Yukon Mishap 9/11/2010

[bleeb]

Scuba diver dies in Mission Bay (http://www.swrnn.com/southwest-riverside/2010-09-11/news/scuba-diver-dies-in-mission-bay-2) - Southwest Riverside County News
A short blurb.

Highlights:
- Diver went missing.
- Found unconscious on bottom by lifeguards w/ dive gear.
- CPR performed.
- Paramedics declared him at the scene.

[raybosd]

It looks like he was diving without a buddy....

[Scott]

It looks like he was diving without a buddy....
And you know this how?

[sardiverdan]

Got the word on this one this afternoon. Going to assume he was diving solo as they had to wait until roll call to discover he was not onboard.

[raybosd]

He was diving off the Humboldt, a local dive boat in San Diego. The report was on the San Diego Union-Tribune website

I've dove with this boat several times and they are a top notch operation...don't know all the details yet..this is all I've heard so far.

[Jax]

Diver found dead at "Yukon" wreck - SignOnSanDiego.com (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/sep/11/diver-found-dead-yukon-wreck/)

Diver found dead at "Yukon" wreck
By Pauline Repard, UNION-TRIBUNE

Saturday, September 11, 2010 at 6:20 p.m.

A 39-year-old diver died while exploring a popular dive site, the “Yukon” sunken ship nearly two miles off Mission Beach Saturday, authorities said.

The man’s name was not released.

Crew members on the “Humboldt” radioed the San Diego Life Guard Service about 3:20 p.m. to report a missing diver, life guard Lt. John Everheart said.

Everheart said the diver had been underwater about an hour and did not have a diving partner.

There were additional divers onboard the “Humboldt,” a commercial dive boat operated by Waterhorse Charters in Mission Bay.

Three life guards donned scuba gear, searched around the “Yukon” and found the diver about 100 feet beneath the surface, face down on the ocean floor.

They brought the diver to the surface and started CPR. Everheart said they took the diver by boat to life guard headquarters in Mission Bay, where paramedics declared him dead.

The “Yukon” is a 366-foot Canadian destroyer sunk nearly two miles off the coast of Mission Beach in 2000 for recreational diving and as an artificial reef for sea life.

[A&I Mod]

Please remember that the Accidents and Incidents Forum has special rules for posts here. For your review, here they are:

The purpose of this forum is the promotion of safe diving through the examination and discussion of accidents and incidents; to find lessons we can apply to our own diving.
Accidents, and incidents that could easily have become accidents, can often be used to illustrate actions that lead to injury or death, and their discussion is essential to building lessons learned from which improved safety can flow. To foster the free exchange of information valuable to this process, the "manners" in this forum are much more tightly controlled than elsewhere on the board. In addition to the TOS:

(1) You may not release any names here, until after the names have appeared in the public domain (articles, news reports, sheriff's report etc.) The releasing report must be cited. Until such public release, the only name you may use in this forum is your own.
(2) Off topic posts will be removed and off topic comments will be edited.
(3) No flaming, name calling or otherwise attacking other posters. You may attack ideas; you may not attack people.
(4) No trolling; no blamestorming. Mishap analysis does not lay blame, it finds causes.
(5) No "condolences to the family" here. Please use our Passings (http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/passings/) Forum for these kinds of messages.
(6) If you are presenting information from a source other than your own eyes and ears, cite the source.
(7) If your post is your hypothesis, theory, or a "possible scenario," identify it as such.
Thanks in advance,
Rick
Please adhere to these rules... I've added emphasis to rule 6 'cause that's the one that needs emphasis so far :)

[JTinSD]

This report (http://www.760kfmb.com/Global/story.asp?S=13138836) says Humboldt had left the site, then discovered the diver was missing.


Witnesses say divers explored the wreck, surfaced and left the site. While the boat was moving, a father and son realized the man - who they had just met while heading to the Yukon - was not on the boat. The crew conducted a headcount and realized one person was missing.

[Rick Murchison]

...So it sounds like they counted the tanks, saw they were all there and then left...How long, O Lord? How long? How long must we endure the fallacies of tank counts and head counts before we realize that the only reliable way to assure everyone's on board is to do a roll call, name by name, with no one answering for anyone else???
Rick

[Jax]

Diver Dies Off Mission Beach | NBC San Diego (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Diver-Dies-Off-Mission-Beach-102725754.html)

Diver Dies Off Mission Beach
Lifeguards say he had no buddy
By CHRIS CHAN
Updated 10:39 AM PDT, Sun, Sep 12, 2010

A diver is dead, after San Diego Lifeguard divers found him floating unconscious at the bottom of the ocean on Saturday.

The 48-year-old man boarded a charter boat with thirteen other passengers for a diving expedition off Mission Beach. The divers were exploring the HMS Yukon as the first stop on their tour.

The man was certified as an advanced diver and was diving alone, officials said.

The other divers in the group say they saw the man during the dive; it wasn't until they got onto the boat that they realized he was missing.

"A couple of the other divers that were there at the time, spotted him swimming around in circles like he had found something interesting in the sand," said Waterhouse Charters' Ryan Wilbarger.

Passengers on the boat realized the man was missing when the boat moved on to another dive site.

"My dad and I, we were coming back on the boat, started looking around for him and all of a sudden we were like 'hey, we were wondering where the guy was', so then we did a headcount and found out he was missing," said diver David Whiteside.

The boat crew called the Coast Guard and San Diego Lifeguards, who found the man unconscious and tried to revive him.

"Lifeguard dive team members found him about 25 - 30 yards on the west side of the vessel midship" said San Diego Lifeguard Lt. Nick Lerma. "He wasn't inside the vessel when he was located."

Both the Coast Guard and Medical Examiner are investigating whether he had a problem with his equipment or if he had some type of medical issue.

Police have not released the man's name and his fellow divers only had brief conversations with the man before the dive.

"He was a retired veteran and going to school on the GI Bill and that's pretty much all we talked about," Whiteside said.

This is the third death of a diver at the Yukon since it was sunk off Mission Beach in 2000. The others, a man and a woman, were also known to be experienced divers.

[Jax]

Does anyone know if the diver was on Nitrox?

[Bubbletrubble]

Does anyone know if the diver was on Nitrox?
I have no idea what gas mix(es) the victim was using.

I'm not sure how relevant this questions is since there is evidence to suggest that oxygen, too, has narcotic properties. If he were diving a helium-containing mix, then that could mitigate risk of narcosis.
Diving nitrox would, however, have enabled the diver to increase his bottom time.

FWIW, the Yukon is an ideal site for the most commonly used 32% nitrox mix. The sandy bottom in which the wreck lies is right around 105 fsw (depending on tide). Furthermore, divers can arrange to get a 32% mix with the Waterhorse boat.

[jridg]

Max depth on Yukon is 105' - 110 if you dig a hole.

[Jax]

:giggle:


Okay, this will probably start another flamer . . . :rolleyes: . . . would someone familiar with the dive site like to give a description of it?

EDIT: I mean, besides this: http://www.cawreckdivers.org/Wrecks/Yukon.htm. I would like to learn about currents and vis, optimally.

[Garth]

At a loss for words as my words were lost, ... (mod)

Was the diver on open or closed circuit?

Jax I think you have a point that until we get info about gear and gas analysis we can't rule out ox tox as a culprit.

[Garth]

The guy was 39, so statistically it wouldn't suggest health related, but still possible.

[jridg]

Jax,

The Yukon is in 100+/- ft of water - it is approx 360' long and is lying on it's port side. The wreck is very 'diverized' meaning it is a great wreck for training wreck familiarization and penetration training.

The wreck begins at around 60-65' and there can be quite a surge depending on the day. At times there can be a little current as well. Visibility can vary from 10' on a bad day to over 60' on the rare awesome day.

Bottom is sand.

That's really about it - it's really a great place for divers of most experience levels beyond basic - The water temps vary from the uppper 50s around now - to the low 50's or upper 40s in the cold times.

Hope that helps.

[Jax]

The latest reports have him at 48 years old - once again - the details are not complete. Lots of confusion.

Diver Dies: Diver found dead near Mission Beach - KSWB (http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswbtv-local-diver-dies,0,2422597.story)

Diver found dead in Mission Beach identified
FOX 5 San Diego Staff
4:48 PM PDT, September 12, 2010

SAN DIEGO - A scuba diver found dead near a sunken naval vessel off Mission Beach was a 48-year-old City Heights man, the medical examiner reported Sunday.

Robert Michael Clampitt didn't return from a dive to the Yukon -- a former Canadian naval vessel sunk off Mission Beach to create what is now a popular diving reef -- and was reported missing around 3:20 p.m. Saturday.

His body was later found by San Diego lifeguard divers on the ocean floor, about 100 feet below the surface, according to the San Diego County Medical Examiner's Office. According to the San Diego County Medical Examiner's Office, Clampitt was pronounced dead despite efforts to save his life by the lifeguards and paramedics.

[Peter McGuinness]

:giggle:


Okay, this will probably start another flamer . . . :rolleyes: . . . would someone familiar with the dive site like to give a description of it?

EDIT: I mean, besides this: Yukon (http://www.cawreckdivers.org/Wrecks/Yukon.htm). I would like to learn about currents and vis, optimally.

(Let's hope this goes in the right place)

The Yukon is lying in about 95ft of water off Mission Beach/Pacific Beach area of San Diego (the official descriptions always seem to say 2 miles out but I don't think that is correct; maybe 2 miles from the mission bay channel is what they mean).

It's a flat, sandy bottom with no kelp; the ship is lying on its port side, aligned very roughly NNW/SSE, which means that the dominant water movement is across the ship - the actual angle varies day to day. This means that on anything but the calmest of days, there is significant surge across the deck and in and out of the access holes. It is very easy to approach a hatchway or one of the cutouts not feeling any water movement and suddenly get slammed against a hard object when the surge catches you. It can also make exiting the ship challenging; this is not a penetration wreck for newbies (actually I went inside a couple of times but never bother any more because all the good photo ops are on the outside anyway)

Vis can vary from pretty bad to awful, although there have been reports of very good vis this weekend. Very good means better than 20ft. There is often a surface layer of algae or other crud which cuts vis down dramatically in the top twenty ft or so but this often opens out beneath the thermocline so that there is decent vis but it can be very dark.

Water temps recently have been cold; both my dives yesterday (shore dives) were below 55F at depth. Let's just say it is normal at the yukon to be diving in sub 60 degree water. Surface conditions can be challenging even if they are perfectly safe for diving. Lots of people never make it below the surface because they feel stressed by the cold and the wind chop/swell; they tense up, cant get down and/or drop weights because they can't deal with the combination of unpleasant factors which can exist. Also, the commercial boats always impress on their customers that this is a serious dive and I think that adds a level of anxiety which some people can't deal with (or they deal with it by getting out, which is probably the best course of action).

There can be current but I have never felt anything like you get on the Speigel Grove, for instance.

The number of mooring buoys varies because they get blown out over the winter but there are usually at least three: bow, stern and wheelhouse and then often there is one on the radio tower, which is a bit aft of amidships. The dive is popular in summer which means that the commercial boats (which can't afford to wait for an open spot) sometimes drop anchor nearby and let their divers swim to a descent line.

The dive itself is very nice once you get down there; the deck side and the more sheltered parts of the hull side are covered in metridiums and corynactus now, while the exposed upper part of the hull side has more kelp on it. This is mainly sea palm (short strands which some people call bull kelp) and other low growing stuff. There is no giant kelp. You can get down right under the hull where the water scoops out the sand, which is great at the stern since the steering gear and prop are very impressive. There are holes cut in the hull to allow easier/safer access but as mentioned, these should be treated with care. There are lots of areas where you can get the feel of penetration while not being fully enclosed which are good for open water divers to mess around in.

There has always been a bit of graffitti, but there is less and less bare steel to scratch names on now so most of the messages have been covered up.

The forward guns have been replaced with what looks like a couple of steel lamp posts, which is a bit lame if you are expecting real guns but it gives the right feel to it. At the wheel house area, there are a couple of memorials; one for Milt Beard, who was a leading figure in sinking the Yukon. That area is also called Milt's Tilt to pull his leg over the fact the ship went down on its side instead of upright. The other is a plaque for Steve Donathan, who died while penetrating the engine room. Milt's memorial is a plaster death mask, which I find rather spooky (actually, since I haven't been there since early this year, someone could chime in to tell me if it is actually still there - it looked like it might not be very robust).

Fish life is mainly greenlings, blacksmith, juvie and small numbers of adult rockfish with the occasional lingcod and cabezon. You do get shoals of baitfish now and again. It is mainly kelp forest/reef type fish as it's not far enough out to get the pelagics on a regular basis. There are often a lot of nudis, sheep crab, keyhole limpets and sea hares, and there are mantis shrimp in the sand. These are the type which can break your finger.

It's a very good dive under the right conditions, although I have to say I always go for a kelp and reef dive given the choice.

Peter

[DiveNav]

..... . . . would someone familiar with the dive site like to give a description of it?.....
even better than a description .... we have created a 3D virtual dive site for the HMCS Yukon (http://ediving.us/sitePage.php?site=USACASD_Yukon) ... so, if You have a PC you can dive her yourself from your home.

[dirtdiver1]

I was on the Humboldt yesterday during the mishap. It was great dive conditions. 30 ft of viz, almost no surge. The bottom was at 110ft. The diver that died was using an aluminum 80 on air and was diving by himself. When his body was recovered he had no air left in his tank. The diver seemed intent on photography and was last seen some feet away from the Yukon looking at something in the sand.

[Ken Kurtis]

I was on the Humboldt yesterday during the mishap . . . The diver that died . . . had no air left in his tank.

A recent DAN study looked at over 900 fatalities over a 10-year period. In about 350 of the cases, they were able to identify the initial trigger. (This is the event that happened which started the accident going.)

In 41% of those cases, the initial trigger that resulted in a fatality was a diver running out of air.

This should be a rather sobering stat. Run out of air, with or witout a buddy (the study included both but didn't differentiate), and there's roughly a 50/50 chance you will die.

Maybe if we beat THAT message into divers heads instead of talking about shared air ascents and emergency swimming ascents (all of which sort of imply that it's OK to run out of air, since there are options, but maybe please don't do it), we could have an effect.

- Ken

[Jax]

Authorities ID scuba diver who died in San Diego’s Mission Beach (http://www.swrnn.com/southwest-riverside/2010-09-12/news/authorities-id-scuba-diver-who-died-in-san-diegos-mission-beach)

Authorities ID scuba diver who died in San Diego’s Mission Beach
Robert Michael Clampitt didn't return from a dive to the Yukon – a former Canadian naval vessel sunk off Mission Beach to create what is now a popular diving reef.

By Staff, City News Service
Sunday, September 12, 2010

A scuba diver found dead near a sunken naval vessel off Mission Beach was a 48-year-old City Heights man, the medical examiner reported today.

Robert Michael Clampitt didn’t return from a dive to the Yukon – a former Canadian naval vessel sunk off Mission Beach to create what is now a popular diving reef — and was reported missing around 3:20 p.m. Saturday.

His body was later found by San Diego lifeguard divers on the ocean floor, about 100 feet below the surface, according to the San Diego County Medical Examiner’s Office.

Clampitt was among 14 divers on a commercial boat, but did not have a dive partner, authorities said.

An autopsy has not been scheduled.
End Article. Underline added by me.

I notice these news reports always like to say, "The diver was alone", a lot like the motorcycle accident reports like to say, "the driver was not wearing a helmet." The "alone" and the "helmet" may have absolutely nothing to do with the incident.

[Thalassamania]

A nicely split hair.
Tied to a buoy vs. anchored means a lot more than a split hair.

You are absolutely right from a statistical standpoint. (And maybe I could have phrased it better.) We know the numerator, but we don't know the denominator.

The big problem here is that we, as an industry, don't track close calls. If you run out of air and make it successfully to the surface, that's not reported nor entered in any database.

However, there's another way to look at it. There ought to be some direct relationship between how often (%) something happens in the genral population vs. how often (%) it produces whatever neagtive effect we're monitoring.

My assumption, based on the number of dives that I personally monitor over the course of a year, is that out-of-air is a very rare occurence, as a % of total dives. (I have no idea what the actual number is but I certainly hear more stories of "Diver ran out of air and died" than I do of "Diver ran out of air and survived.")

And the simple point is that if something that is fairly rare (OOA) as an occuraence on a dive, can priduce a very high (41%) proportion of the accident triggers, then it says a couple of things (IMHO) about running out of air:

1. It's likely far more dangerous and likely to be life-threatening that we currently teach.

. . . and . . .

2. The "options" that we teach - alternate air, pony, octo ascent, buddy-breathing, free ascent - don't work (either because they're forgotten, not practiced, or panic prevents their use).

Bottom line is that I personall ythink OOA is far more danegrous that we, as an industry, preach/teach and it's high time we changed the culture and mindset of how we approach this because OOA incidents are easily and emminently preventable.

- Ken
OOA was the way most dives ended back when you and I started diving, it was not big deal. Now it is part of the chain in almost half the deaths. What's the change? What can be learned from that change?

[TheEngineer]

Tied to a buoy vs. anchored means a lot more than a split hair.

OOA was the way most dives ended back when you and I started diving, it was not big deal. Now it is part of the chain in almost half the deaths. What's the change? What can be learned from that change?

Maybe we need to bring back J-valves. Or maybe basic rules should be followed. Maybe the idea that 2 weekends of training is enough to be a certified diver needs to be reconsidered.

Divers today are not, as a whole, as knowledgable, physically conditioned or capable as early divers. People think that modern gear can never fail and will hold their hands for them and wind up paying the price for it.

[TheEngineer]

I don't see anything wrong with letting him dive solo or the photography part. Both are not at all unusual out here in CA. I'd informally guess that on any CA dive boat with 20 divers 1 - 4 divers, maybe more, are diving solo. I don't see it being negligent to allow it.

It is a combination of conditions that appears to have led to this. Photography divers are notoriously lax about paying attention to anything other than their photography. Add in the lack of a buddy, and now that lapse in attention gets very serious if something unexpected happens. Further add in depths beyond what most divers can swim on one lungful of air, as happened here, and you have a recipe for disaster.

I'll be the first to admit that I've dove solo, but I would never consider doing it on a deep dive, unless I was feeling particularly suicidal that day.

[TSandM]

You know, reading this thread, I'm struck by the number of people who think that the boat leaving played a major role in the fatality. If, in fact, something happened to this gentleman under the water (as it sounds) and he did not make it to the surface (which seems likely), then even had they waited at the site for him to surface, and eventually figured out he wasn't going to, by the time anyone went down to look for him, it would have been too late.

Boats leaving are a problem for someone on the surface, or who comes to the surface and discovers he's drifting with no way home. But a boat remaining at the site is almost never of any significant use to a person who is in trouble UNDER the water. The only way I can imagine in which the boat leaving was relevant here was if the guy did a CESA, made it to the surface and was unable to establish positive buoyancy, AND somebody saw this AND got in the water AND reached him before he sank again. Lots of ifs.

[Grover48]

Is it possible that he lost consciousness, lost his regulator and it free flowed to empty his tank?

[Thalassamania]

At which point, though, it makes the accident completely unpreventable (from scuba perspective -- outside of lifestyle changes) and means that the timeframe is even shorter since now he died before his tanks were empty.The only thing that MIGHT have helped a heart attack victim would be a buddy.

[Hetland]

It is very interesting to see the various pundits, most who have never been diving at this location, offering their opinions.

There is something to be learned from this divers death, and it will, most likely, come from those who were actually there, on site, or, at least, those who have actually been on the same dive site.

I'm thinking the most useful info will come from his computer, and an analysis of his gear. Maybe the autopsy will show something other than saltwater in his lungs....

As for the site... How is this site so different from any other? It's not significantly deeper, colder or darker. Entanglement or sea life apparently didn't play an issue, he wasn't in an overhead environment.

If I run out of air at 100fsw on the Oriskany, and you run out of air at 100fsw on the Yukon, what's the difference? What does seeing the wreck with your own eyes have to do with validating one's opinion?

There are only four options here:

1. Ran out of air due to inattention.
2. Gear malfunction.
3. Medical condition.
4. Assault by another diver.

Other than depth, this particular site wouldn't play any significant part in any of those possibilities.

[dirtdiver1]

I was there. I had a 28 minute TTD which included my ascent and a 3 minute stop. The affected diver left surface within 20 seconds of me. I went to 108FSW and then gradually meandered my way to 75FSW at roughly 21 minutes. At this point I started my ascent. I got on the Humboldt with just less than 300psi in my AL 80.

The guy that died was about my age but looked 40 pounds heavier than me. I have every expectation that he sucked air quicker than I did. I heard from one of the other divers on board that the affected diver was seen on the bottom, looking at something in the sand at around 8 minutes of dive time. This vector is where the LG found him later. The bottom was at 110 FSW that day.

We need to know his depth profile but if I had to bet money, today, I would say he was out of air by the time I was at my safety stop.

[Jax]

No update from the county medical examiner.

County of San Diego: Press Releases (http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/me/press/press.html)

[divemaster dave]

Are you sure that was the sequence of events reguarding the Humbolt , that they first returned to the Yukon and then called for help and that was an hour later the RubyE is only about 15 or so minutes away from the Yukon


Where did this alleged hour delay come from? The only mention of an hour that I remember in any of the first hand accounts was the lifeguards saying that the victim had been underwater for an hour.

Yes. Over an hour delay. Not alleged.

From my view and what I got from radio coms that day.

- Humboldt brought divers on board at the Yukon (most of them)
- Humboldt did partial SI at the Yukon
- Humboldt traveled to Ruby (passed other dive boat en route)
- Humboldt completed SI at Ruby (with time at Yukon and Ruby about an hour)
- Humboldt put divers in the water at Ruby E.
- Humboldt found out a diver was missing upon recovering divers at Ruby E and returned to Yukon

[Ayisha]

I think some people need to take a step back to understand what others are trying to say. I'm not sure when these threads became about pinpointing an exact cause of death rather than learning from all mistakes made or identifying inadequate existing protocols. Determining whether the departure of the boat with a diver in the water contributed to the cause of death or assigning blame is not as important for our purpose as it is to the investigators.

What is important is that it has come to light *again* that a boat may have left a dive site with a diver still in the water and we need to examine why and how this can be reliably prevented in the future. Previous threads with this theme and elsewhere have determined the necessity for visually verified roll calls rather than headcounts as well as sign in/sign out systems or DAN tags. There is nothing wrong with discussing how to improve current protocols whether it contributed to the unfortunate accident or not.

If the victim had survived, could he have sued the dive op for leaving him at the first dive site as I believe others have? With the victim deceased, why would the family not be able to sue for the same reason? If the dive shop left the dive site without all passengers accounted for and no communications to the coastguard regarding a missing diver, a mistake was made by the dive op, regardless of whether it contributed to the death of the victim. If a mistake is publicly known and we could be affected by a similar mistake in the future, we have the right to talk about it. My 1 cent...

[Jax]

Ayisha, I understand what you are saying, but I think the primary reason for these threads is learning lessons whether they stem from the diver's death or the additional considerations. Unfortunately, our culture loves to 'blame'.

I am seeing a lot of people believing that by-name roll call absolutely should be a required safety procedure, but it is not 100%.

I also see that we have a solo diver on what should have been an easy dive (good conditions) that died, and no one knows why. I read that some have "heard" the tank was empty, but no authoritative source.

I would love to learn lessons from the diver's death, but in my own mind and calculations, the unfortunate departure of the boat without roll call is not a contributing factor.

[Hetland]

Roll Call: the best methods I've seen are numbered tags (or numbered SMB's) that are clipped to your BC on exit and clipped to a numbered board upon your return.

Seems like a cheap and easy way to avoid a bad situation.

[Dive Bug Bit Me]

You said it Seasaw. I have been through 545 posts to this thread (plus the three threads split off following ego battles) trying to figure out what I should learn to be a safer diver. In the end, there doesn't seem to be that much.

I agree that I would like the boat to be there for me when I surface, but first I do need to surface. The issue is that something happened that prevented the unfortunate diver from surfacing on his own. Sadly we will probably never know what. :shakehead:

I hold that the first responsibility for your safety is with yourself. So for me the learning points include;
- Don't run out of breathing gas (seems obvious, but I have seen it happen).
- Diving solo without a redundant gas supply is not a great idea.
- Diving an unknown environment solo is not a great idea (I cannot say that happened in this case but still a good point from the posts)
- A medical emergency while diving solo is a potentially big problem. A medical emergency while diving with a buddy is also potentially a big problem, but I have a slightly better chance of surviving. (again might not be relevant to this case, but still a good point)
- Panic will make things worse. If I have an emergency and can remain calm I have a better chance of solving the problem. (again relevance in this death - who knows?)
- Plan your dive and let someone know when to expect you back.
- Exercise caution with unknown dive buddies in situations that are expected to be challenging.

Please add your learning points.

[Puffer Fish]

You said it Seasaw. I have been through 545 posts to this thread (plus the three threads split off following ego battles) trying to figure out what I should learn to be a safer diver. In the end, there doesn't seem to be that much.

I agree that I would like the boat to be there for me when I surface, but first I do need to surface. The issue is that something happened that prevented the unfortunate diver from surfacing on his own. Sadly we will probably never know what. :shakehead:

I hold that the first responsibility for your safety is with yourself. So for me the learning points include;
- Don't run out of breathing gas (seems obvious, but I have seen it happen).
- Diving solo without a redundant gas supply is not a great idea.
- Diving an unknown environment solo is not a great idea (I cannot say that happened in this case but still a good point from the posts)
- A medical emergency while diving solo is a potentially big problem. A medical emergency while diving with a buddy is also potentially a big problem, but I have a slightly better chance of surviving. (again might not be relevant to this case, but still a good point)
- Panic will make things worse. If I have an emergency and can remain calm I have a better chance of solving the problem. (again relevance in this death - who knows?)
- Plan your dive and let someone know when to expect you back.
- Exercise caution with unknown dive buddies in situations that are expected to be challenging.

Please add your learning points.

Excellent post...several great take aways, and I really like your comment "I agree that I would like the boat to be there for me when I surface, but first I do need to surface."

A very simple point and one that is frequently overlooked.

[cruiser]

Please add your learning points.

Make sure a roll call is done after each dive.

[Jax]

Phone call to the San Diego Medical Examiner's office today, 13:09 PDT, says the cause and manner of death are still pending. . . .

[A&I Mod]

I have cherry-picked some of the relevant posts from the original massive mess that used to be the thread on this mishap and left them here. If you have additional information directly relevant to this mishap, please feel free to post it here. Otherwise, post in the Yukon Tangent (http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/basic-scuba-discussions/353680-yukon-tangent-thread.html) thread. Further redundant, off topic or other posts that are either outside the A&I rules or add nothing to this thread will no longer be moved, just deleted.

[IXΘYΣ]

Roll Call: the best methods I've seen are numbered tags (or numbered SMB's) that are clipped to your BC on exit and clipped to a numbered board upon your return.

Seems like a cheap and easy way to avoid a bad situation.I have seen divers manage to make it into the water with their tags still on board the boat... I recommend a by-name roll call no matter what else you do.
><>

[donhealy]

Thanks for cleaning this thread up!

I was on the Aqua Cat (Live aboard) last year and on Nekton before that. They used the names on the board method. This method requires the diver to move his or her name from in the pool to on board. The reasoning was that you are responsible for yourself.

I can tell you from direct experience that this does not work. The Nekton boat crew left a dive team in the water for over 2 hours before noticing that they were gone. (We found them a half mile off the boat drifting further away safe but upset!) The divers on the "Cat" routinely moved the tags for their friends on other buddy teams.

I was on the The CEX II in May and they required you to call your name as you went in then marked it on the log. They recorded when you came back on board. This worked well but they missed a diver only once and that triggered an immediate in-person role call.

The only way to truly know is to call the person's name and for that person to answer.

Don

[donhealy]

I spent some time with fellow San Diego divers this weekend. Mr. Clampitt's death was the subject of a long discussion. Most of it revolved around air management and how each person manages it. We don't know why the diver passed away but we have all taken a lesson from the outcome and looked at ourselves in the mirror. Hopefully we will be better divers because of it.

[cruiser]

I was on the Aqua Cat (Live aboard) last year and on Nekton before that. They used the names on the board method. This method requires the diver to move his or her name from in the pool to on board. The reasoning was that you are responsible for yourself. I can tell you from direct experience that this does not work..

The only way to truly know is to call the person's name and for that person to answer.

Same experience here, Don. I was on Blackbeards a few years ago and they have the same set up, names on the board and you move your name from one board to the other when you're off and on the boat. All week it never worked. By day 4 the captain said this system works if everyone does their part. That's a big IF. IF it works on paper but doesn't work in practice, it doesn't work. Luckily we were all from the same dive shop and looked out for each other, so had no problems. But a verbal roll call would have been more effective.

[Rick Murchison]

I don't think the boat's movement had anything to do with this mishap as far as the diver's death goes - and if there's a lesson other than sound gas management we'll have to wait for more information.
However... it does appear that whatever method the boat used - whether tank count or head count - failed to detect the diver missing until he'd been left behind, and that the lesson here is that of all the methods folks have tried, the best we know of so far is the name roll call with only the named diver answering.
Rick

[Cruisin Home]

I spent some time with fellow San Diego divers this weekend. Mr. Clampitt's death was the subject of a long discussion. Most of it revolved around air management and how each person manages it. We don't know why the diver passed away but we have all taken a lesson from the outcome and looked at ourselves in the mirror. Hopefully we will be better divers because of it.

Don,

very good post. good to hear that the death had some kind of positive impact. to be honest it has made me look at my solo diving. I always use backup pony/reg on deeper than 80fsw but am probably gonna use for anything over 40fsw. getting older and the thought of a long emerg ascent all of a sudden isnt looking attractive. start thinking about your wife and kids. Its really not a big hassle to carry the pony/reg. I think it should be standard operating procedure. fairly inexpensive these days.

what lessons did you guys take away?

Thanks again for the post

[idive2]

With regards to roll call I would urge the person taking roll call to pay particular attention to groups with more
than one diver with the same first name, sometimes even same first name and same initial for last name. It's to
easy to call out the name a second time and have the same diver think that you did not hear them respond.
I usually remember who I followed in the roll call but not everyone is paying close attention to this. Do your best
to pronounce the last name of the divers sharing the same first name.

[conradb212]

I was on the Humboldt last week (Oct. 7/8/9, 2010) and did a total of three dives on the Yukon. I felt the boat was exceptionally well run and equipped. We had great conditions (sunshine, almost flat water), and visibility at the wreck, once you made it through 40 or so feet of greenish water down the line, was very good for this location. I estimated 50+ feet the first couple of dives and maybe 40 feet the third dive the next day.

Water temperature at the wreck was between 55 and 57 degrees. Water was calm on top of the wreck (which is now the sheltered side since the Yukon lies on its side) but there was quite a bit of surge once you made your way over the side (which is now the top).

I used one of the Aluminum 80 tanks offered by the Humboldt. My max depths were 89, 82 and 81 feet, and my total dive times 34, 36 and 34 minutes. Remaining PSI was 1,100, 1,100, and 1,000 psi. On each dive, the limiting factor was remaining no-stop dive time and getting cold (I wore a 7-mil wetsuit with 5-mil shorty on top of it).

So that's the conditions I encountered.

[Chris12day]

July of this year I spent 4 days aboard the Taka of Deep Sea Diver's Den. It was the best way I have seen. Once on board, you are given a number next to your name. Before you enter the water, you give your name, number, and buddies name. When you get back on board, you give your number, you sign the clip board with your name, max depth, final tank pressure and buddy's name. Your buddy had to be with you before you were allowed to get on board. No buddy, search would begin! So you atleast got back to the boat with your buddy. All divers returned with their assigned buddy.

Safe diving.

[mikemikethepike]

You know, reading this thread, I'm struck by the number of people who think that the boat leaving played a major role in the fatality.

Just because the boat is not at fault does not stop me from being upset that any diver alive or dead is left behind when professional operaters can apply rolls calls in a manner that this never happens.

[dirtdiver1]

I am surprised that we have not heard about the cause of death...

[Jax]

Per phone call to the San Diego Medical Examiner's Office of Records today, the official cause of death is drowning.

I have requested a copy of the report and will post any further relevant info if there is some.

[Jax]

Excerpts from the report. My comments in italics.

Past Medical, Surgical, and Social History:
According to his family, the decedent had no known medical conditions. He had been known to have 'blackouts' in the past but reported to his family that he had not had any in a long time. He reportedly had a shoulder injury while in the service. He had no reported history of illicit drug use, depression, or alcoholism.

He was not taking any prescription medications.

CAUSE OF DEATH: DROWNING WHILE SCUBA DIVING

MANNER OF DEATH: ACCIDENT

Note - there is nothing new about the discovery of the missing person that has not been posted here.


San Diego Lifeguards were alerted by marine radio and responded; Lifeguard divers recovered the decedent approximately six minutes after entering the water, finding him on a sandy bottom at a depth of approximately 100 feet of seawater (fsw) approximately 20 - 30 yards from the shipwreck. All of his equipment was in place, although his regulator was not in his mouth. He was brought to the surface and resuscitative efforts initiated. He was transported to the dock at Lifeguard
headquarters, where Lifeguards were met by paramedics. Despite continued resuscitative efforts, death was pronounced on the dock. For further information, see scene note, below.

The autopsy documented pulmonary congestion/edema (right lung, 720 grams; left lung, 670 grams). Additionally, gas bubbles effervesced from the blood, due to offgassing of the nitrogen load accumulated during his dive. However, it is expected that with pressure removed nitrogen will bubble from solution in this manner, and this did not represent evidence of decompression sickness or gas embolism. There was no evidence of barotrauma or other diving-related injuries.

Evidence of natural disease included focal, moderate coronary artery atherosclerosis and a mildly enlarged heart (420 g). There were no apparent antemortem injuries; trauma was limited to a small abrasion of the abdomen and a sternum fracture due to attempted resuscitation. Toxicological testing detected no alcohol, common drugs of abuse, carbon monoxide, or medications (base screen).

Examination of the decedent’s equipment documented nominal function. The tank was
empty. The total amount of weight worn by the decedent was measured at 44.8 pounds. The dive computer documented a last dive of 101 fsw for 72 minutes. However, no further information could be obtained from the computer despite assistance from the computer’s manufacturer.

It appears that he ran out of air while underwater and was unable to surface. Therefore, based on the autopsy findings, scene investigation, follow-up investigation, gear examination, and the circumstances surrounding the death, as currently understood, the cause of death is listed as drowning while scuba diving, and the manner of death is classified as accident.

The only thing of interest is that the last dive was at 100 feet for 72 minutes. Speculation: It looks like he did not even try to ascend, or the examiner would have made a note of it, I would think.

[Jax]

There is no mention of the tank's air analysis in the report. It simply states the gauges read empty.

[Scott]

The total amount of weight worn by the decedent was measured at 44.8 pounds.
This is what really stands out to me.
What exposure protection was he wearing and how much did this guy weigh? Seems he was excessively over weighted. IMO

[SC_Hoaty]

This is what really stands out to me.
What exposure protection was he wearing and how much did this guy weigh? Seems he was excessively over weighted. IMO

That's the weight on land of all of his gear, right? Not simply the amount of lead he carried. A nice thick wetsuit weighs a few pounds on land and is very floaty in the water. I'm not sure the amount of total gear weight is excessive. Maybe I'm not understanding what the report stated. :dontknow:

[Scott]

That's the weight on land of all of his gear, right? Not simply the amount of lead he carried. A nice thick wetsuit weighs a few pounds on land and is very floaty in the water. I'm not sure the amount of total gear weight is excessive. Maybe I'm not understanding what the report stated. :dontknow:
Good question. I hadn't considered that it was the weight of all gear. Hopefully Ken, Thal or someone else who has experience can clarify.

[SC_Hoaty]

Good question. I hadn't considered that it was the weight of all gear. Hopefully Ken, Thal or someone else who has experience can clarify.

:thumb: I would expect the coroner's words to be precise about medical things, but not so precise about diving issues. A clarification sure would help!

[katepnatl]

There is no mention of the tank's air analysis in the report. It simply states the gauges read empty.

If the tank was empty could they still somehow do an analysis of the air? I mean that as a serious question... I am not thinking they could but am wondering if I missed something.

[SC_Hoaty]

If the tank was empty could they still somehow do an analysis of the air? I mean that as a serious question... I am not thinking they could but am wondering if I missed something.

Doesn't the first stage regulate to something like 150 PSI, so when it quits supplying gas, there would still be some in the tank?

[ItsBruce]

I seem to recall reading that the deceased was using an AL-80 tank. If my recollection is right, then it would seem that either the deceased had a remarkably low SAC or his computer kept counting dive time even after he stopped breathing.

[SC_Hoaty]

I seem to recall reading that the deceased was using an AL-80 tank. If my recollection is right, then it would seem that either the deceased had a remarkably low SAC or his computer kept counting dive time even after he stopped breathing.

Unless it were air-integrated, wouldn't it naturally do the latter?

[Jax]

Doesn't the first stage regulate to something like 150 PSI, so when it quits supplying gas, there would still be some in the tank?

That's what I was thinking, but there is no mention of analysis at all. I thought that strange.


I seem to recall reading that the deceased was using an AL-80 tank. If my recollection is right, then it would seem that either the deceased had a remarkably low SAC or his computer kept counting dive time even after he stopped breathing.

I would guess the computer would keep counting . . . but the fact that no ascent was mentioned leads one to believe he flat lost track of his air.

Narcosis, perhaps?

[SC_Hoaty]

I would guess the computer would keep counting . . . but the fact that no ascent was mentioned leads one to believe he flat lost track of his air.


My computer does not data-log. Max depth and bottom time, low temp, and a few other parameters are stored.

Yes, it is an older model.

If the victim had had a similar computer, had he spent the entire dive at a moderate depth, and then blacked out and sank to the bottom, the computer would read just like this one did - max depth and bottom time. Dead or alive.

Just a thought.

[Jax]

My computer does not data-log. Max depth and bottom time, low temp, and a few other parameters are stored.

Yes, it is an older model.

If the victim had had a similar computer, had he spent the entire dive at a moderate depth, and then blacked out and sank to the bottom, the computer would read just like this one did - max depth and bottom time. Dead or alive.

Just a thought.

One of the previous statements, echoed in the Coroners' report, was that he was seen at 100' in the sand, taking pictures. One could speculate he just stayed there, which is why I'm thinking narcosis.

[SC_Hoaty]

One of the previous statements, echoed in the Coroners' report, was that he was seen at 100' in the sand, taking pictures. One could speculate he just stayed there, which is why I'm thinking narcosis.

Fair enough. I was just trying to point out that if he had tried to ascend at some point, there might be no record of it. This is different from a record showing he had never tried to ascend.

[Jax]

Fair enough. I was just trying to point out that if he had tried to ascend at some point, there might be no record of it. This is different from a record showing he had never tried to ascend.

Ah . . . wow, that is a really ancient computer, then. :)

[SC_Hoaty]

Ah . . . wow, that is a really ancient computer, then. :)

:thumb:

[Cruisin Home]

Bet he wished he had a pony bottle now. For all you guys diving beyond 80 feet on a single tank, might want to think about the investment, not very expensive given the alternative.

IMHO a pony bottle when diving in excess of 80' should be recommended gear and should be taught by PADi, NAUI, etc. How many more deaths will it take?

[Quienyo]

Has anyone seen the Coroners report yet? It looks like people were calling (Jax) was doing some good work on that.
It is common knowledge in San Diego that the Captain had her license suspended for a while and the DM on board had a positive post accident drug test. IMO blunts don't belong on a dive boat.

[Jax]

Quienyo, that's the first heard of it here. Are you sure of this?

As for the coroners' report, what I posted above came directly from it.

[Quienyo]

Yes I am sure. I heard it directly from the owner of a dive shop that charters them. One of the Waterhorse owners told him. So it went from owner to owner, professional to professional. Not the usual dive rumor. I am not sure how someone would verify this. It is probably in a USCG report somewhere that should be available through FOIA. But that may take a few months to get.

[IXΘYΣ]

Sorry to reopen an old thread, but there are a couple of important misconceptions that need clearing up... :)
Doesn't the first stage regulate to something like 150 PSI, so when it quits supplying gas, there would still be some in the tank? 1. The first stage regulates IP to about 150 psi over ambient until the tank pressure reaches that, and then stays wide open. That is, from 150 down to zero (ambient) there is a direct path from the tank to the second stage. Depending on the second stage, air will be delivered with varying degrees of increased breathing resistance until ambient pressure is reached in the tank. With older regulators the diver will start noticing increased breathing resistance well in advance of the tank being empty; with some of the new, really good second stages, breathing resistance will remain very low right up until a breath or two before empty.
If the tank was empty could they still somehow do an analysis of the air? I mean that as a serious question... I am not thinking they could but am wondering if I missed something.2. Barring a leak during ascent (second stage stuck in a freeflow, for example), a tank breathed dry at 100' will have about 45 psi in it when brought to the surface, which is plenty for a gas analysis.
><>