Do they owe us and explaination?

[cdiver2]

One thing that needs to be recognized in this particular incident:

Most often, when a dive accident occurs, there are multiple posts by folks who “just heard about it” because they were on a boat and heard the radio… knew someone who was on a boat or at the marina… heard about it from the local media, etc. Usually this is followed by days or weeks of hearsay, with an occasional news report. It is very rare to hear anything, anything, at all from the dive operators involved. (Read a few threads – there are lots of examples.) In the case of the Coco View tragedy, the dive op was the first out with a clearly written statement, published on several boards. If anything, they deserve recognition for being upfront about it. Yet they seem to be getting all the heat for ‘not talking’.

This one needs a rest!

I think this is a over reaction or wrong choice of words, I don't think anyone is applying or attempting to put any heat to CCV. Just a discussion as to weather they should or should not make a statement when/if the results are known. This discussion should apply to all dive ops not just CCV

 

[Diversion]

I think one of the things divers want to know is the resort safe. Was it bad air, were they diving nitrox and had the wrong mix (I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS THE CASE). I don't think its unreasonable to expect a basic explanation when you are a potential customer.
I know there were a couple of people said they were thinking of backing out of a booking when this started. Call it more of a reassurance than a explanation.

I think this is a over reaction or wrong choice of words, I don't think anyone is applying or attempting to put any heat to CCV.

Great backfin... Buoyancy needs work…

 

[seafox69]

when there is an accident, there will be a lawsuit. Anyone involved in the accident would be creating legal suicide if they openly discussed the accident so you will never hear about it from the victim's certification agency, the DM's or instructors on the boat, the dive shop and resort, DAN or other dive insurance, and whoever else was involved in the accident and therefore be involved in the lawsuit.

The case will need to be settled first.

lots of hearsay but no legal facts.

 

[Tom725]

Owed?

Are you going to put a lien on their estate if they don't pay up?

Engaging in hyperbolic rants on the web about how somebody owes you an explanation is probably not the best course of action. Sit down, take a breath, relax a bit and encourage others to do the same. If you can do that and wait it out, information often does become available. Of course, by then, most people will have moved on to the latest shark attack or suicide bombing and lost interest in the incident...

Hyperbolic rants? I believe I asked a question and there were no rants involved. If the accident happens at a commercial opperation I think they (if they are not at fault)and their customers benefit from and open discussion.

 

[cornfed]

I don't think it's a problem that the DAN data is a couple of years old. It's still pertinent and that's how long it takes to gather, collate, analyse and publish.

I don't either. I agree that that particular accident is interesting and when I said "the problem" I meant that we'll have to wait before any publishes any detailed information. In general I would rather wait and get the story straight once instead of quickly followed by two dozen corrections.

 

[cornfed]

I think one of the things divers want to know is the resort safe. Was it bad air, were they diving nitrox and had the wrong mix (I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS THE CASE). I don't think its unreasonable to expect a basic explanation when you are a potential customer.

I hate to keep harping on this but would you really learn anything from that? Let's say someone died because the guy filling their tanks screwed up and they got a really hot nitrox mix. Weren't you taught in you nitrox class to ALWAYS analyize your own tank?

I know there were a couple of people said they were thinking of backing out of a booking when this started. Call it more of a reassurance than a explanation.

I'm not really sure the point of accident analysis should be to help you pick charter operators.

 

[StSomewhere]

A couple observations.

First, I read the account about the Dave Shaw recovery dive fatality in Outside magazine and learned alot from the description his team made from the film that was done by Dave (which may have actually been a contributing factor). Stuff I haven't read anywhere else. (Line problems, extra equipment, CO2 retention, single-focusedness, an unwillingness to call a dive that isn't going as planned.) So knowing is better, IMO, regardless of whether I'd do an RB dive to 860 feet or not. Lots of lessons there to be gleaned, even for open water divers, IMO.

http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200508/dave-shaw-1.html Also to be the subject of tonight's ABC Nightline, IIRC.

Second, before everyone falls over themselves praising a particular dive op, remember that it may or may not have ulterior motives behind the disclosure. Shortly after the CCV incident their own forums were reorganized and many of the posts on the two fatalities went missing in the process. I don't think its time to call in Oliver Stone, but the timing does look odd to me.

Finally (I know I said a couple, but make that three) the mantra of accident analysis seems to be that everyone should keep their guesses to themselves until the investigation is completed and the facts are known, but most times thats all that happens is people are asked not to speculate long enough for interest to die down. That's about as helpful as saying a diver drowned, it leaves a lot of pertinent information unknowable.

 

[cdiver2]

Great backfin... Buoyancy needs work…

I don't know if I am understanding what your saying or not but you seem to be implying I have changed direction on what I originally said. If that is the case you are wrong. I still stand by what I said in post #2. In my post that you quoted I was trying to explain why I think CCV should make a statement WHEN and if the cause is ever known.
If I miss read what you were saying (backfin) I apologies.

 

[cdiver2]

I hate to keep harping on this but would you really learn anything from that? Let's say someone died because the guy filling their tanks screwed up and they got a really hot nitrox mix. Weren't you taught in you nitrox class to ALWAYS analyize your own tank?
I'm not really sure the point of accident analysis should be to help you pick charter operators.

I am not a nitrox diver (no interest) but I have dived where a lot of people have been using nitrox and I must say the numbers that I have seen analyze the mix must be about 2%. Why I don't know, I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on what they are taught

Your not sure why a accident analysis would help me chose a dive op, you overlooked or chose no to acknowledge my reference to bad air. Yes I do need to know if a dive op is safe. Dive professionals are not gods they to can make mistakes.

I also refer you back to a earlyer post of mine. You say if everyone doe's as they are tought then we have no need to know why, so why do we have a analysis every time a ship sinks or a plane falls out of the sky, we should be satisfied with someone did not do what they were tought.

 

[Tom725]

No, they don't owe you anything. But more over, I don't think you're even going to learn anything that wasn't covered in your basic OW class.

near misses section.

If you think you learned everything you need to know in diving in your basic open water class then it must have been some course.