What would you do if...

[Huskychemist]

The sad story of the diver at Deception Pass State Park prompted me to "go back in time" to think about dives where I made silly decisions and/or circumstances caused an unpleasant dive.

In the interest of learning, I thought I'd start this thread. While I don't mind "Plan your dive better" as an answer, in general, I'm looking to improve my problem-solving. I understand that better plans will often PREVENT problems. But what if you planned well and still had a problem? (Equipment failure, for example.)

So I'll start this off with a story from here in Thailand. I wasn't the "victim" but I was on the dive boat when it happened.

What would you do if:

You were diving a wreck (not much in the way of penetration), and the current was pretty high. You "hid" on the lee side of the wreck during the 15-minutes of bottom time at around 100 fsw. Your buddy gives you the turnaround sign, and you both head up the side of the wreck, figuring you'd swim over the top until you got to the line and follow the line up to the dive boat.

Whoops! The current was a bit too strong, so your dive buddy doesn't catch the line and gets swept past. You caught the line and watch him being pulled away from you. He tries to swim towards you, but he's not making any progress. You can't reach out to him, as he's too far away.

What do you do? (You can answer this from both perspectives if you like...)

If this manages to get some discussion going, at some point, I'll tell you what happened at the end. (It's not a sad story, as everybody eventually made it back on the boat.)

Thanks.

Lowell

p.s. Less than two weeks until I get to dive the beautiful emerald green waters of Puget Sound with my dive buddy!

[airsix]

1)Let go of line
2)shoot the bag
3)kick to buddy
Bag should be seen since we are very near the line.
4)Do normal ascent with buddy.
5)Wait for pickup

Getting the bag to the surface near the line should lock in a safe outcome.

2 and 3 might be interchanged depending on vis and current. Don't want to get separated from buddy/team.
I'd want to shoot the bag as quickly as possible so that it surfaces as near the line as possible so as to be seen by surface support.

I might be wrong, but without further training this is what I'd do, hoping it was the right thing.
Two divers doing a blue-water ascent is much safer than each doing a solo ascent (one on the line and one out to sea).

-Ben

[BUZO71]

+1... I think that's reasonable....

[Nwbrewer]

1)Let go of line
2)shoot the bag
3)kick to buddy
Bag should be seen since we are very near the line.
4)Do normal ascent with buddy.
5)Wait for pickup

Getting the bag to the surface near the line should lock in a safe outcome.

2 and 3 might be interchanged depending on vis and current. Don't want to get separated from buddy/team.
I'd want to shoot the bag as quickly as possible so that it surfaces as near the line as possible so as to be seen by surface support.

I might be wrong, but without further training this is what I'd do, hoping it was the right thing.
Two divers doing a blue-water ascent is much safer than each doing a solo ascent (one on the line and one out to sea).

-Ben

Yep, sounds reasonable. The only other thing I'd consider depending on gas would be to drop back down the wreck and get out of the current and make another go at it. If that wasn't practical, I think Ben's plan sounds good.

Jake

[LCF]

I'm pretty much with Ben. When I go in the water with somebody as a buddy, I've made a commitment to that person to be there for them until the dive is over. If I hung onto the anchor line, and my buddy never made it to the surface, I wouldn't be able to live with myself. I'd let go, join him, get us well united, shoot a bag, and hope somebody saw it and would come and get us. This is why I never boat dive without an SMB and spool, a DiveAlert, and a mirror.

[ArcticDiver]

There are two imperitives working in this scenario. One is to take care of the buddy. Another is to not cause two casualities unnecessarily.

Of course the mere fact that the buddy drifts off doesn't mean that person will end up a casualty. To presuppose that will be the outcome is not thinking rationally. Even if the buddy drifts off the overwhelming odds are that the buddy will not become a casualty. Going to the buddy just to keep the two of you together is not productive. or rational.

But, the first question is: :Which has the most resources for rescue, if needed. The boat, or me going solo to the buddy?" If the boat offers the best likelyhood of getting the most and best resources to help my buddy, that is where I'm going. If not, then I let loose and join the buddy to do what I can.

The second question is: "Just what am I going to be able to do that will help the buddy and not just make things worse. Or, maybe just put the two of us drifting with no one to notify the boat what happened and when. There is never any logical reason to make two casualties from a single casualty situation.

I've always been taught, and have learned through experience. that unnecessary risk to myself is counterproductive. Often the best thing a person can do is go for help. Mind you, I said "unnecessary risk". Therein lies the magic; deciding what is unnecessary and what is reasonable. And that must be the individual's decision as no one else has to live with it.

[dsteding]

There are two imperitives working in this scenario. One is to take care of the buddy. Another is to not cause two casualities unnecessarily.

Of course the mere fact that the buddy drifts off doesn't mean that person will end up a casualty. To presuppose that will be the outcome is not thinking rationally. Even if the buddy drifts off the overwhelming odds are that the buddy will not become a casualty. Going to the buddy just to keep the two of you together is not productive. or rational.

But, the first question is: :Which has the most resources for rescue, if needed. The boat, or me going solo to the buddy?" If the boat offers the best likelyhood of getting the most and best resources to help my buddy, that is where I'm going. If not, then I let loose and join the buddy to do what I can.

The second question is: "Just what am I going to be able to do that will help the buddy and not just make things worse. Or, maybe just put the two of us drifting with no one to notify the boat what happened and when. There is never any logical reason to make two casualties from a single casualty situation.

I've always been taught, and have learned through experience. that unnecessary risk to myself is counterproductive. Often the best thing a person can do is go for help. Mind you, I said "unnecessary risk". Therein lies the magic; deciding what is unnecessary and what is reasonable. And that must be the individual's decision as no one else has to live with it.

I totally disagree in terms of this specific situation. I'm going with my buddy and shooting a bag. Period. This isn't a "rescue" situations where you are potentially putting yourself in danger. This is a free ascent, and, quite frankly, something you should be able to handle if you were on the wreck to begin with.

[Grateful Diver]

1)Let go of line
2)shoot the bag
3)kick to buddy
Bag should be seen since we are very near the line.
4)Do normal ascent with buddy.
5)Wait for pickup

Getting the bag to the surface near the line should lock in a safe outcome.

2 and 3 might be interchanged depending on vis and current. Don't want to get separated from buddy/team.
I'd want to shoot the bag as quickly as possible so that it surfaces as near the line as possible so as to be seen by surface support.

I might be wrong, but without further training this is what I'd do, hoping it was the right thing.
Two divers doing a blue-water ascent is much safer than each doing a solo ascent (one on the line and one out to sea).

-Ben

This is what I would do ... except that connecting with my buddy would be priority #1 and shooting the bag would proceed as quickly as possible after that. I'd probably be digging it out and getting it ready to go as I was kicking ... but I wouldn't shoot the bag until we were together again.

... Bob (Grateful DIver)

[ArcticDiver]

There are two imperitives working in this scenario. One is to take care of the buddy. Another is to not cause two casualities unnecessarily.

Of course the mere fact that the buddy drifts off doesn't mean that person will end up a casualty. To presuppose that will be the outcome is not thinking rationally. Even if the buddy drifts off the overwhelming odds are that the buddy will not become a casualty. Going to the buddy just to keep the two of you together is not productive. or rational.

But, the first question is: :Which has the most resources for rescue, if needed. The boat, or me going solo to the buddy?" If the boat offers the best likelyhood of getting the most and best resources to help my buddy, that is where I'm going. If not, then I let loose and join the buddy to do what I can.

The second question is: "Just what am I going to be able to do that will help the buddy and not just make things worse. Or, maybe just put the two of us drifting with no one to notify the boat what happened and when. There is never any logical reason to make two casualties from a single casualty situation.

I've always been taught, and have learned through experience. that unnecessary risk to myself is counterproductive. Often the best thing a person can do is go for help. Mind you, I said "unnecessary risk". Therein lies the magic; deciding what is unnecessary and what is reasonable. And that must be the individual's decision as no one else has to live with it.

I totally disagree in terms of this specific situation. I'm going with my buddy and shooting a bag. Period. This isn't a "rescue" situations where you are potentially putting yourself in danger. This is a free ascent, and, quite frankly, something you should be able to handle if you were on the wreck to begin with.

Ahhh, and therein lies the problem with this kind of scenario analyzing. I interpreted it differently than you. It was posted in an emergency, emerging emergency context, so I addressed it that way.

[ArcticDiver]

One question: Where is the buddies bag? If the buddy is drifting off why isn't that person shooting a bag? Posts seem to assume that the buddy is totally unable or incompetent to help themself. Nothing in the original scenario would lead me to believe that is the case.

[airsix]

One question: Where is the buddies bag? If the buddy is drifting off why isn't that person shooting a bag? Posts seem to assume that the buddy is totally unable or incompetent to help themself. Nothing in the original scenario would lead me to believe that is the case.

It's not an issue of buddy being incompetent or unable to help him/herself. You're on the line. They're struggling to get to the line. Are you going to help or just hang there on the line and watch them struggle? It's agreed that a bag needs to be deployed. Shouldn't the least task loaded diver be the one to do it? I say yes. Without a doubt.

-Ben

[dsteding]

I think the fundamental problem with this scenario (re-reading it) is that it is a dive, in Thailand, probably on AL80s, by vacation divers, who are probably ill-equiped to handle such a situation.

Therefore, although I quickly read it and see what I would do (which is what the title of the thread was soliciting) the reality of this situation is that the poo just hit the fan. It didn't need to if:

1) the divers had the judgment to gain the skills necessary to do the dives.

2) the boat/DM/operator had the judgment to assess the skills of the divers before deciding to take them on this dive.

My guess is the situation was one where people didn't know what they were getting into and didn't know how to get out of it once stuck. Lowell, if you know, how did it turn out?

[airsix]

I still don't see the scenario up to this point as being an emergency. It's sort of like you're on a ladder. Each rung is a layer of safety between you and the bottom. Missing the line is like slipping a rung. It's a setback, but it's not an emergency. You haven't fallen off the ladder and you have several rungs between you and the ground. Can't deploy a SMB? You just slipped another rung. Can't get to your buddy? Another rung. Make it to the surface but don't have any kind of signaling device? Another rung. Start out with enough rungs and it won't be an emergency when you slip one. That's how I look at it anyway.

-Ben

[Grateful Diver]

I still don't see the scenario up to this point as being an emergency. It's sort of like you're on a ladder. Each rung is a layer of safety between you and the bottom. Missing the line is like slipping a rung. It's a setback, but it's not an emergency. You haven't fallen off the ladder and you have several rungs between you and the ground. Can't deploy a SMB? You just slipped another rung. Can't get to your buddy? Another rung. Make it to the surface but don't have any kind of signaling device? Another rung. Start out with enough rungs and it won't be an emergency when you slip one. That's how I look at it anyway.

-Ben

That's a good analogy ... I love using analogies when I teach. This is a useful one for describing how most accidents are caused not by a single event, but by a series of events or decisions that build up to the accident.

I, too, would be interested in hearing how the actual situation turned out ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[Joshua Smith]

I think the fundamental problem with this scenario (re-reading it) is that it is a dive, in Thailand, probably on AL80s, by vacation divers, who are probably ill-equiped to handle such a situation.

See, I wouldn't have assumed that part- there's plenty of skilled rec and tech divers in Thailand. Anyway, he gave the ending away already:

(It's not a sad story, as everybody eventually made it back on the boat.)

And I would most likely have gone after my buddy as well- unless I thought there was a good chance that I'd be compounding the badness by creating another casualty, or something. As far as I can tell, the buddy isn't in any imminent danger.

[Huskychemist]

Well, the outcome, for those of you that ask: (But first, thank you for the discussion. My dive buddy on the boat that day and I had quite a lively discussion after this happened as well.)

Here's the scenario as it played out: (It has been a few months, so some details are gone from memory.)

My dive buddy and I get back to the boat, change our tanks for the second dive, etc. We head upstairs on the boat, and many of those "in charge" are in a state of unease. Two divers haven't returned to the boat. No SMBs were spotted, and the seas are too rough (not horrible, but bad enough) to see bubbles on the surface from divers below. We wait around for a while, while the powers-that-be decide whether to send a search party to the wreck. This particular wreck, the Kram, isn't usually penetrated. It's more of a "swim around the wreck" kind of wreck. But there are a few spots where you can drop into the craft through the landing deck, so it does happen.

At some point, when the divers don't surface, the captain unties the mooring line from the buoy and heads "down current" to see what he can find. And about one to two kilimeters away the two divers are "on shore" of an island near the wreck. They were in the water still, as the shore there was rocky, but they had found refuge from the current by coming to shore. The two divers were quite happy to be back on the boat safely. Based on conversations on the boat with them, I don't think they considered it an emergency until they surfaced and were WAY FAR AWAY from the dive boat.

So what happened to cause their problem: They missed the line as I said, and it took them a while to shoot their bag, so nobody on the boat spotted the SMB. They did a blue-water ascent, with the current taking them far away from the boat. How the captain knew to pick up his mooring line and go find them, I'll never know. Since much of the conversation about the search happened in Thai, I'm not sure if they had signaling mirrors or not, but by the time we picked them up, they did have an SMB deployed.

Another interesting note: They weren't customers of the dive-shop running the boat. They were extra "chartered" divers. Some of the smaller dive shops here in Pattaya don't have their own dive boat, so they bring groups onto the bigger boats run by the bigger shops. So this brought up an interesting discussion on the boat: Who's ultimately responsible for the safety of the divers? (Obvious answer: The divers!) That said...is it the dive-op running the boat, or the dive-shop that chartered space on the boat?

As for the decision to let them dive: Hypothetically, they had to have at least AOW in order to complete this dive. We all know that doesn't necessarily, in and of itself, make them qualified for this type of dive. But I also firmly believe in the responsibility of divers to take care of themselves. Were they "vacation" divers? I can't remember that specifically, but that's my recollection. Truthfully, though, I've been on some dives with "vacation" divers that were quite competent, and with some that were quite incompetent. The dive shop I'm currently diving with has three types of divers on board. DM/Instructors-in-training, students, and the occasionally "fun diver" like myself. But I'm usually in the minority as a fun diver. I don't recall from that day if the two guys involved were students or not.

My dive buddy on the boat that day and I debriefed the situation, and we decided if we were in a similar situation, we would shoot the bag earlier; a point many of you raised here. Could the dive have been planned better? Possibly. But I've observed currents change here quite rapidly on a dive, even when they were predicted to be quite mild. On this particular dive, the currents were fairly strong for the entire dive, so it was a "known" commodity.

Thanks again for the discussion and thanks for sharing your opinions and knowledge.

[Sounder]

Adding my 2 psi a bit late...

Similar to the others, I would immediately leave the anchor/ascent line and pair-up with buddy as soon as I realized he was slipping away but while I could still see him. Once with buddy, I'd shoot the bag, initiate the ascent with proper stops, and surface with a Dive Alert, SMB, and signal mirror at finger tips.

Then I'd go get some killer Thai food and a beer.

[dsteding]

On this particular dive, the currents were fairly strong for the entire dive, so it was a "known" commodity.

Thanks again for the discussion and thanks for sharing your opinions and knowledge.

Great, thanks Lowell, that makes this a very productive conversation.

One add-on piece regarding the above: if the currents are fairly strong, and this is a "known" commodity, I'd actually lay more responsibility at the feet of the operator. Especially at a vacation destination. Reason being, they probably get a ton of people that say "yeah, I've dived to 100 feet, and been in current." But if these currents are known to be strong there needs to be contingency planning of some type ahead of time-and a honest assessment of the diver's skills (which it sounds like they did reasonably well, to be honest).

[dwashbur]

Curiosity question:

it took them a while to shoot their bag, so nobody on the boat spotted the SMB.

Did you ever find out why it took them longer than (perhaps) it should have to shoot the bag? Seems to me that might be the key to much of the incident.

[ArcticDiver]

One thought structure I use is the Rule of Threes. Way back in Spad days we used to figure that almost all accidents happened as the third thing that went wrong. Not very common for a serious accident to happen after the first problem. By number three though things are getting very tight.

Another is illustrated by the outcome of this incident. Had the on line diver went aboard and gave the crew the story a lot of uncertainty would have been avoided. It would have also avoided the risk of many alternative outcomes. Many times the best help a person can give is to "yell help".

All that said, it is good to discuss this kind of scenario. Fortunately raising this subject is a frequent thing.

[Huskychemist]

Curiosity question:

it took them a while to shoot their bag, so nobody on the boat spotted the SMB.

Did you ever find out why it took them longer than (perhaps) it should have to shoot the bag? Seems to me that might be the key to much of the incident.

Good question, Dave. And nope, I never found out why they were a bit slow in shooting their bag. Once they were back on the boat, they were inundated with questions/back slaps/congratulations on being found/etc. that I kind of stayed in the back and listened in from afar.


Edit: Not to answer your question specifically, but this does make me think about the SMBs that many people have here in Thailand. Common practice on almost every dive I've been on here is to shoot the SMB during the safety stop. So most of the folks here have a 15-20 foot line on the safety sausage. (Not a reel, as seems to be more common in the PNW.) So it's highly possible that they couldn't shoot the bag until they got to their safety stop depth. The wreck tops out at approximately 80 fsw, so it would take them a bit of time to get to the proper depth. Currents can take you quite a ways during that time. If you have a reel with your SMB, this would prevent this problem, and shooting the bag as soon as you miss the line would be possible. I lost my SMB in Puget Sound and haven't replaced it yet (shame on me!). Up until I started this conversation, I had contemplated going with the 15-20 foot line. I have re-thought my position on this, and I will get another reel for my SMB instead. Makes me glad I started this thread.

[dsteding]

I have re-thought my position on this, and I will get another reel for my SMB instead. Makes me glad I started this thread.

Go with a little spool with 100 feet of line, and take the time to knot the line every ten feet. http://www.divesports.com/XS-Scuba-Fing ... rspool.htm. Spend the money on a decent inflating SMB . . .

My unsolicited two cents. A reel is too complex for the job, more to go wrong when shooting the bag, at least from recreational depths.

Really, this is a great thread-kudos to you for starting it.

[spatman]

Go with a little spool with 100 feet of line, and take the time to knot the line every ten feet.

why the knots every ten feet?

(and thank you for this thread, as well. it's been very informative)

[dwashbur]

Hmm. I have about 25 feet on mine, and most of the time I don't even carry it. Now you've gone and made me think. Oh, the pain!!!!!!!!!!

[dsteding]

why the knots every ten feet?

When I do an ascent it involves stops every ten, starting at about 75% of my max depth. So, If I am either on the spool reeling up the line or using it as a point of reference I can see a knot and know when my stops are. I also have put little hash marks on the line to indicate depth, but that isn't really necessary . . .

Not really needed, just a little trick.