100% wrong (IMHO)


dive-instructors.com, the first place to look for a dive instructor

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Ken Kurtis on January 30, 2005 at 22:23:11:

In Reply to: Re: Drifting Dan sues shop, Captain Ray, and boat for $4,000,000 posted by Gosford on January 29, 2005 at 16:00:34:

Gosford wrote: "As much as I believe that this suit is BS, nobody can argue with the fact that if the DM and/or Ray had done their jobs conscientiously and correctly, none of this would have happened."

Actually, it's quite easy to make challenge your statement.

The analogy would be if a man is driving along in his car. He manages to hit a tree. Shortly after he hits the tree, an ambulance passes by without stopping to aid him. He then sues the ambulance company by saying, "If they'd have stopped, I wouldn't have hit the tree."

You need to look at the timeline in this incident.

As I recall (times approximate):

8:30AM - Dan enters with buddies
8:31 - Dan loses buddies.
8:32 - Dan descends to 100+ looking for buddies.
8:32-8:45ish - Dan loses visual contact with the rig and swims in the blue trying to figure out where he is.
8:45 - Dan surfaces. By own estimation he is 400 yards away. Dan now becomes Drifting Dan and quickly loses sight of the boat in the fog.
8:45-9:00 - Dan continues to drift, another (my esitmate) 1/4 mile putting him roughly half a mile downcurrent from the boat . . . in the fog.

So let's just stop right here. Which part of this so far is NOT of Dan's doing?

And even if the roll call HAD been done correctly, there's no way to say with any degree of certainty that he definitely would have been found any earlier than he was. Maybe, maybe not.

On top of all of that, buddy separation issues aside, there is a specific part of the rig diving protocol (read during the briefing) that says: "If you lose visual contact with the rigs, you must surface safely but immediately." Had Dan done that, IMHO, he would have been spotted and picked up and not drifted off.

Neither boat nor the DMs caused Dan to drift off the rigs into the fog. Dan created this situation all on his own. He's asking other people to pay for his mistake.

Dan simply refuses to admit he hit the tree.

Ken Kurtis
NAUI Instr. #5936
Co-owner, Reef Seekers Dive Co.
Beverly Hills, CA


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]