Incident discussions

[Adrian Kelland]

Originally Posted by Jay

I'm a little uncomfortable with this Adrian because until the inquest is published, no one will be in full possession of all the facts.

And perhaps not even then Jay. And we usually only get headline comments then. I have never seen a full record of an inquest, I would have to be a 'properly interested person'. Might be worth a try on some of the recent incidents down here.

But fair enough, and in the end it's your site, your call.

Adrian

PS. Going to see Petra?

[Gavin Yates]

I would point out that such discussions on an internet forum "could" be seen as sub judice before an inquest or fatal accident inquiry (as we have here in scotland) has reported.

The publishers of the site are responsible for the content and "could" face legal interest.

In think accident analysis is a fine thing but it should be done with full possession of the facts and I would contend after all legal matters have been dealt with.

[Cussy]

I would suggest that waiting and reading the annual BSAC Incident Report is the best option. I read this every year, not out of morbid curiosity, but to learn the facts of incidents that have resulted in an accident, a survived bend, or the unfortunate few that loose their lives. This report is well written, delivers facts as reported by the appropriate agencies and each year identifies trends in the reported incidents. No names are offered in any report, which means that the appropriate lessons can be learnt by us divers. I have modified my diving in response to things I've read.

There is nothing wrong with us reporting incidents to each other and offering condolences, but the offering of information that later turns out to be false can be very damaging to everyone involved.

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Adrian Kelland

No problem there Jay, but I also hope that we will be able to say 'I think this diver screwed up'.

Adrian

I have to say I am with Jay on this one. I don't think discussing these incidents is a problem but openly posting you think the diver messed up is just an opinion. We all read post and interpret what might have been the cause but I think somethings are best not said on a public forum. Openly criticising the divers actions should be left to private discussion.

[Clare Gledhill]

Originally Posted by Fiona

Openly criticising the divers actions should be left to private discussion.

Agree - but I don't think that is what the majority of posters are calling for.

[wreckweasel]

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Gledders

Agree - but I don't think that is what the majority of posters are calling for.

No I know but I think that was the inference Jay was uncomfortable with.

[Clare Gledhill]

This is not morbid curiosity, voyeurism or any intention to upset anyone. I don't usually stick my head above the parapet on diving posts but I think a resource like this would be valuable and well worth the time and energy needed to set it up and run it properly.

What is the point in post after post arguing the toss about long hoses or PADI/BSAC crossovers if we can't find time to discuss, examine and consider how thing can and do go wrong.

I first thought about redundancy after reading a post about an incident at Stoney posted on this board - where, thankfully, the diver survived. It was not something which had ever been discussed with my during my OW training and I remain thankful that, through YD, my attitude to my diving changed.

With regard to the legal position, the board should already a disclaimer that posts are the views of the author concerned. Make an advisory note, if necessary, on the new forum that discussions should be as factual as possible and not seek to aportion blame. And actively moderate - for God's sake there are enough of us who live on the damn board all the time to monitor it well

Jay, Andy - its up to you. But I still think it can be done.

[resting rifleman]

I am a bit "conflicted" in regards to this as a "private" area, it kind of defeats the aim of as many as possible learning by any mistakes that may have been made!
I do see a need for a moderator with a working knowledge of law to perhaps "edit" posts previous to publication on the site, but that amounts to censorship.... a bit of a quandry eh?
if it's a choice between learning "what went wrong" or not, i want to learn!
if that means running the info past the yd censor first i can live with that.

[Ron Mahoney]

Originally Posted by Gavin Yates

I would point out that such discussions on an internet forum "could" be seen as sub judice before an inquest or fatal accident inquiry (as we have here in scotland) has reported.

The publishers of the site are responsible for the content and "could" face legal interest.

In think accident analysis is a fine thing but it should be done with full possession of the facts and I would contend after all legal matters have been dealt with.

I think Gavin is absolutely right, last thing I'd like to see is someone using the site as a way of "fishing" for evidence or blame. Having been a so-called "expert witness" in a couple of Coroners Courts cases I know how much families hang on every word - wanting to believe that their loved one couldn't have made a mistake and it was someone/something else's fault. It's one of the reasons I steer away from this sort of news in the mag - not burying my head - just avoiding anything unneccesary