Incident discussions

[gansell]

After reading lots of the arguements, I would have to say no to this one. Without the facts all you will get is speculation. Perhaps a board is needed where the relevent FACTS can be posted after the official inquiry.

At the end of the day we all know that diving is dangerous, and we all know the dangers are and how to mitigate them. The dangers involved in diving now are the same ones that existed when the aqualung was first invented.

[turbanator]

Originally Posted by nigelH

That just doesn't work. The incidents you expect are the ones you are already covered on. You will just get the 'official' problems and lists of improbable simultanious faults. We need to read about real incidents and rehearse in our minds our response. I had this racing a bike. It saved my neck more than a time or two when I did the right thing suddenly.

Your experiences are different to mine, therefore we could each learn from a scenario suggested by the other that we have not experienced ourselves.

Also, First Aid courses, BS-AC PRM courses for sure and I'd guess PADI RD courses (I've not done one) are often preceded with an intorduction where the instructor fully acknowledges that they can't cover every possible incident, but they are endevouring to provide the student with a 'toolkit' upon which to draw should an incident occur.

Originally Posted by nigelH

Frankly the one that troubles me is "Simple freeflow while narked out of my skull". Predicted response? "Dither". If I drown doing that I trust you won't fill up a thread with 'condolances' as my kids don't read YD but resolutions not to dive below a certain depth if you can't get helium.

Well that example covers an incident, and you suggest a solution.
You might also suggest redundancy, kit maintenance, diving with a buddy (not suggesting you dive solo).

r
Paul

[Duncan Price]

It is human nature to want to discuss the morbid. Furthermore we can all learn from other's mistakes. There's never a good time to risk offending the sensibilities of those left behind - it will happen anyway (there's a thread on the CDG BBS right now (http://www.cavedivinggroup.org.uk/cg...ml?Thread=1237). My main concern is that the media will read what some ill-informed tosser has posted and quote it gospel.

[John N]

Originally Posted by Bantam

The reason why we use twinsets, for example, is because of continous development, learning where things went wrong, and evolution of the sport.
...
The development of our sport is meaning it's accessible to more people which means there is more scope for fatality. It also means there's more development happening so hopefully it will be getting safer too.
...
If I may use a simple analogy. In the early days of cars, we had not many people on the road because cars were expensive / exclusive and as such road deaths were low because they couldn't go fast etc..

Nowadays, we have high levels of cars on the road, but they are totally different to the ones from 30 years ago. We have many more accidents but we also have safer cars. Look at Euro NCAP ratings for example.

Just my 2p worth...

To continue your analogy, we have very affordable, faster cars now which can result in more serious accidents to more people. They might be safer in many situations, but it's much easier to drive them beyond your ability which can have serious consequences.

Similarly with twinsets. The trend is to take up much deeper, deco diving early on in a diving career now - at least in the UK. Without training and experience your twinset won't save them.

Discussion and yes, speculation about the causes of incidents will help us all to learn from other divers' experience.

[Bantam]

Originally Posted by John Nortcliff

To continue your analogy, we have very affordable, faster cars now which can result in more serious accidents to more people. They might be safer in many situations, but it's much easier to drive them beyond your ability which can have serious consequences.

Similarly with twinsets. The trend is to take up much deeper, deco diving early on in a diving career now - at least in the UK. Without training and experience your twinset won't save them.

Discussion and yes, speculation about the causes of incidents will help us all to learn from other divers' experience.

I agree - however, my twinset analogy from my perspective is that I (myself) use a twinset where I used to use a 15 or 12 and a Pony and now have twin 12's with manifold.

So in my case I'm not diving any differently than I did before (still 35m dives on average, which is what I used to do before) but I have the redundancy and the reliability that the twins give me.

Mark.

[Janos]

I would say no. I read the incident report [1] every year and generally I know what should have been done in the circumstances to avoid / deal with the incident. Things like shutdown drills, low viz / lost buddy procedures crop up regularly on YD without needing a seperate forum. Whether I would be able to do it on the day is another matter, but I don't think I'll be able to find that out without getting wet.

So I don't know what value it would add. Some high-profile incidents where people are pushing the limits are useful to learn from. But many I think it's more useful to know the number that have occured, rather than specifically what went wrong.

Janos

[Steve S]

Originally Posted by Al_Star

I think we should perhaps start this with the aim of focusing on incidents rather than the fatalities. For instance Garf's double reg failure. Maybe we can begin like that and leave the contentious one's out of it to see how it goes.

That is an excellent compromise and I certainly would support it 100%. Although I understand the desire to learn everything about the incident that caused diver x to lose his life but as I stated previously I am opposed to a forum that will do that.

At the end of the day most of us do this for a hobby and we were not dragged to the waters edge and thrown in, so this is free will and something we do of our own free will does not give us the right to demand answers or discuss things that will have an impact on people already suffering.

And as for being able to say "they screwed up" [if being used in the case of fatalities] to me sums up why such a forum should not be created.

Safe diving,
Steve

[Ainsleyberryman]

Why dont we have an area where we can post our own report on our own incident. That would allow others to learn from it and avoid getting the facts wrong. Obviously only those who were mature enough to admit they made an error would post, but this is exactly the type of person who should be explaining it and would be a good role model.

Id be happy to explain my mistakes/misjudgements/nearmisses etc.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by John Nortcliff

In the arena of what 'we think' (personally), we are all experts in the field.

You've missed the point John, I was referring to any of us (with the exception of member Simon Moore) expounding views about matters legal on here and whether or not we are a fit judge to make pronouncements on "hats is ok to post on YD" in the circumstances of an incident.

And I'd disagree with the theory that "just because we think" something (anything) that it makes us an expert in anything - afterall, it's merely a natural activity of the brain to think, how then does it follow that makes you an expert?

Originally Posted by John N

As far as what 'we think' as a group goes, that is something that evolves through this discussion.

Only in the cases of those who come to this discussion with a mind to be persuaded or unsure of their own postition - the way 'we think' for the most part will be dictated by our feelings and emotions in cases like these and where they are in involved, some members came to the debate with a point of view and, even after reading the thread, are unmoved and left with precisely the same point of view. If you are attempting to suggest that folks won't or can't have an opinion until they've been exposed to the YD massive's collective musings on a topic before they can - jointly or otherwise - 'evolve', then I'm bound to say I disagree.

Originally Posted by John N

My vote therefore is for a separate, public forum with identifying incident details disallowed in posts of serious/fatal incidents.

I've noticed a few posters offer this news - I doubt (very strongly) that the owners of YD are even going to consider having/offering anything resembling a vote on the subject of potentially opening up this topic/decision to 'all-comers', members or not, on whether YD introduces any forum (closed to members only or otherwise) which might allow the posting on these boards of sensitive "might be used against them in any series of courts in the Land" information/posts/threads/views/platitudes.

[John N]

Originally Posted by Mr T.

You've missed the point John, I was referring to any of us (with the exception of member Simon Moore) expounding views about matters legal on here and whether or not we are a fit judge to make pronouncements on "hats is ok to post on YD" in the circumstances of an incident.

And I'd disagree with the theory that "just because we think" something (anything) that it makes us an expert in anything - afterall, it's merely a natural activity of the brain to think, how then does it follow that makes you an expert?

The proposition was that regarding 'what we think should be posted', none of us are experts.
The fact is that we are all experts in what we think as individuals on this matter or any other - in fact we are the perfect and only expert in this particular field!

Originally Posted by Mr T.

Only in the cases of those who come to this discussion with a mind to be persuaded or unsure of their own postition - the way 'we think' for the most part will be dictated by our feelings and emotions in cases like these and where they are in involved, some members came to the debate with a point of view and, even after reading the thread, are unmoved and left with precisely the same point of view. If you are attempting to suggest that folks won't or can't have an opinion until they've been exposed to the YD massive's collective musings on a topic before they can - jointly or otherwise - 'evolve', then I'm bound to say I disagree.

Here I was talking about the way 'we think' as a group entity which YD is. Personal opinions may or may not change during the discussion but a majority view will generally be apparent eventually.

Originally Posted by Mr T.

I've noticed a few posters offer this news - I doubt (very strongly) that the owners of YD are even going to consider having/offering anything resembling a vote on the subject of potentially opening up this topic/decision to 'all-comers', members or not, on whether YD introduces any forum (closed to members only or otherwise) which might allow the posting on these boards of sensitive "might be used against them in any series of courts in the Land" information/posts/threads/views/platitudes.

Just a turn of phrase, I wasn't suggesting we should put it to a vote. I understand that this is not a democracy!