 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / May 2006David Blaine show and free dive death?
Hi, The recent TV program of Blaine trying to hold his breath showed a film clip of a woman dying while trying to set a free dive record. At over 500 feet, when she was ready to ascend, her CO2 charge failed to fire to fill the lift to rapidly elevate her. But there was a diver with her (I assume on mixed gas). He brought her up, but much too slowly for her to get to the surface alive. The "voice over" claimed that breathing the compressed gas from the diver would "explode her lungs". But would it? Say he either gave her his octopus or had her "buddy breathe"? Then rose with her (slowly!) breathing with her? Why would she not still be conscience since she had just been trying to inflate her lift? And even if she did pass out for some reason, the diver could have given her a breath of compressed gas and then taken her up slowly while forcing the expanding gas out of her lungs as they rose. By not giving her some of his compressed gas, she had no oxygen for over 5 minutes by the time she was back on the surface and that proved to be too long. (Not a good sign for David Blaine's attempt to hold his breath for 9 minutes :-( Should the diver have given her compressed gas at 500 feet? ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time call: http://www.geocities.com/thetropics/8092 > Should the diver have given her compressed gas at 500 feet? The whole event was a CF that cost her life; http://www.cdnn.info/news/article/a040709.html As always, it wasnt a single integer that caused the fatality, it was a sequence of events and poor decisions that added up to her death. Really, simply, tragic because it could have been so easily avoided. > The "voice over" claimed that breathing the > compressed gas from the diver would "explode her lungs". But would it? Embolism, not explode. The backup diver was no doubt instructed not to buddy breathe to avoid an embolism. >> The "voice over" claimed that breathing the >> compressed gas from the diver would "explode her lungs". But would it? > Embolism, not explode. > The backup diver was no doubt instructed not to buddy breathe to avoid an > embolism. Embolize only if she stopped breathing. There's no way in hell the backup diver was instructed not to share gas with a freediver in distress. That's what they are there for. Statements by her husband, supposedly based on statements by back up divers, are that she had already stopped breathing by the time the first safety diver got to her. I know of no way to share gas underwater with someone who is not breathing. Lee jeb: > >> The "voice over" claimed that breathing the > >> compressed gas from the diver would "explode her lungs". But would it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The backup diver was no doubt instructed not to buddy breathe to avoid an > > embolism. LB: > Embolize only if she stopped breathing. > There's no way in hell the backup diver was instructed not to share gas with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Lee Hi, I recorded the David Blaine program so I could skip over the commercials. After reading the CDNN link story, I replayed the scene several times. Unless the film was edited, it looked like a backup diver got to her while she was still trying to activate the lift device. He seemed to be close to the maximum depth- lift device. at 561 ft. (And why would he be anywhere else?) I would expect that in the event of a lift failure, he should have been prepared to both provide her with air (more likely He/O2), and disconnect her from the lift, in case it were to activate after she had drawn a breath of compressed gas. ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time call: http://www.geocities.com/thetropics/8092 > > The "voice over" claimed that breathing the > > compressed gas from the diver would "explode her lungs". But would it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The backup diver was no doubt instructed not to buddy breathe to avoid an > embolism. Absolutely incorrect. >> The backup diver was no doubt instructed not to buddy breathe to >> avoid an embolism. > > Absolutely incorrect. If you read the article, the diver says the victim was unconscious and exhaling bloody foam, and he didn't attempt to feed her air. The article also says the accident was caused by the pony tank that was supposed to inflate the buoyancy bag being, by mistake on the part of the support crew, practically empty. The article also strongly suggests that the support crew was recklessly negligent in their preparation procedures, but that their cavalier attitude was consistent with the edgy risk-taking nature of the sport. You get the strong impression that the stunt was supposed to be enhanced by a lack of gravity in the preparation, affecting an "xtreme" pose. They didn't want to look like they had tried too hard. The sea is unforgiving. > If you read the article, the diver says the victim was unconscious and > exhaling bloody foam, and he didn't attempt to feed her air. So there was no hint to the fact that the sledge downline was not taut, and the sledge got stuck, which took the time necessary for a safe ascent? Matthias > >> The backup diver was no doubt instructed not to buddy breathe to > >> avoid an embolism. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you read the article, the diver says the victim was unconscious and > exhaling bloody foam, and he didn't attempt to feed her air. Regardless, your assumption and assertion that "The backup diver was no doubt *instructed* not to buddy breathe to avoid an embolism." is wholly wrong in theory, basis and fact. <emphasis mine> How do you know what the backup was or wasnt instructed to do? You dont, you assume. I called you on it, as did several others. Learn. > The article also says the accident was caused by the pony tank that was > supposed to inflate the buoyancy bag being, by mistake on the part of the > support crew, practically empty. Actually, that mistake was made by the diver who bet her life on the unknown information she was given that the pony was filled. The "unloaded gun" shoots the loudest. This is why we constantly bitch at people about discipline and routine. No fatality is ever the result of a single event, it is always a combination of events called an "accident sequence". No one else who allegedly did or didnt check that particular bottle is going to lose their life if it is empty. They will be left with the guilt, but they are still alive to feel bad. Reasonable man doctrine demands that anyone placing their life in the position of having one single piece of gear fail (and this one was simply inexcuseable) and beginning the accident sequence, be the one who last looked at the pressure in that tank before the stunt. There *absolutely* should have been a backup pony bottle or inflation device. Period. It was a bullshit stunt that went wrong for all the obvious reasons. > The article also strongly suggests that the support crew was recklessly > negligent in their preparation procedures, but that their cavalier attitude > was consistent with the edgy risk-taking nature of the sport. Of course they do. The next thing, as you read, is the attempts to justify and romanticize the death of a vibrant young lady. Pure bullshit, all of it. These people couldn't have done much more to assure a death. *Especially* the egos. > You get the strong impression that the stunt was supposed to be enhanced by > a lack of gravity in the preparation, affecting an "xtreme" pose. They > didn't want to look like they had tried too hard. The sea is unforgiving. Well, as you so succinctly pointed out, the "xtreme pose" was what bit them in the a.s, and cost a young lady her life. How anyone can even try to turn that into a romantic notion of any kind is beyond me. It was a clusterfuck from the start until the horribly predictable end. The sea and Mother Nature have been smashing ego's on the rocks for millennia, but each generation pulls up another rocket surgeon that thinks he/she can beat Mom at her own game. Bad idea since the Big Bang. Look up shallow water blackouts, and the mechanisms behind the same. > How do you know what the backup was or wasnt instructed to do? I don't, but given that he deliberately didn't force air into her unconscious airway, and there is no critique in the narrative of that decision, it suggests that he was following an agreed procedure. But having read the narrative, now I would have to say, who knows what boneheaded procedures they had in mind for crisis situations, if they had any procedures at all. While it is easy to criticize from the armchair, it seems like the diver stations along the descent line were there simply to observe, not to act. > Reasonable man doctrine ... Eh? > ... demands that anyone placing their life in the > position of having one single piece of gear fail (and this one was > simply inexcuseable) and beginning the accident sequence, be the one > who last looked at the pressure in that tank before the stunt. We all hinge our lives on equipment we can't possible check. There's nothing unreasonable per se in that. The tragic problem was simply not designing a positive signal on the state of the pony bottle. I wouldn't even trust my memory to that; I would think I would want some kind of flag or other visual indicator. > > ... demands that anyone placing their life in the > > position of having one single piece of gear fail (and this one was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > We all hinge our lives on equipment we can't possible check. There's > nothing unreasonable per se in that. Checking the level on a pony bottle is an easy process. I check the level of my air supply every time I go diving, before I submerge. Then, I have my buddy check it just to be sure (and I check his/hers in the process). Personally, I enjoy being alive. > > The article also says the accident was caused by the pony tank that was > > supposed to inflate the buoyancy bag being, by mistake on the part of the > > support crew, practically empty. > > Actually, that mistake was made by the diver who bet her life on the unknown > information she was given that the pony was filled. Hi, The sequence of mistakes began with the underfilled pony, but it looks to me like that was not critical. . > This is why we constantly bitch at people about discipline and routine. Me too. I both do it and put up with it. Maybe that's one reason I'm still alive ;-) >....No > fatality is ever the result of a single event, it is always a combination of > events called an "accident sequence". Overstated. A single event can be fatal. But in this case it was no single event, but a sequence. > Reasonable man doctrine demands that anyone placing their life in the > position of having one single piece of gear fail (and this one was simply > inexcuseable) and beginning the accident sequence, be the one who last > looked at the pressure in that tank before the stunt. There *absolutely* > should have been a backup pony bottle or inflation device. Period. There was a diver, Pascal, waiting for her at the 171 meter level. When the pony failed to start the lift, his first move was to use air (mixed gas) from his regulator to inflate the lift. But it was stuck (because of slack in the line?) and moved only a little bit and slowly. So maybe it did not matter that the pony was not adequately filled. Maybe the lift device, or lack of a taunt line, was really the more critical factor? But Pascal was there when Audrey was alert and trying to start the lift. I suggest that the most important mistake was made by Audrey and Pascal when the lift failed. She should have requested, and he should have insisted, that she take compressed gas at that point. And of course then disconnect her from the lift to insure that it didn't suddenly overcome whatever problem it had. At that point Pascal could have taken her up slowly, breathing with her. But only to the 120 meter level where he would need to stop for decompression, but he could have passed her off to Wiky who should have been waiting there. As it turned out Wiky had left his station, and this would have forced Pascal into a very difficult decision. As it turned out, Wiky's mistake didn't effect the result. > Well, as you so succinctly pointed out, the "xtreme pose" was what bit them > in the a.s, and cost a young lady her life. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It was a clusterfuck from the start until the horribly predictable end. It is easy for me to sit here on dry land and theorise and criticize what they should have done. But if I had been there at the time, would my judgement been any better? (I would like to think so ;-) ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time call: http://www.geocities.com/thetropics/8092 > Hi, > > The sequence of mistakes began with the underfilled pony, but it looks to me > like that was not critical. It was the beginning od the sequence. > > This is why we constantly bitch at people about discipline and routine. > > Me too. I both do it and put up with it. Maybe that's one reason I'm still > alive ;-) If it were me going to 500 fsw on a single breath, there would be no doubt that I not only checked that pony, but filled it myself. And there would be a backup. > Overstated. A single event can be fatal. But in this case it was no single > event, but a sequence. That began with the failure of a singlke device for which there was no backup. > There was a diver, Pascal, waiting for her at the 171 meter level. When > the pony failed to start the lift, his first move was to use air (mixed gas) > from his regulator to inflate the lift. But it was stuck (because of slack > in the line?) and moved only a little bit and slowly. So maybe it did not > matter that the pony was not adequately filled. Maybe the lift device, or > lack of a taunt line, was really the more critical factor? Spinaker shackle and a liftbag. > But Pascal was there when Audrey was alert and trying to start the lift. I > suggest that the most important mistake was made by Audrey and Pascal when > the lift failed. She should have requested, and he should have insisted, > that she take compressed gas at that point. And of course then disconnect > her from the lift to insure that it didn't suddenly overcome whatever > problem it had. Spinaker shackel and lift bag. > At that point Pascal could have taken her up slowly, breathing with her. > But only to the 120 meter level where he would need to stop for > decompression, but he could have passed her off to Wiky who should have > been waiting there. As it turned out Wiky had left his station, and this > would have forced Pascal into a very difficult decision. As it turned out, > Wiky's mistake didn't effect the result. No redundancy, no contingency, no plan. > It is easy for me to sit here on dry land and theorise and criticize what > they should have done. But if I had been there at the time, would my > judgement been any better? (I would like to think so ;-) I can say, for sure, that I would never have attempted such a stunt in the first place. If I had been involved there would have been multiple layers of redundancy, including multiple backups of pony and ofit device, and multiple "safety" divers at the various depths. Much as I hate to say it, this young lady died for all the obvious reasons. We all do stupid sh.t once in a while and get away with it, right up until the time you dont get away with it. I dont see the death of this person being a benefit to anyone.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.