Analysis vs Condolences (split from CSSP thread)

[Squalus]

alot can be done with speculation. it usually involves going from "if this is what caused the problem" to "what could be done to prevent this from happening again" and doing it with different versions to try and figure out the most likely account of what happened and that is good to get people thinking and learning to hopefully prevent it from happening to someone else.

I agree, in any accident there can be numerous factors leading to it. With speculation and intelligent thought numerous scenarios can be ran and valuable information being learned. Running different scenarios let's us think "what if" this happens to me what woulld I do?

 

[MikeFerrara]

In trouble shooting we often begine with the undesired outcome and work back rather than trying to first pinpoint the initial fault.

In the case of the accident that started this thread we have a diver returning alone. Regardless of what happened to the other diver, why or whether it could have been prevented I see the lone diver returning as an undesired outcome.

I also see a new and inexperienced diver entering the water to do a recovery as an undesired result in general.

I would start there and work backwards.

I think it's good to comfort those in pain. It's also good to try to limit the number of people who need comfort by helping them avoid such pain.

I know that if I left my wife on the bottom I would always wonder if bringing her up could have saved her. I don't think I'd dive if I didn't feel that I could do that. I don't think I care to dive with some one who isn't going to be able to bring me up since it might save me.

I wonder if we should be handing out cards that say a person can dive independantly if they haven't learned some of these skills. Who is it that we expect to bring up an injured diver? The airfill guy with one post cert OW dive?

I don't see the sense in keeping quiet when there are problems so glaringly obvious that they're like a slap in the face.

Now lets say that after such a discussion we find out that it didn't happen that way...that the diver didn't return alone or it was really some very experienced and well training divers who attempted the rescue. Did we loose anything? I don't think so.

 

[MikeFerrara]

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.

You bring up some good points. However, I'm not sure that I'd be so quick to write off heart attacks (for example) as something that we can't do anything about. Certainly they can happen to people who seem in good condition and without any real warning. But...I can tell you that while I owned a dive shop I had many, many middle aged+, over weight, out of conditioned couples come to me for training. Some could hardly even swim. Should I point out to them that they may find themselves alone, on the far side of a local quarry, with one of them incapacitated? Do you ever see any couples out diving who fit that discription who don't seem to have considered the possibility? I know plenty of them that are content to travel the world with their entry level training hoping to stay lucky.

 

[WJL]

... the purpose of accident analysis is to identify things that can be improved by finding the hazards - not the fault. As such speculation about peoples actions and in whatever form suggesting blame or culpability (even with denials like "but I don't mean to.......") should form no part of it.

As a general proposition, this line of thinking seems to me to be the antithesis of realistic and meaningful accident analysis. In the context of analyzing accidents, it is completely inappropriate to stipulate in advance that the participants involved in the accident cannot be criticized for their actions. If the accident was caused by an error or omission, that conclusion should not be suppressed because it will upset someone.

It is pardoxical to me that many people bemoan society's lack of "personal responsibility", and at the same time refuse to consider just what personal responsibility means. It means, plainly and simply, that people are culpable for their mistakes.

What is wrong with assigning fault, if reasoned analysis suggests that somone made an error? What is so horrible about saying that someone made a mistake? Why is it always and everywhere inappropriate to suggest culpability? What on earth is the problem with pointing out a mistake? That someone's feelings will be hurt?

Sure, sometimes things just happen, and no one is to blame. And sometimes people make bad results happen because of something they did or didn't do, and they might be blameworthy to one degree or another. Accepting responsibility for mistakes is part of being an adult member of society. If that is too emotionally difficult for someone to accept, that person should avoid accident analysis.

If you don't want to to be exposed to any possibility of seeing someone assigning culpability for mistakes, don't read an analysis of an accident.

 

[CharleyT]

Fact:
1) Sharon, nor I are Rescue Certified

Assumptions / Suppositions:
1) Divers were not Rescue Certified
2) Buddy felt threatened by victim’s actions underwater.

Based on these two assumptions, Sharon and I batted this one around a little on the drive home Sunday. I wondered if the dive buddy should have at least attempted to air up the victims BC (assuming she did not) and try to get him to the surface, rather than leave to get help. Sharon pointed out that, without proper training (in the form of a Rescue class and/or CPR?), the buddy may have been in danger of becoming a second victim.

I posed this question to an Instructor and the GM of a LDS last eve. Interestingly enough, they agreed with Sharon that the buddy may have acted properly, based on the afore mentioned assumptions.


Charley

 

[lamont]

i agree completely with what bill and mike just said.

and i feel like i'm learning something from mike wrt his point about surfacing alone. you may feel like this is 'speculation' or 'blame' or 'without facts' but i just don't care. i think that speculation has a lot of value to living, breathing scuba divers and may prevent some of them from becoming future fatalities. i'm sorry if someone related to the divers reads a thread which seems to lay blame where there were incorrect facts, but i think its much worse to self-censor ourselves in order to 'protect' their feelings.

i'd also like to point out the practical aspect of it, which is that there are two different 'communities' of people who react to incident reports very differently. i predict you are going to repeatedly see people posting speculation on accident threads and people getting offended by it over and over until something is done.

 

[wolf eel]

[Kim
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.]

This is what i said in the last thread about the Ontario diver. That if you remove all guess then you would have no thread to chat about. The facts that you are talking about are less facts then anything else. The coroners report you speak of is really a news paper report of what was released. And then only the part that would not effect the family. You are also going to use the paper as a source. That is also another reason for my post to show how bad (news reports) can be.

Speculation is just that a guess no matter how you look at it. I do not understand why people are against others chating about something like this. This respect for the dead and so on is a little silly here. Nobody is saying anything bad about these people at all just what happened. Again you are chating with some one who this has happened with. When I did bring my "story" up it was for people like you to understand thats it's all GTG and that life moves on.
Derek

 

[snuggle]

wolf eel ..you talk alot about facts and the way that they are reported in newspapers..tell me something why would a newpaper release a coroners report and post differently then whats in the report?they wouldnt thats why...and since when is respect for the dead silly...and you talk about moving on???speculation is nothing but a waste of time and it doesnt really amount to any more answers..it just adds more questions then anything else..as one member put it..the only person who really knows what happened is dead..you can speculate all you want but unless you were there or have the actual facts from someone who was there you wont ever find out what happened most of the time..sure there are times where the accident cause is cut and dry but most of the time it isnt..you ask why people are against people chatting about speculation..well lets put it this way ..would you listen to someone who is a pathological liar??theres your asnwer..speculation is a bit like lying ..theres no thruth in it...no way no how..yet some here just thrive on speculation and think they know what the answer is..there are many ifs out there but finding which if is true is another things in itself..i myself wont speculate because i have nothing to gain by doing so..il stick to the facts about things...

 

[snuggle]

forgot to ask...d33ps1x why would you bring up a non alias thingy in this thread anyways?it doesnt belong in this thread..and what would a non alias thing here solve anyways..there are many here who know each other by first names anyways..

 

[CharleyT]

you ask why people are against people chatting about speculation..well lets put it this way ..would you listen to someone who is a pathological liar??theres your asnwer..speculation is a bit like lying ..theres no thruth in it...no way no how..yet some here just thrive on speculation and think they know what the answer is..there are many ifs out there but finding which if is true is another things in itself..

From dictionary.com:

spec·u·la·tion n.

Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.
A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

con·jec·ture n.

Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence;
guesswork.
A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

li·ar n.
One that tells lies.
lie2 n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

v. lied, ly·ing, (l ng) lies v. intr.

To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.


My question for folks that get so upset when people speculate is;
"Why then get involved?". If it bothers you, change the channel,
ignore the thread, or turn your TV, VCR, DVR, DVD or Computer off.
But no where does one have the right to call someone who speculates
a liar (at least not based on the definitions I have provided.

i myself wont speculate because i have nothing to gain by doing so..il stick to the facts about things...

Please see my point above. Let those who want to specualte do so. Those that do not, can feel free to not speculate. I just don't see a valid reason for pushing ones ideals on another. I believe this might be at least part of the reason this thread was broken off from my original post, to give people a place to speculate on what happened.

Charley