Female Diver Missing on The Yukon, San Diego

[Tortuga68]

Well I guess we can add that to the list of questions we don't know the answer to

 

[Badge353]

I dove the Yukon two weeks ago off the Humboldt. The surface conditions were perfect however on the wreck there was alot of surge and poor visibility. This was not what I expected to find based ont ehsurface conditions. We recieved a briefing on the wreck and the fact there may be heavy surge on the wreck itself. We were also warned about the effects of surge at the openings and to watch yourselve so you are not sucked into the wreck. This is a tragedy as all deaths are but my personal belief is ultimate responsiblity is with the diver themselves. If you are not comfortable or find you are in over your head you can always thumb the dive.

 

[mathauck0814]

I've got news for you. If people only ever dove the Yukon when conditions were good, almost no one would ever dive the Yukon.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

I've read most quite a bit of the thread but it specifically said in the report that he "just dropped her" as he panicked because he was having a hard time getting her to the surface. Have you read the official report that was linked to? Sounds like you haven't as the report seems to indicate that with both BCs full he was having trouble bringing both his and the victims weight to the surface. He needed to ditch some of his weight.

I have read the report, and based on what you're saying it sounds like you haven't read all of the report. It's also cute you think it's always and ever "not too hard to hang onto the tank."

We do have this:

the divemaster saw that the decedent was sinking down, without apparently kicking. He went to her to bring her up; he inflated her BCD, but they did not rise in the water. He reported that her mask was still on, her eyes were wide, and she did not seem responsive. They sank to the bottom. He then inflated his BCD to ascend, and reported that he did not get any help from her in trying to ascend. He reported that he did not remove her weight belt and did not see her remove it. He did not know if she was breathing. As they were ascending, he was not making progress and started to panic. At about 60 fsw, he let go of her to vent air from his BCD. However, he was then overly buoyant and shot to the surface, while she sank back down.

The report only say the DM noted the beginning of panic because the body was deadweight and despite two inflated BCDs and him kicking, they weren't going anywhere. It does not say he dropped her or let her go due to panic, only that he "let go of her to vent" his BCD. Maybe that involved taking one hand rather than both off the body and with the surge and her negative buoyancy he needed both hands to hold her; maybe for some reason he needed two hands to vent and felt she should be positive with an inflated BCD long enough for him to regain a hold of her body after he vented--it's not clear from the report.

Moreover, the report has other statements about how the DM lost control over the body, which note the conditions in which this show was being attempted:

After they reached the bottom, the decedent and her buddy became separated after they were hit by strong surge. The divemaster found the decedent sinking and began surfacing with her. However, he lost his grip on her and made an uncontrolled ascent to the surface. Humboldt divers found her in a compartment of the Yukon. They moved her body and placed a buoy on it, but due to poor conditions, her body was unable to be retrieved at that time.

The report simply doesn't suggest, much less say, the DM "just dropped her" and I'm not surprised that a DM who was forced to attempt a body recovery in those conditions lost control of her. That said, there's something weird about the sum of the findings in the report and as reported by the victim's father.

First, if the DM is at the threshold of panic over lack of progress, why is he venting buoyancy out of his own BCD? Obviously he was overinflated for his own weight, which is why he did a Polaris missile impression the moment he was no longer anchored by the body, but while bringing her up? As an aside, your thought that the DM was overweighted doesn't match up with his uncontrolled ascent once he was freed of the body.

Second, while there's plenty to suggest negative buoyancy of some amount, I'm not seeing where a large negative buoyancy is coming from, especially once they're up to 60' and the wetsuits are starting to expand. The report doesn't say her weight belt was on when the DM tried to surface her, only that he didn't pull it or see her pull it; it was later found off the body and away from her, suggesting she'd removed it before the DM got to her (I'm not seeing where else it could have come off unless it came off on its own). So it's possible the DM was trying to surface her without it. I'll be interested to see if there's an official report on whether she had any non-ditchable or unditched integrated weight in the BCD.

Still we know she was negative without a weight belt:

body, BCD, and tank negatively buoyant on bottom without weight belt.

How much could she have been negatively buoyant? While the tank was reportedly empty when found, that was after hours being tumbled into and around the wreck by surge sufficient to get her in there and tangle her in line. One wonders if it was the negative buoyancy of a nearly full steel tank that the DM was trying to pull up, which was later emptied by freeflow in the surge/tumble. From the report's conclusion that she'd been knocked unconscious and drowned before the DM even reached her, it's likely that the negative buoyancy of the tank was compounded by whatever the negative buouancy of a 112lb mesomorph with flooded lungs is.

Still, that doesn't seem like more negative buoyancy than a full BCD, much less two of them, should be able to handle. One wonders how the DM was weighted, but again he apparently took off like a shot without the weight of the body. It sounds like entanglement must have been arresting the ascent, but the report says with a fair amount of confidence that the entanglement occured later due to surge.

Interestingly, the BDC was reportedly found uninflated despite the DM's saying he inflated hers as well as his own:

No air in BCD.

The victim's father has said Scripps tested her gear and found it functional -- so why was the BCD found empty? Perhaps the DM did not inflate it afterall.

If I wanted to spitball, I'd guess a 2-4lb overweighted (carrying extra for students) task-loaded DM tried to surface her (flooded lungs, nearly full steel tank, and weight belt still on) with just his own BCD and only got to 60' by fighting all her negative buoyancy. Somewhere around there he realized he needed to ditch her belt or maybe inflate her BCD, but as he does so they're now rising too fast so he tries to vent his own BCD. Between simultaneously trying to make her less negative (either dropping her belt despite what he said or belatedly inflating her BCD) and make himself less positive, he loses control of her in the surge and increasing ascent rate and then whoosh to the surface for him.

 

[Crass3000]

Dr. Lector this was copied and pasted from the report:

On the bottom, she and her buddy held hands, but they were sucked over the edge of thewreck by a strong surge. Her buddy reported somersaulting and hitting her head, possiblyon the decedent’s tank. She reported being “a bit dazed.” They became separated. Atsome time after, the divemaster saw that the decedent was sinking down, withoutapparently kicking. He went to her to bring her up; he inflated her BCD, but they did notrise in the water. He reported that her mask was still on, her eyes were wide, and she didnot seem responsive. They sank to the bottom. He then inflated his BCD to ascend, andreported that he did not get any help from her in trying to ascend. He reported that he didnot remove her weight belt and did not see her remove it. He did not know if she wasbreathing. As they were ascending, he was not making progress and started to panic. Atabout 60 fsw, he let go of her to vent air from his BCD. However, he was then overlybuoyant and shot to the surface, while she sank back down. At the surface, he yelled to​

the Captain of the boat, who radioed Lifeguards.


Once again only my opinion:
The above suggests that he panicked and they used the word panic. IMHO he should have dropped some of his weight. They would have been more buoyant and would have likely made it to the surface. You can hang on to the top of the tank and take care of all the venting you need to. Obviously he was too high up in the water column to do that but ironically had he held on to her they would have likely surfaced at a reasonable speed. Supposedly he had her with a full BCD according to him. The people who retrieved the body found different. Who really knows but if they indeed both had full BCDs then I can only imagine him minus his weight would have brought her up. Just a guess but as it said he panicked so at that point he was likely worried about his own survival.

And I can certainly see how things could have gone as you stated in your final paragraph. If I was trying to surface someone I would let all their air out and try to go it up with my own BCD as it would be much more controllable. I would have also left her belt on until I found I couldn't bring her up without ditching it. Either way. Sad chain of events and I'm sure the DM did the best he could given the conditions and what equipment he had. Kinda confirms another reason I've been thinking about carrying a lift bag.

Edit: Yah after reading all your points the report does seem to bring more questions than answers. I guess I just saw his venting just prior to letting her go as he figured he did his best and was venting to try to not make the missle launch to the surface. Think I'm going to add a suicide clip or something to a D-ring to help avoid overtasking and also a lift bag. Not that I would attach the two together but they could both help in different situations and could have possibly helped here. A ventable lift bag would have really helped.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

The turn this thread has taken is a great example of why you couldn't offer me enough money to be a DM or instructor, and why regardless of the training, practice, and experience I may or may not have, I'll never have a rescue c-card with my name on it. Hell, it's a reason why I'm uncomfortable diving with most buddies/teams.

I'm happy to be held responsible by the sea for my own stupidity, errors, or just plain old bad luck...but I don't like the possibility of being held responsible for others' by a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks. A group of certified divers go dive a challenging but by no means unreasonably dangerous wreck in challenging but by no mean unreasonably dangerous conditions as part of a class designed to give experience in the hazards of wrecks, one of them falls prey to some combination of gear malfunction/over-weighting/wreck strike from surge... and now there's a debate over whether a DM screwed up what was essentially an unplanned body recovery in waters that were deemed too rough for a body recovery just shortly after the DM surfaced.

I guess there's an argument that if the water conditions aren't appropriate for a body recovery then they're per se not appropriate for a wreck dive. But I'd rather not dive in a jurisdiction where that's the rule.

 

[Abdullah]

The turn this thread has taken is a great example of why you couldn't offer me enough money to be a DM or instructor, and why regardless of the training, practice, and experience I may or may not have, I'll never have a rescue c-card with my name on it. Hell, it's a reason why I'm uncomfortable diving with most buddies/teams.

I'm happy to be held responsible by the sea for my own stupidity, errors, or just plain old bad luck...but I don't like the possibility of being held responsible for others' by a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks. A group of certified divers go dive a challenging but by no means unreasonably dangerous wreck in challenging but by no mean unreasonably dangerous conditions as part of a class designed to give experience in the hazards of wrecks, one of them falls prey to some combination of gear malfunction/over-weighting/wreck strike from surge... and now there's a debate over whether a DM screwed up what was essentially an unplanned body recovery in waters that were deemed too rough for a body recovery just shortly after the DM surfaced.

I guess there's an argument that if the water conditions aren't appropriate for a body recovery then they're per se not appropriate for a wreck dive. But I'd rather not dive in a jurisdiction where that's the rule.

Was it a body recovery at this point in the DM's story, or an unresponsive diver on the bottom? The DM is trained to rescue an unresponsive diver. And, if he was working in a DM capacity (rather than just owning the card), he had a duty of care to render aid to the divers in his charge, no?

The basic procedure to rescue an unresponsive diver includes adding air to the BCD until the diver is neutral. The DM should have accomplished that step before the ascent began. Some techniques include using the victims' BCD for positive buoyancy so that the victim will surface if rescuer loses his grip. The rescuer stays more negative so that a lost grip doesn't cork the rescuer. If the DM had her neutral on the bottom, she would have been positive at 60 fsw. It does not appear that the DM applied the basic rescue procedure.

I don't see how she could have been as negative as portrayed here. She apparently had enough buoyancy at the beginning of the dive to not have problems on the surface. And she seems to have been OK before she and her buddy were tumbled. Water in the lungs is irrelevant to buoyancy for a submerged diver (water is neutral).

I do agree that working as a DM is a lot of risk for few rewards, especially in a very litigious USA. But, once someone decides to put on that hat, they own all the risks inherent to that profession and should be maintaining competency in all aspects of their chosen profession, including rescue. Diving can be darn dangerous, a professional who fails to maintain competency in all aspects of the profession exposes himself to as many hazards out of the water as he faces under it.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

From the ME's opinion in the autopsy report:

The finding of facial injuries (including the glabella laceration and possibly the left eyebrow injury) strongly suggests that, much like the decedent’s buddy reported striking her head while being tumbled, the decedent struck something or was struck in the mask while being tumbled. Although she had no internal head injury, this was apparently sufficient to render her unconscious, as she was then found sinking and unresponsive when found by the divemaster. That period of unconsciousness was sufficient to lead to drowning.

I read this as indicating she had drowned (flooded lungs making her heavier than a merely unresponsive diver) before the DM reached her, though this statement "[the DM during his attempted ascent with the victim] did not know if she was breathing" indicates that perhaps her reg was still in her mouth which might have prevented drowning.

Water in the lungs is irrelevant to buoyancy for a submerged diver (water is neutral).

Water is neutral, but air (normally present in the lungs) is not--if you're neutral at a given depth after you've exhaled all you can, you'll still become negative if I knock you out and flood your lungs, thereby releasing the tidal volume of air normally retained within them.

 

[Badge353]

Is that an actual intact wreck that can be penetrated or is it just a "boat shaped blob" that divers look at from the outside?

Did the deceased (or the rest of the class) enter it?

flots.

It is an intact wreck that sank prematurely the night before it was scheduled to be sunk. As a result it less on its port side instead of straight up. It has several cutouts and is penetrated allot.

It is used for wreck diving certification allot.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[batman123]

Was it a body recovery at this point in the DM's story, or an unresponsive diver on the bottom? The DM is trained to rescue an unresponsive diver. And, if he was working in a DM capacity (rather than just owning the card), he had a duty of care to render aid to the divers in his charge, no?

The basic procedure to rescue an unresponsive diver includes adding air to the BCD until the diver is neutral. The DM should have accomplished that step before the ascent began. Some techniques include using the victims' BCD for positive buoyancy so that the victim will surface if rescuer loses his grip. The rescuer stays more negative so that a lost grip doesn't cork the rescuer. If the DM had her neutral on the bottom, she would have been positive at 60 fsw. It does not appear that the DM applied the basic rescue procedure.

I don't see how she could have been as negative as portrayed here. She apparently had enough buoyancy at the beginning of the dive to not have problems on the surface. And she seems to have been OK before she and her buddy were tumbled. Water in the lungs is irrelevant to buoyancy for a submerged diver (water is neutral).

I do agree that working as a DM is a lot of risk for few rewards, especially in a very litigious USA. But, once someone decides to put on that hat, they own all the risks inherent to that profession and should be maintaining competency in all aspects of their chosen profession, including rescue. Diving can be darn dangerous, a professional who fails to maintain competency in all aspects of the profession exposes himself to as many hazards out of the water as he faces under it.

My apologies for being a first time poster (long timelurker), but this callus misinformed comment had me yelling at my screen, if I had an existing profile I would have used it.


“Water in the lungs is irrelevant to buoyancy for asubmerged diver (water is neutral).” - Abdullah

Completely wrong, yes water in water is neutral, but when you replace the gas in someone’s lung with water they lose buoyancy (if this even happened), this is buoyancy 101. ‘Inexperienced’ divers also tend to hold a larger amount of air in their lungs then more relaxed divers so this situation could be quite significant.


“If the DM had her neutral on the bottom, she would have been positive at 60 fsw. It does not appear that the DM applied the basic rescue procedure” - Abdullah

Completely unfounded and quite probably wrong based on the DMs version of events. A fully inflated BC at depth would vents gas as it rises through the water column. Therefore, if a fully inflated BC at depth was supplying 25lbs of lift (for example) it would still only be supplying 25lbs of lift at 60’ (the expand gas vented). Her uncompressing wetsuit would have supplied a relatively small increase in buoyancy, but most likely barely noticeable. Furthermore, when the DM lost her, she sank and the gas in her BC would have ‘recompressed’ leaving her BC with less gas and buoyancy then before the rescue attempt was initiated.


“It does notappear that the DM applied the basic rescue procedure” - Abdullah

I have no connection to this DM or the incident but I find your callus, misinformed and uneducated personal attack on this PERSON to be incorrect and disgusting.


My apologies to the moderators, as this comment would be questionable at best, however the posters conclusions are blatantly incorrect and they have posted a personally attack on an individual who did their best to help a fellow diver in the worst possible situation and put themselves in very serious danger doing so. I’ve done my best tofollow in the spirit of the forum

To the DM, I’d dive with you any day, anywhere.