Analysis vs Condolences (split from CSSP thread)

[R_Deluca]

Accident analysis is very effective if you actually analyze the accident - and not some made up story that doesn't fit the facts.

The 'bleeding hearts' that you refer to are too often those of families or friends actually involved in real incidents. The 'talking about accidents' that you refer to is often pure conjecture, no-one objects to a discussion of the facts.

A new opt-in forum to 'role play' speculation might not be such a bad idea. At least everyone who entered it would be aware that it was just different scenarios and speculation. It would also stop potential accusations being aimed at people by anonymous internet users based on what they 'think' happened.

So you are asking for people to only comment on accidents if they are speaking from first hand information? Perhaps we should hold the membership and management to the same high standard in their review of dive shops, etc?

 

[Kim]

So you are asking for people to only comment on accidents if they are speaking from first hand information? Perhaps we should hold the membership and management to the same high standard in their review of dive shops, etc?

No I am not. I am asking people to comment based on facts. The facts themselves could come from first hand knowledge or things like coroners reports etc. I am asking people not to comment based on guesses.
I would also hope that comments about dive shops etc would also be based on facts in that they have the possibility to effect peoples livelihoods. It is also a policy of SB that if statements are made against a business that the business in question is informed of that and given a right of reply.

 

[Tom R]

No I am not. I am asking people to comment based on facts. The facts themselves could come from first hand knowledge or things like coroners reports etc. I am asking people not to comment based on guesses.
I would also hope that comments about dive shops etc would also be based on facts in that they have the possibility to effect peoples livelihoods. It is also a policy of SB that if statements are made against a business that the business in question is informed of that and given a right of reply.

One would hope this is the case, unfortunatly time and time again it is not the case.

 

[DORSETBOY]

Speculation, post accident, is a waste of time and often ends up with folk making statements about people who have died or been injured without any knowledge about either a) the incident or b) the diver(s). Funnily enough, speculation can offend those divers on here who know the diver(s) in question as very often their ability or behaviour is unfairly called into question.

Speculation is also completely inappropriate when an inquest is being held into a diving accident, as is often the case.

If someone has a point to make they don't have to relate it to a particular incident or person(s), so avoiding possible offence. Also, lets be honest on here, this site is more often than not about people sounding off than a real exchange of ideas or information.

 

[TwoBitTxn]

After any accident you are always going to get speculation. You can gripe and complain, but just like rubber-neckers on a highway accident, they are going to be there.

There are two people in this accident who know what happened. One is dead. The other is his widow. The rescuer, AFAIK, is not a member of this board. So I doubt he could post his story. Even if he could much of it would be speculation. He at least could tell what the wife told him.

The Dallas media sources didn't pick this one up. (Maybe a good thing) So there won't be a posted autopsy. We don't have much. We won't get much more.

TwoBit

 

[DORSETBOY]

I think we're posting about two different accidents here, in the incident I'm refering too, both divers died, and a large number of their friends including myself are divers and so are likely to have access to forums such as this.

That said, I stand by what I said in my previous post and strongly believe that speculation and gossip is inappropriate in any case as is likely to cause offence and is unlikely to help any one.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Speculation, post accident, is a waste of time and often ends up with folk making statements about people who have died or been injured without any knowledge about either a) the incident or b) the diver(s). Funnily enough, speculation can offend those divers on here who know the diver(s) in question as very often their ability or behaviour is unfairly called into question.

Speculation is also completely inappropriate when an inquest is being held into a diving accident, as is often the case.

If someone has a point to make they don't have to relate it to a particular incident or person(s), so avoiding possible offence. Also, lets be honest on here, this site is more often than not about people sounding off than a real exchange of ideas or information.

I disagree that speculation is a wast of time. i've been following dive accidents for awhile now and we never get good info as to exactly what happened. By your reasoning we wouldn't have any discussion or take any steps to prevent anything because we would be going on speculation to some extent or another.

Speculation is one of the first steps in problem solving. If I look at a situation and say it looks like it couls have been cause by a, b, c or d I may not ever be able to prove which it is if any. However I can take steps to avoid all four. If I throw up my hands and refuse to discuss or hypothisize because I lack some piece of data then we are certainly doomed to repeat.

Some examples...note how often divers are seperated from their buddy when they die. It seems we rarely have a direct eye witness. One of the first things I would address here is the buddy seperation. But gol-dern-it we don't have proof so the industry and most divers in general dO NOTHING and buddy seperations are one of the most common mishaps on dives...even though they don't always result in injury. IMO, one need only examine the buddy diving training in most entry level training to get a feel for why divers can't stay together.

Another example...Check the DAN report to see how often buoyancy control problems are reported in dives that result in injury or death. Does that mean that the buoyancy control problems are the direct cause 100 percent of the time? No. Is it an indication that it is sometimes? I think so. Have we addressed the buoyancy control taught in most entry level training? No. Students are told they'll get it later. Do you think that lack of ability to control position in the water might have something to do with how often we see buddy seperations? I do. Can I prove it? No. Do I care? No, because improving in these two areas can only help.

I've seen enough of this including near misses that I comfortable with the opinion that we see a hand full of main problems that crop up over and over and over. Very few divers are original enough to find a new way to get in trouble. It's all been done before.

 

[TwoBitTxn]

I think we're posting about two different accidents here, in the incident I'm refering too, both divers died, and a large number of their friends including myself are divers and so are likely to have access to forums such as this.

That said, I stand by what I said in my previous post and strongly believe that speculation and gossip is inappropriate in any case as is likely to cause offence and is unlikely to help any one.

I was referring to the accident in the thread this was split off from.

TwoBit

 

[Kim]

Mike - I think you have actually just proved the point very well. It is perfectly possible - as you just did - to discuss the root causes of many accidents without relating them to specific incidents. I also believe that many accidents are exactly due to the kind of problems you just outlined. However there are a few other groups that aren't. Two that come to mind are heart attacks - not a lot to discuss there, and strong down currents - again, something that is sometimes extremely hard, if not impossible, to deal with. In the thread in question it is not known why the wife surfaced when she did, or the condition of her husband at that time, or where they were in relation to each other, or how experienced a diver she was - so how can you draw a useful conclusion that might help in the future? The point I have been trying to make is not that accidents shouldn't be discussed, it is simply that if you are trying to generalize from a situation to say - if a or b happens then you should do c or d - that should be enough. This to my mind is different from saying - Yesterday 'this person' did this and it was wrong - they should have done that, especially when it is really not sure what or why 'this person' did what they did to start with.

 

[TwoBitTxn]

I think respect for the living and the dead should play a role in the speculation around an accident. An invidual can speculate and hypothesize as to the causes and contributors to an accident and be respectful while doing so. This can lead to constructive analysis and maybe prevent others from making the same mistakes.

OTOH, being disrespectful and insulting people, in any way, I can see how that can cause problems.

TwoBit