Speculation can be hurtful and counter-productive. The facts can also be quite hurtful, but shading the facts to protect someone can be counter-productive. Speculation can also be beneficial and get us closer to a truth when facts are lacking, or extend the amount of learning that can be gleaned from a scenario. Informed speculation and questions on the part of those wishing to learn are the core of this board.
If anyone chooses to be offended by speculation, that's their prerogative. If they choose to believe speculation is fact, the same. Read the whole thread. Understand who is an insider to an incident, and who is speculating. Draw your conclusions accordingly. I can't remember being confused about what is fact and what is theory in any thread. Certainly, there were plenty of believable and reasonable theories that were later discounted, but I never confused likely speculation with fact. You can't let the opinion of some anonymous forum poster who may just be looking to stir the pot get you down. Of course, I've never been the subject of one of these threads, and being the subject can skew your perspective.
In the year or so I have been participating here, I find it rare that anyone has speculated with the intent to be hurtful as a primary motivation. In fact, I can't think of one. There have been quite a few contentious and aggressive posts, often by people too close to an incident or in defense of a challenged position. The only time that speculation proves counter-productive, IMO, is when someone comes in and blindly accepts prior misguided speculation as fact and then builds on top of it. It goes along with the age-old saying that there are no bad questions. It would be healthy to treat every theory posted here as a question in spite of how it might be phrased.
drbill, if I were a member of the victim's family, I might find your post hurtful. Based upon what known fact are you stating that the diver panicked? All I believe we know for fact is that she began a rapid ascent that the instructor was able to slow for some part of the way up. At some point, she gave an OOA signal and then continued to the surface at an even more rapid rate that the instructor couldn't prevent. Any attribution of motivation is nothing more than speculation. Well-informed and likely based upon an analysis of the diver's behavior, but speculation none the less.
As far as I can tell, the reporter used incorrect words to initially describe this incident. That left it ambiguous as to what course and which dive of the course the victim was participating in. That opened the door to asking questions. The way I read the initial story, I assumed it was the first dive of AOW. If I had read further to see that it was a Sunday, I would have assumed it was the first dive of the day in AOW, but that multiple dives had been completed on Saturday.
At this point in the thread, I believe we have that sorted out. It was an AOW class and a dive on day 2. The diver and the instructor were among a group descending on a chain in the vicinity of 60-65 fsw when something happened that caused the victim to want to ascend. We don't know what that was, how quickly the victim reversed course, or if any signals were given at that point. We do know that the instructor was aware of the reversal, and that the ascent was rapid enough that the she considered it unsafe and tried to slow it. We don't know how the instructor tried to slow the ascent or if any communication occurred on the way up. We also don't know how long they took to go from depth to the point where the instructor lost contact with the victim. We were told that, at some depth between 15 and 25 fsw, an OOA signal was given and the victim separated from the instructor and broke for the surface. Under the circumstances, we can assume an as-fast-as-possible ascent the rest of the way to the surface on the part of the victim. We don't know if the ascent had been slowed to the point of control or what other communication there was prior to the point where the victim gained separation. We know that the instructor slowed her ascent to more safely arrive at the surface some time after the victim. We don't know how long that delay was. We also don't know the details of any initial treatment that was attempted to save the victim on the way to the chamber.
There's a lot we don't know. Almost everyone has used the word "panic" in evaluating this incident. To me, panic suggests an irrational and uncontrolled response. Just because someone did something that would be harmful doesn't automatically mean that it was done out of panic.
When it comes to slowing a diver's ascent, it's not like you're carrying a spare anchor that you can attach to them. Assuming proper weighting on the part of both diver and instructor, what can you do beside trying to gain control of the runaway diver's BC valves while managing your own? At this location, might you grab the chain with one hand and the diver with the other? You can try to get in a position to communicate and get the diver to voluntarily slow the ascent. Without cooperation, the available negative bouyancy from even fully deflated BCs decreases as you approach the surface making it that much harder to slow the diver, especially in thicker wetsuits. So, what's the textbook procedure for dealing with a situation like this?
