Analysis vs Condolences (split from CSSP thread)

[WJL]

The reason I wrote this was to remind people what is in the sticky at the beginning of the Accidents & Incidents forum. I would ask everyone to re-read that sticky. As it stands now speculation and guesses about real incidents are not allowed and posts that do that have always been pulled and will be in the future.

I know what the sticky says, but apparently you do not.

This is in the sticky: "Accident analysis does not "find fault" - it finds hazards - and how to reduce or eliminate them." As I stated before I think this is just wrong as a general statement about accident analysis. Not always, but sometimes, accidents are caused by someone's mistake. Apparently here on ScubaBoard, it is forbidden to point out that someone made a mistake, because doing so amounts to "finding fault."

However, there is nothing in the sticky to support your assertion that "speculation and guesses about real incidents are not allowed." The only mention of speculation in the sticky is this: "Remember that you cannot read minds. Restrict comments to what happened and how to prevent it, without speculating on what someone else was thinking (or not). The only thoughts you are qualified to share are your own." This is a prohibition on attempted mind-reading, not a prohibition on any and all types of "speculation and guesses". I understand that you are philosophically opposed to "speculation and guesses" but if you are pulling posts for that reason, that amounts to imposing your views on others, not enforcing the forum rules.

 

[TwoBitTxn]

Hi

For any of you that do dive this site is their no current?. I must admit I have thought about this a bit. She must have been in some control as she was able to direct a diver to her husband. It's odd that she may not have tried to hit the power lift button.
Cheers
Derek

Clear Springs is a flooded quarry. The location of the accident is about 30-35 feet deep.

TwoBit

 

[MikeFerrara]

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.

True, rendering aid could put you at some risk. Whether or not you can effect a rescue without becomming a vitem is a decision that has to be made.

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

Properly? Are we saying that we're sending divers out to act as buddies when they're not qualified to? That's what it sounds like. The instructor suggested that the diver may have been prudent to not be a buddy...but the very system that says that also says that she is a qualified buddy in that environment. I don't think the logic works. You can't have it both ways.

Certainly there are limits to everything. A diver might be wise to back off from a panicing buddy but personally I wouldn't loose sight of them if I could help it.

If a diver can't render basic aid prior to rescue training, maybe we shouldn't consider divers without rescue training as qualified to dive without supervision. Surely it would seem folly to choose one as a buddy. You might get left...properly left of course.

 

[snuggle]

mike you just stated that a diver may be wise to back off a buddy whos panicking but you wouldnt lose sight of them if possible..well in that case your not helping him right?whats your definition of a qualified buddy?there are many divers out there who are very qualified to dive without supervision who dont have their rescue training and im sure that most of them could react very well if their buddy was in trouble..mike ..question..do you think that if you were in a situation 100 times were your buddy was in trouble that you could react properly the 100 times without hesitation?dont answer because its a question you cant answer nor can i.....i dont know what was going through this ladies mind when this accident happened and i wont try to..unfortunatly i think the first thing that comes to some peoples minds when something goes wrong underwater is to bolt for the surface which of course both you and i know is the wrong thing to do but it happens all the time and they do it without thinking about anything else..does the need to bolt go away?yes for some it does over many dives and they learn to think before they bolt..for others i dont know..

 

[wolf eel]

[snuggle

mike you just stated that a diver may be wise to back off a buddy whos panicking but you wouldnt lose sight of them if possible..well in that case your not helping him right?whats your definition of a qualified buddy?there are many divers out there who are very qualified to dive without supervision who dont have their rescue training and im sure that most of them could react very well if their buddy was in trouble..mike ..question..do you think that if you were in a situation 100 times were your buddy was in trouble that you could react properly the 100 times without hesitation?dont answer because its a question you cant answer nor can i.....i dont know what was going through this ladies mind when this accident happened and i wont try to..unfortunatly i think the first thing that comes to some peoples minds when something goes wrong underwater is to bolt for the surface which of course both you and i know is the wrong thing to do but it happens all the time and they do it without thinking about anything else..does the need to bolt go away?yes for some it does over many dives and they learn to think before they bolt..for others i dont know]

Listen everything you just said sums up to one thing and thats it not truly trained buddies. As what you are trained as an O/W dive buddy you know the BUDDY SYSTEM. I know some people under direct stress act different then others but if you train and keep training you will be better off. Also What Mike was saying I think is by not losing sight is just that stay with the person after they do the chicken do your rapid controled accent and if needed drag them to shore then run like a mad duck to your car and away you go or just dial 911 from your cell phone. In this case seems like the best option. Why leave dead people can't hurt you !! I say this as she was in some control able to drive find some help and so on. Question did she drive to the dive shop to grab that person to help her ?Another question was all her dive gear found floating in the quary ?The example of running to the car and so on would not be my method but I don't think she had any CPR training.
Derek

 

[kman458]

this thread is moving far away from the cause/effect discussion that it started out to be. i just do not want to see this closed down because it is headed off in a different direction than it probably should.

 

[wolf eel]

[kman458
this thread is moving far away from the cause/effect discussion that it started out to be. i just do not want to see this closed down because it is headed off in a different direction than it probably should.]

I agree.
I was asking about the accident and wether or not she did indeed drive to the dive shop first ? And if her dive gear was floating in the lake ? You mentioned cause and effect. But I think Mikes point about not being properly trained is the effect of leaving and so on. I know I am speculating to the idea she did indeed just leave but that is how it sounds. Cause for this effect is that sometimes people are not trained as best they could to be a buddy.
Derek

 

[CharleyT]

True, rendering aid could put you at some risk. Whether or not you can effect a rescue without becomming a vitem is a decision that has to be made.

Properly? Are we saying that we're sending divers out to act as buddies when they're not qualified to? That's what it sounds like. The instructor suggested that the diver may have been prudent to not be a buddy...but the very system that says that also says that she is a qualified buddy in that environment. I don't think the logic works. You can't have it both ways..

Mike,

You answered your own question with your first statement. Based on how it was explained to me, if the potential rescuer felt it was not in either swimmers best interest to render aid, the fact that no aid was rendered would be proper.

I never said anything to the affect that we were sending out divers who were not qualified. Nor did I say the Instructor suggested a diver not be a buddy. Please do not put words in my mouth. What I said was (direct quote from a previous reply):

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

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.”

If you feel the need to split hairs here, I assumed people would understand that I could have added:

3) Buddy felt that further attempts to render aid to victim, based on victims actions, had a great potential to cause the death of both divers.

But I believed people would understand this was implied. I’ll be more cautious in the future.

Do I personally think she acted improperly? I wasn’t there, so I have no first hand knowledge of how it all happened, therefore, I will keep my personal thoughts to myself.

Would I like to think I might act differently? Yes Will I? We will not know for sure until it happens to me.

 

[MikeFerrara]

mike you just stated that a diver may be wise to back off a buddy whos panicking but you wouldnt lose sight of them if possible..well in that case your not helping him right?

The first priority when things go wrong is to understand what the problem is. That sounds like a nobrainer but the next step is to TAKE CONTROL and solve the problem. If a diver is far bigger, panicing, maybe entangled...or whatever, rushing in may not contribute to gaining control but rather getting more out of control...for instance if you were to get yourself entangled too. So? Maybe you need to wait for the right time to step in. Maybe there's something you can do prior. Maybe you can just step in and phisically get control right off the bat. Once you loose sight (leave) you certainly don't have control and now the next problem some one needs to solve is finding the victem.

whats your definition of a qualified buddy?

Obviously the definition needs to be relative to the dive but if we're diving and I loose the ability to swim for myself...I expect that you can get me to the surface. If you can't or won't I won't I'll want a different buddy. I'd do it for you why wouldn't you do it for me...Note the term "you" here doesn't refer to you but rather to any potential buddy. I'm sorry but a paniced or unconcious diver is a possibility on any dive. Once it happens the outcome may be a bit unpredictable but if you haven't tried to prepare for it you better have some one with you who has.

there are many divers out there who are very qualified to dive without supervision who dont have their rescue training and im sure that most of them could react very well if their buddy was in trouble

This is not at all consistant with what I have seen with my own eyes. On the contrary, the average diver seems to do ok if nothing goes wrong. When it does, though, they don't have a chance...other than luck.

..mike ..question..do you think that if you were in a situation 100 times were your buddy was in trouble that you could react properly the 100 times without hesitation?dont answer because its a question you cant answer

Why can't I answer? I can't say that I will never make a mistake however I have had to manage too many paniced divers and other problems underwater. Problems that ranged from full blown panic, common student misshaps, equipment problems, entanglements, siltouts and other minor problems in caves...and the list goes on. To date, the outcomes have been acceptable. Will things work out the next time? That I can't say. What I can say is that by far the worst situations we have been in were those that happened when we were new. Things don't go anywhere near as wrong, anywhere near as often any more. The newer and less skilled the diver the less able they are to manage a problem and the more likely they are to have one in the first place. That first hundred or so (more or less depending on additional training and what kind of experience is gained) is a very vulnerable time.

i dont know what was going through this ladies mind when this accident happened and i wont try to..unfortunatly i think the first thing that comes to some peoples minds when something goes wrong underwater is to bolt for the surface which of course both you and i know is the wrong thing to do but it happens all the time and they do it without thinking about anything else..does the need to bolt go away?yes for some it does over many dives and they learn to think before they bolt..for others i dont know..

With more experience, skill, comfort and confidence comes a decreased tendancy to panic. Panic is what people do when they feel they have lost control.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Mike,

You answered your own question with your first statement. Based on how it was explained to me, if the potential rescuer felt it was not in either swimmers best interest to render aid, the fact that no aid was rendered would be proper.

Not the kind of buddy I want.

I never said anything to the affect that we were sending out divers who were not qualified. Nor did I say the Instructor suggested a diver not be a buddy. Please do not put words in my mouth. What I said was (direct quote from a previous reply):

No I said it. I think the industry is talking out both sides of their mouth. On one hand they give you a card that says you are a qualified buddy and on the other you're told not to aid your buddy because you're not rescue trained. That kind of logic hurts my head.

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

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.”

Their answer doesn't surprise me. Choosing the time to step in and get control is different that leaving. based on the assumptions your assumptions I wouldn't want to be in a situation where I have to rely on that diver would you?

If you feel the need to split hairs here, I assumed people would understand that I could have added:

3) Buddy felt that further attempts to render aid to victim, based on victims actions, had a great potential to cause the death of both divers.

That's diving for you.