Thank you for the comments. I'll answer objectively. Most of the posters here are not divers, so I tend to stop and explain terminology and procedures before making a point.
While people come into drift diving from other commercial diving areas, many still come from the tourist oriented dive industry.
An open water dive certificate entitles a person to under go the pearl industry induction course. Even the industry spokesman did not regard the induction course as a qualification to drift dive.
This doesn't mean that I'm implying that the industry does not attempt to follow best practice.
An Open Water Diver Certification is an advanced program. It's much more rigorous than the Basic Diver program offered to recreational divers. An OW diver will be well versed in the perils commercial diving. That includes risk assessment and rescue proceedures.
You have also noted Paspaley has a pre-requisite induction program. I have not attended or reviewed this program, but I think it's safe to say there are several points of learning that divers gain on top of their current OWDC. I'm assuming it covers things like apparatus familiarization, marine identification, signalling, rescue procedures and other details relative to the operation itself.
I have difficulty with the disgruntled divers claiming there is none. Surely, at the very least, there must be something.
Both diving and maritime navigation are inherently fraught with perils. There is no book or checklist that covers every single aspect of emergencies. As I mentioned earlier, dive medicine is a complex science and every commercial diver worth their salt knows and understands they are working under conditions where recompression and hospitals are not immediately at hand.
But it does appear that the lack of experienced divers on the boat may have contributed to this man's death. Money being the reason why a lot of experience divers left the industry. Even you have commented that the ratio of greenhorns to experienced drivers on the boat may have been high.
I would not be comfortable with that ratio, but if all of the greenhorns are fit, eager and ready to, that is a responsibility shared by the supervisor and divers. Just by virtue of that alone, puts a minimum of half the responsibility upon the diver. It's an implied contract.
From that video, I get no impression of that at all. They are attempting to lay all of the blame on Paspaley.
I take exception to the money thing though. Simply because a person is payed less than their predecessors does not mean their own
personal responsibility is diminished. At one dollar per shell or a thousand dollars per shell, my personal procedures would not change one bit. Surely you don't mean to suggest that mutual responsibility from the other divers as standby divers or rescuers is diminished, simply because of money?
Again, that video suggested that a dollar less per shell means they should care less. What a shameful thing to report! If anything it suggest the divers are the greedy ones, compromising the safety of their peers as some kind of tacet boycott or work to rule campaign.
To even begin to suggest so, is a slap in the face to the remaining crewmen who did everything within their abilities to save the man.
Just as a bit of trivia, I remember another company was paying $4 per shell caught to the diver in the mid 1990s. So I'd be a bit miffed being told to take $3.50 a shell. Especially when the going rate was $4.50.
That's nothing new. Dive boats here in Canada pay different prices too. Some boats are big comfortable crafts with sophisticated dive systems, TV, laundry and all the ammenities. Some boats are small, cramped, smelly and few perks. Divers have the freedom to pick and choose who and who not to work for and the price per pound is reflected in that decision.
It was mentioned that he'd lost his workline twice that day on two different dives. It's not something you want to happen. It's around the 24 minute mark of the 4 Corners report.
What I think happened is that he lost his workline again on the final dive and started to panic.
Yet he got back in the water. After a twenty minute cigarette break, no less. The supervisor didn't put a gun to his head, he re-entered under his own volition. If anything, the video implies the diver himself was not responsible for that decision. Instead insisiting it was Paspaley's responsibility to know what was in the man's head.
He never made it to the decompression stop. The deckhand reported to the skipper that a driver had surfaced and possibly called for help. It was the head diver that made it to deco and looked up to see the young man face down and still attached to his hose.
Unless things have changed the deco stop is done at 10 metres (about 30 feet), not 10 feet.
I wouldn't ditch my weight belt unless the situation was dire. Something like say my hose getting wrapped around the boat's propeller. After all it's the only thing attaching me to the hose and therefore the boat. And you do learn quickly to keep you weight belt tight. It's not good not knowing where your hose has gone.
Oh boy, the dreaded "suicide pack".
The weight belt and the umbilical have no business being attached to each other. They were outlawed here 25 years ago. Divers must wear a separate belt and backpack (although many divers add 10 lbs of shot inside it and five pounds on each strap) and an EBS (Emergency Breathing System) or an inverted 15 cu. ft. pony bottle.
Not if you're already unconscious.
For the purpose of editing, Ragnarok is mentioning dropping the weight belt. I stand corrected on my earlier comment, although I was misled by what the report said in the video.
If anything though, this furthers my theory that he embolized. On top of that, possibly bent. He was conscious at the surface, but expired soon after. The video claims he was drowned, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Performing CPR on a bent, embolized diver is a double-edged sword. It exacerbates internal injuries. Drowning victims respond to CPR more readily and usually recovery fully within a few days.
Clearly, in this case, even if the best rescue and treatment was at hand, this diver's fate was sealed (after the fact).
But watching that 4 Corners report I have to question a couple of things.
At 19:35 minutes it is stated that if a diver loses his workline the only only what to get back to the boat is to pull himself up his hose to the surface. The first thing I'd do is chase after the line. If I couldn't catch it then I'd started reeling my hose in until I could start using it as a workline. Eventually you'll find one of the trailing worlkines without have to go to the surface.
Also at 20:10 mintues there's mention of having to swim your bag of shell to a winch line. I have to wonder why there isn't a swim line from the outer shot weight to the ladder.
Drift diving is markedly different than static diving for sure. The air hose, becomes your "down line". For the non-diver folks, in a static system, a down line is a rope with a weight and clip. It's used to descend first, then it's used to change bags on the bottom so the diver need not surface every time. The tender can see the diver's bubbles approaching the boat, then by holding it, can feel the diver making the change. One changed, the diver signals by a series of pulls. One pull = Attention, Two pulls = Pay Slack, Three Pulls = All Clear, Multiple Pulls = PULL ME UP NOW!
Drift diving needs to be streamlined. Less drag, less weight. The diver must be able to maintain his ability to swim in any direction. The fact the winch line is toward the middle of the boat should not be a problem, but to some degree, does indeed add to the arduous labour of the task. Again, we are not talking about moving furniture, we are talking about deepsea diving. This is not an issue easily resolved by regulations or procedures, it's an issue relative to the physical fitness if the diver. Pulling anchors, retieving air hoses, unloading product and any general marine task are all physically demanding duties apart from the diving itself. One's endurance can be monitored by supervisors without getting into the water. If a person is unable to do the deck work, it's unlikely they'll get put in the water.
Decompression diving should not be permitted without a chamber. Decompression stops should be used on every arduous dive within the tables, as a safety proceedure. You mentioned Paspaley does indeed use the decompression stop as a policy, but for what purpose? In other words, was this a repetitive decompression dive with a necessity to remain at depth, or a just a safety stop?
