Missing Diver in Cape Town, South Africa

[drcolyn]

Thanks to those that analyzed the mistakes so we could all learn from it.

My summary of it all was that wreck penetration was not treated by this diver with the attention to detail that is required of such a technical specialty dive – the dangers of which were taught all the way from open water one and yet he disobeyed that training.
This leads me to another question – what will Cape dive operators do different in future?
Please note I am not pointing fingers to anyone here but speaking in general as to what I would prefer as an occasional client of Cape Town dive operators when I am in town for a dive.
I know some operators state it specifically in their newsletters when they are planning a technical dive – usually that involves a wreck deeper than the recreational depth limits.
The Smitswinkel bay and Houtbay wrecks are always specified as “advanced” due to their depth and not as technical dives. To me that translate to pretty deep but still “no wreck penetration” should be attempted as the dive was not advertised as a technical dive.
When the captain has his safety talk on the boat – should he not remind the divers that they signed up for an advanced dive only and no wreck penetration should be attempted?
That way they can help the brave divers get old and the rest of the divers on the boat (like myself) will have far less chance of becoming part of a rescue operation that could leave scars for the rest of their diving days.
If any Cape town diver ever be paired with me on a dive – please be advised that I will gladly share what is left of my 15 liter when you run into trouble as I will switch over to my pony but if you enter a wreck I will mark the spot with my smb, leave you there and follow lost diver protocol. I do underwater photography - not technical diving.

 

[xyrandomyx]

I don't think it was stated explicitly anywhere, but it definitely didn't sound to me as though this was planned as a recreational, no-penetration dive. So I don't think a warning from the captain in the safety briefing could have helped in this case, since he was likely aware that the plan was to penetrate the wreck. It's probably reasonable for ops to expect evidence of appropriate training before allowing someone to do such a dive from their boat, but it's not clear that this wasn't provided either. It may be that the diver was qualified, at least 'on paper', and did not follow their training (presuming that what has been speculated here is true). I really don't see how a dive op could prevent that sort of thing from happening: it seems unreasonable for them to have to personally evaluate every customer's skills before allowing them to do certain dives.

I know at least on Cape Town diver on this forum occasionally does technical dives (penetration or deco) on recreational charters with the explicit permission of the dive op/ captain. I don't personally see any problem with that: he has the appropriate training, he has the op's permission and he can do it without inconvenciencing the other customers (ie. staying within time limits). The options for technical divers here are quite limited, so a boat with mixed recreational/ technical divers seems a fair compromise to me.

I'm completely with you on the response to a buddy penetrating a wreck when that's not in the plan -- mark their last location, get yourself to the surface. Attempting a rescue in that situation, without the training or equipment, would just be plain foolish.