Diver Death in Nanaimo-Wreck Safety

Solitude Diver · Post by **Solitude Diver** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:07 am

Not sure where to post this one...

A diver was apparently lost (and presumed dead) inside the Cape Breton in Nanaimo yesterday with his wife. With respect and my deepest condolences to the family and friends, I thought it brings up a good topic for discussion.

It sounds like the separation and subsequent death was caused by a full blown silt-out and I am wondering how many people dive this (and other wrecks) without using lines? I personally have become complacent in diving those particular wrecks, knowing that there are numerous openings cut in every few rooms to allow escape. I had thought it was safe for a quasi-progressive penetration since (my thoughts were) you could feel your way out if necessary.

Does anyone else feel complacent on these wrecks, and dive them without reels? Will you be rethinking the whole reel thing too, or is it just my paranoia that this could happen to anyone (including myself) when you least expect it?

Interested in thoughts……

PS.. I am not numb to the lost that must be felt by the wife and friends. However, I think the focus on the accident itself should probably remain on the threads already started elsewhere. I do not wish to take away from that. Here is a link to a thread that has been started by a friend of the diver.

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/accide ... -07-a.html

lamont · Post by **lamont** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:22 am

The cape breton is a big ship. You have to be able to find the hull of the ship to find the holes punched in the hull.

And not all rooms on those ships are created equally. Some will not silt out with even the worst technique, while some will silt out just due to percolation and even the best technique.

Solitude Diver · Post by **Solitude Diver** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:22 am

lamont wrote:The cape breton is a big ship. You have to be able to find the hull of the ship to find the holes punched in the hull.

And not all rooms on those ships are created equally. Some will not silt out with even the worst technique, while some will silt out just due to percolation and even the best technique.

Yes, but do you use a reel when you go in, or do you just memorize the exits incase of a silt out? I've known numerous people who do it either way.

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:15 pm

The notion that line is the major hazard is old skool. It certainly can be an entanglement hazard although skill can mitigate that risk considerably.

I have never heard of a diver actually dying due to entanglement in their own line - either in a cave or a wreck. Yet failure to run a continuous guideline to open water kills divers every year. Even on prepared wrecks. I run line for all but the most trivial swim throughs.

dsteding · Post by **dsteding** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:59 pm

Does anyone have any more information here? It looks like the SB link is broken.

EDIT-found it, the thread was moved to the Western Canada subforum on SB.

Pez7378 · Post by **Pez7378** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:48 pm

Another sad story. My condolences to those who knew him.

lamont · Post by **lamont** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:45 pm

Solitude Diver wrote:
lamont wrote:The cape breton is a big ship. You have to be able to find the hull of the ship to find the holes punched in the hull.

And not all rooms on those ships are created equally. Some will not silt out with even the worst technique, while some will silt out just due to percolation and even the best technique.
Yes, but do you use a reel when you go in, or do you just memorize the exits incase of a silt out? I've known numerous people who do it either way.

reel primarily, with progressive penetration secondary. me and my dive buddies are all newbies to wreck penetration so we keep it very simple -- just because we're running a reel that doesn't make us expert wreck divers...

Solitude Diver · Post by **Solitude Diver** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:45 pm

CaptnJack wrote:The notion that line is the major hazard is old skool. It certainly can be an entanglement hazard although skill can mitigate that risk considerably.

I have never heard of a diver actually dying due to entanglement in their own line - either in a cave or a wreck. Yet failure to run a continuous guideline to open water kills divers every year. Even on prepared wrecks. I run line for all but the most trivial swim throughs.

Is progressive penetration no longer considered a reasonable technique for wreck diving then? Perhaps with proper planning and REAL progressive memorizing on a room per room basis, and not just trying to remember exits on the way in?

I am just trying to learn different techniques for wreck diving here, and am not so sure that progressive plans are flat out of the question if done right. It seems riskier, than the risks of line entanglement (or breakage), but more fool proof. (i.e no lines to break or entangle in, and you can feel your way out based on your memorized knowledge of the areas).

Do not get me wrong, I am not arguing for this procedure, just exploring others views. Having been through a "black out" before and having to "feel" my way along the line, I was glad it was there. But I have also gone into areas that I knew pretty well without lines too. I believe I could find my way out in blackout conditions, but probably no longer wish to bet my life on it.

Joshua Smith · Post by **Joshua Smith** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:58 pm

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/wester ... -07-a.html

Here's the link. This sucks; I hate to hear about incidents like this. Apparently the victim was an experienced instructor, too.

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:27 pm

The instructor is rumored to have been fairly inexperienced, ~2 years. Which unfortunately is a typical age for a new OW (but not yet overhead trained) instructor to die in an overhead environment.

Progressive penetration is not a substitute for line IMO. Its to augment line, so that for instance you know which was is "in" and which is "out". Or to help you bridge a gap in case of a severed line. Or to let you know whether you should bailout to a side exit or continue to the primary tie (cause you know where you are).

I would not bet my life on supposed memorization of rooms. You may know them by sight but you would need a tactile memorization when the poo hits the fan. YMMV

LCF · Post by **LCF** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:03 pm

I took a truly superb wreck penetration workshop through Fifth Dimension a year ago. It was taught by a couple of their senior divers, and it was very thorough. We learned to run line, practiced it in the shop, practiced it in the water, and were going to go dive some sunken barges for practice, but the weather intervened, so we did more skills dives.

I came away from this truly excellent class (I'd recommend it to ANYBODY who is contemplating wreck penetration) with a sober and serious respect for the hazards of diving in overhead environments. Even though I've got some training (the wreck workshop, and a subsequent cavern and Intro cave class), I'd approach penetrating the Nanaimo wrecks very cautiously. Limited ambient light, the possibility of heavy silt, and relatively deep location add up to a lot of possibilities for mishap.

I don't understand why people take these kinds of risks. We have this man, the Spiegel Grove divers, and Steve Donathan all dying from swimming inside a wreck without a guideline. It's not that hard to run line -- It just takes some training. It's not at all hard to stay outside a wreck. I don't think there's anything in a prepared "reefed" wreck that's conceivably worth dying for.

I hope I never lose this sense of caution, and a deep thank you to Brett Eliason and Joe Radosovich for instilling it in me.

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:36 pm

Good point about depth. Its amazing how mental acuity goes way down at even 100ft. In OW its not that hard to make reasonable decisions ["up now

] But a 100ft END is plenty deep when just a few minutes indecision adds up to alot of gas.

lamont · Post by **lamont** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:31 pm

CaptnJack wrote:Good point about depth. Its amazing how mental acuity goes way down at even 100ft. In OW its not that hard to make reasonable decisions ["up now ] But a 100ft END is plenty deep when just a few minutes indecision adds up to alot of gas.

double-130s full of 30/30 go a long ways towards helping with that.

again, not a reason to start feeling indestructible and get in way over your head, but i felt very comfortable doing limited penetration in those wrecks with the helium, the line and a whole pile of gas...

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:38 pm

I have heard rumors that the deceased was using doubles and his surviving spouse was in a single tank. Not sure where I heard that. As far as the SB thread goes it looks like the RCMP hasn't been able to find the body on surface supply and the wreck remains closed for his friends go to recover him.

I have done limited penetrations up there. If/when I do penetrations on the Sidney/Nanaimo/Sechelt wrecks again I'll be on double 100s as reserve and using an AL80 stage for the dives, and just keep swapping out the stages. Oh and probably 30/30 or something similar, with my primary reel in hand.

Solitude Diver · Post by **Solitude Diver** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:51 pm

Sounds like it might not have been his wife he was diving with.

LCF · Post by **LCF** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:01 pm

According to the Scubaboard thread, it wasn't his wife. So what? I'm sure his wife is still devastated, and the woman with whom he was diving is, too.

Solitude Diver · Post by **Solitude Diver** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:09 pm

LCF wrote:So what? I'm sure his wife is still devastated, and the woman with whom he was diving is, too.

Not sure where the “so what” came from. I was only posting a clarification to the post preceding that one.

I would assume it is an obvious devastation to everyone involved and/or related.

sparky · Post by **sparky** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:33 pm

www.cdnn.info/news/safety/s071126.html

I found this link this is a grate sorse for diving related news i think any how

Sparky

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:16 pm

CDNN steals copyrighted material from other sources. Photos and text. Please don't use them, every click generates revenue for those theives.

Joshua Smith · Post by **Joshua Smith** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:32 pm

CaptnJack wrote:CDNN steals copyrighted material from other sources. Photos and text. Please don't use them, every click generates revenue for those theives.

YES! Please don't use CDNN any more, Sparky- those are some bad guys over there. If they come up during a google search or whatever, just don't click on it- keep looking somewhere else- they suck, and every time you go to their site, they make money off it- trust me on this one- Don't ever go there!

lamont · Post by **lamont** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:32 pm

http://news.google.com/ is your friend. just type "nanaimo cape breton" and you'll get all the original sources on this incident that CDNN steals...

lamont · Post by **lamont** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:35 pm

CaptnJack wrote:I have heard rumors that the deceased was using doubles and his surviving spouse was in a single tank.

that was what was posted on SB earlier in the thread.

although it now looks like s/spouse/girlfriend/

lamont · Post by **lamont** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:36 pm

double post

Grateful Diver · Post by **Grateful Diver** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:35 am

Why assume that the buddy-who-was-not-his-wife was his girlfriend?

I dive with many women who are neither wife nor girlfriend ... I daresay most of us do. Sometimes we even go on trips together.

Does it really add anything to the tragedy?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Sounder · Post by **Sounder** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:54 am

1st: I agree - please don't go to CDNN. You can find your news with other sources without dealing with those sketchy characters.

2nd: The thread is intended to discuss wreck safety. It doesn't matter who he was diving with.

I am humbled by the descriptions of running dub-130s with 30/30, running lines, having formal training, and still considering themselves novice to wreck penetration.