Incident discussions

[Paul Oliver]

I'm with Turbinator and Hazel on this one.

[wreckweasel]

Originally Posted by ray

If you need to learn from other peoples misfortune, then it might be better to start your scuba training again, as clearly you are lacking in your diving skills

The second you think you've learnt it all, its time to give up chap.

As for learning from others mistakes, its better than making your own to learn from.

[Darren A]

Originally Posted by ray

If you need to learn from other peoples misfortune, then it might be better to start your scuba training again

Sorry mate. Can't believe I've just read that.

[Al_Star]

Originally Posted by ray

If you need to learn from other peoples misfortune, then it might be better to start your scuba training again, as clearly you are lacking in your diving skills.

Sorry Ray I think you are wrong - the training you get taught will be partly based on accident analysis. To nick a good quote:

"Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

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.

Cheers
Al

[gaz]

Originally Posted by wreckweasel

The second you think you've learnt it all, its time to give up chap.

As for learning from others mistakes, its better than making your own to learn from.

One of the best ways of learning is from the experience of others. Whilst i can understand and sympathise with those members that would rather not speculate over diving incidents, i can't see how it would be doing anything different from the discussions that surround the bsac annual accident reports or any diving incident that makes it into the press.

When i started to dive with agency X i never thought about the potential dangers to diving. Going through the bsac accident reports made me extremely aware of what could and does go wrong and to notice that similar issues occured in incident after incident. As divers we owe it to our fellow divers to make them aware of what small behaviours and activities can take them into potentially deadly incident pit.

What is so tragic from the previous post regarding a death from re-entry to recover a mask was it's not the first time that i have read of lives being needlessly lost from unprepared entry or re-entry.

I found a good place to start was here:

http://www.scubadiving.com/diving/lessons_for_life/

All the incidents are ficticious, but do have very sobering messages in them.

[Mark Chase]

Personally I have based a lot of how I dive and what equipment I use and how it’s rigged and what redundancy I carry.. on incident reports. I actively search out diving incidents and analyse to the best of my ability, what went wrong and whether or not it was avoidable.

20% of incidents are medical, 70% are WTF was the idiot thinking at the time and 10% are there but for the grace of God go I. But 100% are useful data.

If you think that describing injuries and fatalities as useful data is cold then think again. These things have happened there is nothing we can do to reverse them and if 1 diver’s life is saved or 1 bend prevented from reading and analysing the incident then at least some miniscule amount of good has come of it.

And another thing

I was PM'd recently by a M8 who said that he was annoyed by the group hug attitude on YD to divers posting about FUBARS which they were involved in. (This relates to the diver at stony who got banned). I disagree. I think it is so much better to get these incidents out in the open and discussed so that people can learn. The best way to do this is to respect the courage of the people who admit to their own errors. First hand data is the best data and your not going to get it if you flame the bugger when he posts it.

My 2p

ATB

Mark Chase

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by bubbleless

I agree

FORUM:

""A public meeting place for open discussion.""

That's all very well and good and would be fine and dandy...if we were debating or trying to agree on the definition of the word forum, but we're not, so it's hardly the crux of the matter here is it?

Rather, we're debating what we think (none of us being experts in this field) 'should' and 'shouldn't' get posted on a forum (more specifically, this forum) which meets a given member's ability/desire to address a given topic whilst any given content needs to remain:

A) within the bounds of decency, appropriateness and sensitivity (a massively subjective set of criteria, but the owners have final say regardless of the inevitable screeches about 'freedom of speech & censorship' from the usual whiners) and

B) within the bounds of legality and outside those boundaries which might see the owners end-up (unintentionally and by no fault of their own) involved or cited in a case where their/the board's content might be used against them.

I understand the requirement/need/desire/use of/catharsis in having meaningful and worthwhile discussion about any incident, regardless of how soon folks want to have that discussion after the event - but not at the expense of the board-owners' good offices, industry and - potential - liberty to operate these boards.

[hopper]

Originally Posted by Mark Chase

If you think that describing injuries and fatalities as useful data is cold then think again. These things have happened there is nothing we can do to reverse them and if 1 diver’s life is saved or 1 bend prevented from reading and analysing the incident then at least some miniscule amount of good has come of it.

I totally agree Mark but I believe you missed 1 important point, shouldn't it be '. . . from reading and analysing the official reports of the icident' and not what people believe to be the facts or think are the facts but the OFFICIAL reports?

I am refering to fatal incidents by the way.

[turbanator]

Originally Posted by ray

Hi/


I do not think it is a good idea, you become bar room Barristers, learn from any official report that is published.

I happen to know that at least one of the barristers in the Paul Haydon case had to learn about diving and RBs for the case, granted their job is to become 'expert' at what they're dealing with, but there's a world of difference between a courtroom and being under 40m of water, so maybe you are doing divers with years of experience an injustice should they decide to discuss incidents where they may have actually been in similar situations themselves.

Originally Posted by Ray

If you need to learn from other peoples misfortune, then it might be better to start your scuba training again, as clearly you are lacking in your diving skills, a lot of accidents if that is what you want to call them, are from divers doing something that they shouldn't, and you should already no! not to do it, including techie diving without proper training or knowledge. I am not impressed by divers who say they have trained themselves in the techie type of diving, if that is what you have done OK its up to you, but spare me the indignation and flaming, I have been diving to long to listen to you and seen to much.

Sorry Ray, but that's utter tosh, yes your experience may well surpass mine, but your argument would suggest that Sheck Exley's "A Blueprint for Survival" was a waste of time, clearly it's not the case as the number of cave diving deaths dropped dramatically after its publication.

Originally Posted by Ray

Wait for the official report, read it and hope diving incidents happen less by making sure you are trained properly, and you look after your self.

You contradict yourself, much of the training today has evolved from examining incidents, and it continues to do so. 'Learning from other people's misfortune' as you put it, is a way of staying current.

Originally Posted by Ray

Rant over go ahead and flame me, Im off to pub anyway.

I truely hope you don't see this as a flame, I just think that you are wrong.
This is a reasoned discussion where all of us will put forward points to influence the view of others, if you are to change my mind, you will need to be a bit more convincing that you have been so far.

r
Paul

[Gavin Yates]

I deal with courts and journalists every day and that's why I posted what I posted earlier.

Every bit of opinion, speculation, 'fact', 'statistic', 'eye-witness account' or even 'I was there and my mate who saw it said' could be quoted by the family, legal team or others that can often cause more heat than light in typically difficult situations.

In regard of fatal accident inquiries. When it's over - it's a public record then journalists are entitled like everyone else to the Sheriff's full judgement.

Before that point everything is PURE SPECULATION. AND even after that point the Sheriff's findings may be unclear or even arguable due to lack of information. He or She will often make that point in their findings.

A Sheriff or Coroner has the ability to call any witness they see fit, they have the ability to seek expert research on equipment, weather or whatever and they still sometimes cannot record an absolute verdict.

What makes us think we know better?

In Scotland - the FAI report is usually posted in the Scottish Courts website - I cannot speak for E&W.

After the legal process is completed then I'd say it's OK to discuss (then again I am not qualified to offer legal advice) but even then the family of those involved may not appreciate our musings.

This is a truly difficult moral, legal and intellectual issue best served by reflection rather than reaction I'd suggest.