2018 BSAC incident report

[BlueTrin]

Thought you guys might find this interesting even though it is UK based:

Document

 

[Kharon]

Very inclusive report. I'd have to print it out to read the whole thing because I would need to see multiple pages at the same time to make sense out of all the data. Wonder what was going on in 1972-73 (table, next to last page)?

 

[BlueTrin]

Very inclusive report. I'd have to print it out to read the whole thing because I would need to see multiple pages at the same time to make sense out of all the data. Wonder what was going on in 1972-73 (table, next to last page)?

Nice find, did not see that peak on 72-73. I emailed BSAC out of curiosity.
If they reply I will copy their reply here.

 

[Storker]

Wonder what was going on in 1972-73

The reason may well be as mundane as something I like to dub "statistical lumps". When there's a large statistical influence to your data and you record enough datapoints, you will hit one of those serious outliers well outside several standard deviations. And since a roll of the dice can't be influenced by the previous rolls (the chance of rolling two sixes after each other is 1/36, but the chance of rolling a six when you've just rolled one is the same as if the previous roll gave a one, i.e. 1/6), you might as well hit another outlier the next time.

So unless you have a reason to suspect that something is amiss, the most common explanation for that kind of behavior in the data is "chance".

 

[BlueTrin]

The reason may well be as mundane as something I like to dub "statistical lumps". When there's a large statistical influence to your data and you record enough datapoints, you will hit one of those serious outliers well outside several standard deviations. And since a roll of the dice can't be influenced by the previous rolls (the chance of rolling two sixes after each other is 1/36, but the chance of rolling a six when you've just rolled one is the same as if the previous roll gave a one, i.e. 1/6), you might as well hit another outlier the next time.

So unless you have a reason to suspect that something is amiss, the most common explanation for that kind of behavior in the data is "chance".

Yea I think as well it is most likely to be the case. I wanted to ask in case there was a large scale incident that year, out of curiosity.

As you said random events distribution are not as people usually believe: they aren’t uniformed distributed.

 

[BlueTrin]

Very inclusive report. I'd have to print it out to read the whole thing because I would need to see multiple pages at the same time to make sense out of all the data. Wonder what was going on in 1972-73 (table, next to last page)?

Their reply was that they believe that in 1972 it was a bad year for the commercial diving industry and this is why they changed the rule the next year to not include commercial divers accidents.

The change of the rule is mentioned somewhere else in the documents.

 

[Kharon]

Thanks for checking it out and demystifying the jump in deaths.

 

[InTheDrink]

One aspect I found interesting was their new interest in IPE. I’m glad is now being seriously recognized

 

[Radoo]

Thanks for the link. Good and interesting read with lots of things to learn.

Interestingly, looking at the rescue and resuscitation part, an AED was used in 20 cases with quite a high success rate of 30% but CPR +/- oxygen was used in 104 cases with a success rate of aprox 16%. There are multiple variables to take into account when looking at these numbers and there are a couple of things that are not clear:

- was a shock delivered in all the cases when an AED was used?

- was the AED used to assess the heart rhythm for divers who were receiving CPR but a shock was not delivered?

Every collapsed/unconscious diver should have an AED attached to him. Early defibrillation is essential for successful resuscitation and should be delivered within 3-5 minutes from the moment a person loses their consciousness. Every minute of delay reduces the chance of success by aprox 10%.

Given the above, I am wondering if the all charter boats have AEDs? If they don't, wouldn't be a good idea make them mandatory? It can save lives!

 

[Edward3c]

Thanks for the link. Good and interesting read with lots of things to learn.

Interestingly, looking at the rescue and resuscitation part, an AED was used in 20 cases with quite a high success rate of 30% but CPR +/- oxygen was used in 104 cases with a success rate of aprox 16%. There are multiple variables to take into account when looking at these numbers and there are a couple of things that are not clear:

- was a shock delivered in all the cases when an AED was used?
- was the AED used to assess the heart rhythm for divers who were receiving CPR but a shock was not delivered?

Every collapsed/unconscious diver should have an AED attached to him. Early defibrillation is essential for successful resuscitation and should be delivered within 3-5 minutes from the moment a person loses his consciousness. Every minute of delay reduces the chance of success by aprox 10%.

Given the above, I am wondering if the all charter boats have AEDs? If they don't, wouldn't be a good idea make them mandatory? It can save lives!

Dive charters in the U.K. don’t have to provide O2, what chance is there of them spending £1.5k on a marine compatible EAD.