deep Adventure Dive."

I'd think the change was too restrictive depending on the diver, the dive environment, and the diver/instructor relationship.

I've yet to work with a group where the Deep Dive was done as either dive 1 or dive 2 in the sequence. We all want to have a good assessemnt of the diver(s) in the group before we tackle the deep dive with them.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

I have to apologize to everyone. For some reason, I was under the impression that the victim was taking part in an AOW or deep specialty course. I deduced this based on: (1) the "deep sea certification" language in the news report and (2) the info regarding max depth (about 65 fsw).

After re-reading the facts and posts in this thread, I think that it's quite possible that the woman was doing her Basic OW training. If that's true, wouldn't exceeding a depth of 60 fsw be a breach of PADI standards?

 

[jandjdivers]

Does anyone have any information on the dive shop/instructors involved? Maybe even the city they operate from?

 

[boulderjohn]

Without opening up a debate as to AOW and when/how it should be presented, the rationale for the change in the First Quarter 2009 Training Bulletin was simply for: "Increased diver experience. This change ensures that the diver has experienced at least six training dives (four Open Water Diver course and two Adventure Dives) before participation in the Deep Adventure Dive."

I'd think the change was too restrictive depending on the diver, the dive environment, and the diver/instructor relationship.

I've yet to work with a group where the Deep Dive was done as either dive 1 or dive 2 in the sequence. We all want to have a good assessemnt of the diver(s) in the group before we tackle the deep dive with them.

The rationale for the second change (judgment) was that there were some circumstances where it made sense for the deep dive to be done first, but the instructor should see this very much as an exception that requires justification.