Scuba diver dies after being found floating at Kurnell, NSW, Australia
- Thread starter Sir-Dive-A-Lot
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
je76
Registered
For my cold water technical diving with double 120s I can't imagine not diving my 94 lb wing.
I have found this discussion to be very thought provoking. As someone already summarized, many possible factors may have been at play and they are all worth a look. It has caused me to review my own diving protocols.
I first began seriously following this topic several years ago after the tragic death of the two Coast Guard divers. Those individuals were simply not qualified at all to do what they were doing. Here we may have something similar but in a different form: A skilled professional out of her element.
I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this illuminating discussion. If none of the issues raised were the cause of this death, the discussion is still insightful to me.
I first began seriously following this topic several years ago after the tragic death of the two Coast Guard divers. Those individuals were simply not qualified at all to do what they were doing. Here we may have something similar but in a different form: A skilled professional out of her element.
I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this illuminating discussion. If none of the issues raised were the cause of this death, the discussion is still insightful to me.
Amen.
DaleC
Contributor
I'm not with the "small wings are bad" camp. Both large and small wings have their negatives, which can be alleviated by diving them the right way.
For a small wing, it is important to be as close to neutral weighting as possible, so that very little is needed in the way of compensation from the wing. If it fails, the drysuit should be able to make the lift, as well as the rig being fairly easy to swim up. Vintage equipment divers weight like this all the time, often using no wing. As a side note, they also know that, by using a J valve, an accidental OOA can occur, so the concept of how to make the surface is always in the back of ones mind.
The issue here is not too small a wing being selected as much as too much weight being used.
A large wing can also be a negative in that it allows divers to easily overweight themselves and not suffer the consequences. But when the wing fails, the DS they are relying on for redundant lift may not be able to compensate. Now a simple failure calls for ditching and a buoyant ascent.
If one needs to assist a second diver a large wing might not be as safe as suggested. Over use of it, and losing grip of the second diver, could create an uncontrolled ascent for the rescuer.
Big wings and small wings are not the culprits. Poor weighting is. Many issues could be avoided by simply weighting properly. For recreational diving (which we are talking about) consider what is actually going on if you really need 50-100lb's of buoyancy to make the surface.
For a small wing, it is important to be as close to neutral weighting as possible, so that very little is needed in the way of compensation from the wing. If it fails, the drysuit should be able to make the lift, as well as the rig being fairly easy to swim up. Vintage equipment divers weight like this all the time, often using no wing. As a side note, they also know that, by using a J valve, an accidental OOA can occur, so the concept of how to make the surface is always in the back of ones mind.
The issue here is not too small a wing being selected as much as too much weight being used.
A large wing can also be a negative in that it allows divers to easily overweight themselves and not suffer the consequences. But when the wing fails, the DS they are relying on for redundant lift may not be able to compensate. Now a simple failure calls for ditching and a buoyant ascent.
If one needs to assist a second diver a large wing might not be as safe as suggested. Over use of it, and losing grip of the second diver, could create an uncontrolled ascent for the rescuer.
Big wings and small wings are not the culprits. Poor weighting is. Many issues could be avoided by simply weighting properly. For recreational diving (which we are talking about) consider what is actually going on if you really need 50-100lb's of buoyancy to make the surface.
Bhtmec2
Contributor
During a Trimix dive to 180 ft at 100 I determined that I was descending faster than the others. Kept trying to add air and it would work for a few seconds and then off I went. I was diving wet with twin 100s and an 80 and a 40. I think everyone just thought I was in a hurry to get down but when I blew past 120 130 then I got worried. I carry a lift bag and a large marker. I got out the lift bag attached it and inflated slowly. It has a top dump that I can easly control. At 150 I was in control. My next step was going to dump some weight.
Well after the dive I inspected the gear and the bottom of the top of the horse shoe seam had blown.
I was Starting to get worried but I stayed fairly calm and went back to my military procedures and checked mentally each step and my gear and determined that the wing had to be the problem and went to one of my backup's that I always brief. Boy Scout moto being prepared has always kept me safe.
This Thread had got me thinking so today I went out to the bay and checked my configuration for single and twins for my weights and made sure I had some to dump. I changed my single tank setup from steel BP to Alluminum so I can dump a belt if needed. I normally only dive singles with a Steel BP. I can swim it up with the wing deflated but never know if you need a little edge. Did all checks with 500-800 psi and now I know I am better weighted. I do have a great wing from Hollis that I now use for all dives and it gives me plenty of lift for singles or doubles. I trust it better than the last company's wing that failed and they would not fix or replace it. That is another story.
Well after the dive I inspected the gear and the bottom of the top of the horse shoe seam had blown.
I was Starting to get worried but I stayed fairly calm and went back to my military procedures and checked mentally each step and my gear and determined that the wing had to be the problem and went to one of my backup's that I always brief. Boy Scout moto being prepared has always kept me safe.
This Thread had got me thinking so today I went out to the bay and checked my configuration for single and twins for my weights and made sure I had some to dump. I changed my single tank setup from steel BP to Alluminum so I can dump a belt if needed. I normally only dive singles with a Steel BP. I can swim it up with the wing deflated but never know if you need a little edge. Did all checks with 500-800 psi and now I know I am better weighted. I do have a great wing from Hollis that I now use for all dives and it gives me plenty of lift for singles or doubles. I trust it better than the last company's wing that failed and they would not fix or replace it. That is another story.
I here you on this. It's so easy to think (in Australian terms) "She will be right mate". Its time for us all to look and sometimes say "Well you know what! No it wont be right, this is a high risk sport. Follow the motto DIR". We have a moral obligation to express this to anyone we genuinely believe has issues that increase their risk, whether it is apparent to them or not. I think if I were Tracy and knew Quero I would feel the same, angry at it all, hurting and upset. As it is even though I don't know her I find it a time of immense sadness. I believe in my heart it was an avoidable incident and yet it happened.
---------- Post added October 15th, 2013 at 02:35 PM ----------
I bought a 50 lb wing over a 40 and am glad I did. My BCD has about 45 lb lift as well and I find it no issue at all.
The only thing that's eating away at me now is "Mine is not PINK!"
clownfishsydney
Contributor
The depth where they descended again was about 3 metres. Looking at the dive profile as well as some of mine, it is 3 metres most of the way to the shore. Therefore, probably 10 minutes, depending which way you swim. Certainly if you go a bit more SE rather than S, you will hit the shore and shallower water earlier. This is a very slow swim normally, as there is often things like sea horses to find in the weed.
AfterDark
Contributor
DaleC
Contributor
I agree. My point was that thinking a large capacity wing is needed to bring a second diver up isn't really thinking through some of the unintended consequences. I guess my main point was that it's not really so much about the gear as knowing the pros and cons that go along with it. If you are aware, a 100lb wing is no more safe/less safe than a 40lb wing.
Interesting point about doubles.
The whole neutral weighting strategy goes out the window when larger twin tanks and stages/deco etc... are used. Then, the amount of weight needed must equal the weight of gas that will be expended during the dive (unless you are dropping tanks) so the diver cannot help but be negative at the beginning of the dive - sometimes by quite a bit. It's a price tech divers pay and one reason why some use dual bladder wings etc... They cannot recover easily from a failure without backup. It's also why some agencies push using different materials for tanks/BP's in different conditions.
When divers think they are being safer by using technically oriented configurations for simple recreational diving they also have to factor in some of the negatives and the compensating strategies that go along with them. A bad situation would be for a novice rec diver to don a big set of negative doubles with a big wing and think they were being safer than the singles diver with a small wing. Even worse if they are using a wetsuit. A simple wing failure would then have them potentially ditching the whole rig in order to reach the surface.
Interesting point about doubles.
The whole neutral weighting strategy goes out the window when larger twin tanks and stages/deco etc... are used. Then, the amount of weight needed must equal the weight of gas that will be expended during the dive (unless you are dropping tanks) so the diver cannot help but be negative at the beginning of the dive - sometimes by quite a bit. It's a price tech divers pay and one reason why some use dual bladder wings etc... They cannot recover easily from a failure without backup. It's also why some agencies push using different materials for tanks/BP's in different conditions.
When divers think they are being safer by using technically oriented configurations for simple recreational diving they also have to factor in some of the negatives and the compensating strategies that go along with them. A bad situation would be for a novice rec diver to don a big set of negative doubles with a big wing and think they were being safer than the singles diver with a small wing. Even worse if they are using a wetsuit. A simple wing failure would then have them potentially ditching the whole rig in order to reach the surface.
Similar threads
