diver dies off redondo beach (puget sound)

[scubasean]

So you need to be careful what you think, and more careful what you say and how you say it.

Being respectful by carefully controlling what you say is much more palatable than someone telling me how or what to think...Being carefuly what you think....I'm not even sure how to do that...

I truly hope you misspoke...

I commend the woman for having the presence of mind to help her buddy spouse in the best way she knew how....

 

[triton94949]

Being respectful by carefully controlling what you say is much more palatable than someone telling me how or what to think...Being carefuly what you think....I'm not even sure how to do that...

....

You need to be careful what you think. You may think you know everything. You may think you would never make the same mistakes. You may think you never make mistakes.

You may be dead wrong someday, and then we will be discussing your accident.

 

[MoonWrasse]

Equally as important to respect the deceased or survivors, is to respect each other's responses to the incident. Different people respond differently to accidents, and one would hope that we can minimize the personal attacks on other posters, as I don't think that's constructive. People become defensive, and seem less inclined to participate in a constructive dialogue.

Commenting on this particular incident, and the recent news article posting today, I feel this is less likely a diving accident, however rather paradoxically my intuition tells me that diving may have prolonged the victims life, or at least his quality of life while he suffered. I warm hug to his wife who choose to be beside him during his battle and make his short time a happy one.

 

[Diver0001]

From time to time I need to write a little refresher on what "Accident Analysis" is, and what it is not. This thread is as good a place as any.
First of all, there is no Accident Analysis here - yet - and for the very good reason that we do not yet know what killed this diver, beyond his failure to surface alive. We can speculate all day long, and likely be wrong.
Accident analysis identifies hazards and recommends ways to avoid or mitigate those hazards. Real accident analysis specifically does not lay blame, or make judgements, or concern itself with why someone did something. It rather determines what was done and if the "what" is a hazard then accident analysis recommends ways to not do it, or to mitigate the result. Accident analysis does not say an action is "wrong" or "right" - it may say an action was not in accordance with rules or regulations or established procedures... but that may be the case whether an action resulted in an accident - or a life saved.
It is natural as humans to want to know why someone did something, but in the end that doesn't really matter, does it? It is the what someone did that matters, and what results. Accident analysis is concerned with safety - with how to avoid or mitigate the hazards; that is why we don't get wrapped around the axle trying to figure out how someone came around in their own mind to run a stop sign... whether they made a conscious decision to run it or were distracted or whatever... the hazard is running the stop sign, and the accident could be avoided by not running it.
Accident analysis also doesn't concern itself with actions that have no bearing on the accident. For example, if the accident is a fatal CVA, then nothing anyone else did or didn't do after the event had any bearing on the death and is irrelevant. (those things may not be irrelevant in the world of human relations and emotions, but they are irrelevant in accident analysis)
Just remember that Accident Analysis is all about safety through identifying hazards and recommending how to avoid or mitigate those hazards - and that all else is surplus to the process - and you'll have its essence.
Rick

This is good stuff, Rick. I think everyone posting on this part of the forum should take this to heart.

R..

 

[Rick Murchison]

exley's _blueprint for survival_ has speculation in it. the word "probably" has a very high frequency of occurance in the analysis section of all the incidents that he mentions. very infrequently do you have enough facts to eliminate all speculation.
exley mentions several mistakes in passing which had no bearing on the outcome of the actual accident (e.g. failure to carry 3 lights when that had nothing to do with the incident).

You seem to be under the impression that Sheck Exley's Blueprint for Survival is somehow an authority on accident analysis - perhaps even the defining work on the subject. It isn't. It is an authority on how to stay alive cave diving, has a lot of good analysis in it, and is probably the very best compilation of how to stay alive in underwater caves written to date - the best "Blueprint for Survival."
But accident analysis itself is a very specific methodology defined in documents such as OPNAVINST 3710.7 from the US Navy, and similar documents from the NTSB, Air Force, Army, Insurance underwriters etc. - and was firmly in place years before I took the Navy's Safety Officer course at the Naval Postgraduate School in 1982 - indeed, long before Blueprint for Survival's original publication in '79.
Let's not confuse Exley's excellent work, which used accident analysis methods to assist in drawing his conclusions (conclusions that sometimes contained best guesses and speculation) with the method itself.
Rick

 

[MoonWrasse]

Sheck Exley's Blueprint for Survival
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-3639647-0616962?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

OPNAVINST 3710.7
http://www.nps.navy.mil/avsafety/courses/3710.7T- Ch8.pdf#search='OPNAVINST 3710.7'
(Note the interdiction on beards )

 

[DiveGolfSki]

Before I begin, I would like to express my "sympathy" to the wife and family of ****. I can say that because I have the ability to EMPATHIZE with other human geings (one of the benefits of age is experiencing the tragedy a death brings to anyone). She is to be commended for trying to save her husband's life (as reported she, a 5'2" woman pulled a 200 lb. unconscious husband 50 feet to the surface).

Without chastising KrisB any further, he did bring up an interesting point ... albeit rather insensitively and compouned it further by saying "...I honestly have trouble feeling sympathy for people I don't know or know someone who knows. There is an aweful lot of feigned sympathy in this world and it does no good to add to it." Frankly, I don't see the harm in "adding to it" but I digress. KrisB's point on how to properly watch out for your Buddy was echoed by Lamont.

However, I agree with Lamont's statement "...also i think that there was a mistake in lack of buddy contact. i don't view this as a cause because i think the outcome would likely have been the same, but i think it should be called out as a mistake."

The whole point about whether or not the proper procedure for buddy ascent was done correctly seems to be clouding one fact which no seems to be questioning ... so I will. It's been reported that ****, 45, had been diagnosed with lung and liver cancer in November, the Saturday after Thanksgiving. He had endured chemotherapy and just began radiation treatments last week. . Can anyone tell me if it is advisable for a LUNG CANCER patient, who is undergoing a very DEBILITATING chemotherapy, to dive in 80 feet of water no matter what the circumstances?

Again, I wish to convey my condolences to ****. I CAN emphatize with being married for 23 years and losing that person doing what they both love to do...

As for you KrisB, good points but the delivery was ... well sucky. I read your profile .. "SWM seeking SWF" ... How's the search going? Hope it won't be a long one ... but

 

[H2Andy]

to me, as was earlier stated by MikeFerrara, the two themes emerging here are:

1. lack of fitness and/or a physical condition which impairs physical activity can
be a deadly thing underwater

2. buddy contact and buddy awareness at all times is of primary importance

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers ... it was most likely taken out of context by someone who wasn't there, doesn't dive, and was under serious deadline pressure.

I don't recall ever diving with the **** ... but they were active at one of the dive shops I frequent, and were known for leading shop and club dives. People I know who participated in their diving events considered them competent divers. Terry was very well thought of in the local diving community.

Based on that, I have a hard time believing that a lack of buddy skills contributed to the outcome of this accident. Second-guessing based on news stories benefits no one.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[H2Andy]

Based on that, I have a hard time believing that a lack of buddy skills contributed to the outcome of this accident.

i didn't say that

i said that buddy contact and buddy awareness at all times is of primary importance.