Yukon tangent thread

[kaerius]

All of these discussions are very hypothetical, it sure would be nice to know what his computer says.

Probably a very long flat profile on the bottom(heck, even before he ran out of gas that was likely the case if he was busy photographing), with a possible spike of lesser depth when he noticed he ran out. Oh and it would probably be flashing all sorts of decompression warnings from his extended dead-body bottom time.

 

[D_B]

It's reasonable to think that if the diver did not surface in trouble (and it's reasonable to think he did not, with another boat on site that could have seen him if he did)
that no amount of help from the surface could have gone down 100ft, find him on, in, or off of a 366 foot long ship, return him to the surface, get him on board, and be in time to make a difference

 

[fjpatrum]

Get out a dictionary and look up the word nonfeasance. The crew did not do their jobs. They missed roll call, left the dive site. That is the contribution to the death. This has already been explained numerous times in this thread, go back and read. If the DM and CAPT had been watching bubbles, known that he was overdue, had the knowledge to think and ask how anyone can possibly stay down so long on an AL80, send a diver in to see what the hell he is doing, notified the lifeguards that there may be a problem PANPAN or MAYDAY, any of 100 different things to try and ensure this guy makes it back on the boat. A ton of things that could have been done, but the wrong thing to do would be to high tail it out of there to another dive site and go diving, figure it out an hour later that they forgot someone and the start a rescue. Why not start the rescue an hour previous and bring the perhaps lifeless body to the surface and try CPR try the AED. There may or may not have been a chance for him. But after 1.5 hours underwater without breathing they dropped his chances to zero. There is an expectation of safety and that you will not be left behind and the crew will use their skills and training to assist you. This goes beyond the good Samaritan, they had a job to do and failed miserably.

The diver support platform (aka dive boat) was 2 miles away from the diver. Not exactly in a position to do anything but perhaps the crew getting a suntan while their customer lay on the sea floor, alone, dying.

Okay, I've seen that "watching bubbles" comment several times. Maybe I misunderstood what I read but this wasn't a six-pack boat. According to one of the articles, if I remember correctly, there were 14 divers on the boat and it sounded like the possibility of only 1 captain and 1 crew member. (I don't know if that was a description of this particular trip or a similar one.)

If that description is accurate, I find it very reasonable to believe that the crew could have been watching bubbles and just missed one. Is it scary? Hell yes but that doesn't put the crew on the hook as the responsible party in this scenario. I questioned the role call, and I still say it matters but I really doubt it actually contributed to anything other than making the Humboldt crew look bad. As others have mentioned, mounting any sort of rescue in time to save a distressed diver on the bottom, even when watching bubbles, is very unlikely. SAR takes a minimum of a few minutes to mobilize when you're "on alert" for it. It takes significantly longer to do so when it's an "unexpected" situation.

Now, whether any search operation should be "unexpected" on a dive is a whole other matter entirely, but I will wager that even the best bubble watching captains and crew can't know for certain the difference between bubbles coming from 100 feet versus those coming from 15 feet and certainly don't know everyone's likely down time to the minute that would allow for a real rescue effort in time to do anything other than body recovery.

A faster response is always the right choice. Leaving a diver down is always wrong. There is no question that we will agree on those two statements. Other than that, though, everything is pure guess work. The man died. We can lay blame and point fingers or we can try to learn from it as much as we can. I suspect the crew of the boat that day will have a much more realistic take on the situation and will never forget what happened. I also suspect they will likely always hold themselves partially responsible no matter what anyone else tells them, even if they are told the man died 10 minutes into his dive.

 

[tbaldi]

I would just like to say, my condolences to the family.

I don't know if the diver was

on nitrox
could swim more than 200 yards
what certification he was
or whatever nonsense that everyone keeps spouting here but a diver is dead, in my home town, on a wreck I have dove quite a few times

That is sad.

Good luck with all your "speculation" I hope you guys all figure out whatever it is you are looking for.

 

[tbaldi]

The crew did not do their jobs. They missed roll call, left the dive site. That is the contribution to the death. The diver support platform (aka dive boat) was 2 miles away from the diver. Not exactly in a position to do anything but perhaps the crew getting a suntan while their customer lay on the sea floor, alone, dying.

Dave,

One question. Were you diving off the Humbolt that day?

TB

 

[redacted]

Dave,

One question. Were you diving off the Humbolt that day?

TB

Is the only way one can make a credible judgment is to be an eye witness?

Is it unreasonable to expect someone to listen to testimony and other evidence and make a judgment?

 

[ScubaSteve]

That's why they figure it when he is overdue and send someone in, before it gets bad. Before he runs out of air.

I have never been on this boat (sadly because the Yukon is on my list of wanted dive sites) but judging by this comment I have to assume you are telling everybody that each diver diving off the Humbolt is given a maximum dive time? Otherwise, how would somebody watching bubbles know someone is in trouble before they run out of air?

 

[tbaldi]

Is the only way one can make a credible judgment is to be an eye witness?
In this case. Yes. Considering the strong assertions the poster has made, I think this is a fair question. He seems to imply that the DMs onboard are complete idiots and negligent in their duties. It seems fair to ask if he was even on the boat to view what he asserts has taken place. Or is is just guessing this happened based on "what he heard" over the internet posts?
Is it unreasonable to expect someone to listen to testimony and other evidence and make a judgment?I don't consider posts on Scubaboard to be "testimony" or "evidence". Do you? The majority of posters don't even live in the area yet are quick to offer their opinion rendered as fact on the matter.

Yukon

 

[Blow.Fish]

It's reasonable to think that if the diver did not surface in trouble (and it's reasonable to think he did not, with another boat on site that could have seen him if he did)

I've seen a few references to another boat(s) being on the site. Is this a known fact ? I'm not familiar with the area, but I quickly checked the online calendars of two other popular dive ops in the area and both appear to have scheduled afternoon trips to this wreck on sat 9/11. I'm not sure if this makes any difference, except possibly in the case that the diver did somehow make it to surface.

 

[Blackwood]

From the descriptions I am reading of the dive site - can be surgy, can have strong current, vis can be abysmal, etc. and of course, water temps requiring thick wetsuit or a drysuit - I am not sure air or 32% is such a great gas for this dive.

FWIW, I'm a helium wuss in the eyes of many of this board, but EAN32 is perfect for the Yukon.

Dude, it's a wreck dive. If you do any penetration your bubbles may NOT ever reach the surface.

In the case of yukon penetration, bubbles often keep coming up long after the dive is over and everyone is back on the boat.

He could have been dead for a half hour with the crew up watching bubbles (assuming surface conditions are good enough to see them, and assuming the diver is on open circuit which in the case of the humbolt is often a bad assumption).

Anyway, I agree, the entire discussion of "he's dead because they didn't watch his bubbles" is absurd. He died because he ran out of gas. Does that absolve the boat of their responsibility to make sure everyone is onboard? Of course not. But, given the facts we have, laying his death on their inattentiveness is beyond the pale.

My condolences to those families who lost loved ones. It's been a horrific week for California diving.