Do they owe us and explaination?

[StSomewhere]

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

The video they showed was enlightening, btw, if anyone else saw it.

 

[Kim]

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

As Cornfed said - they are taught to analyze their own tanks. If they don't then they are an accident waiting for a place to happen. There is not a lot that you can say about that. That is, however, never the fault of a dive op. If you break your own training then unfortunately you only have yourself to blame.

For the rest - all too often accident reasons remain unclear. A bunch of people on the Internet reaching their own conclusions about the 'facts' can often do more harm than good. There is nothing quite so dangerous as looking in the opposite direction from where the real problem is coming from. If it's not clear which direction you should be looking - then you have to look in EVERY direction.

 

[cdiver2]

As Cornfed said - they are taught to analyze their own tanks. If they don't then they are an accident waiting for a place to happen. There is not a lot that you can say about that. That is, however, never the fault of a dive op. If you break your own training then unfortunately you only have yourself to blame.

For the rest - all too often accident reasons remain unclear. A bunch of people on the Internet reaching their own conclusions about the 'facts' can often do more harm than good. There is nothing quite so dangerous as looking in the opposite direction from where the real problem is coming from. If it's not clear which direction you should be looking - then you have to look in EVERY direction.

As I said I can not comment on the nitrox thing.
However I think your looking in the wrong direction with this thread, its not about a bunch of people coming to there own conclusions. It started with the question should the dive op make a statement (when and if they know what did happen)
I am with you on the people not coming to there own conclusions because somewhere down the line it going to read like a fact to someone. You know how that go's start with a message and pass it along by the time its gone through 10 people its nothing like the original message. I do have my own ideas as to what MAY have happened but I have not voiced them anywhere and nor will I as it is just my opinion not a fact.

 

[Scuba]

If you look DAN's accident report for this year you'll see that off all the people list as being injured from a dive you won't learn anything new either. Nearly 20% of those injured made a rapid ascent, 10% missed decompression, 5% ran out of air. There isn't anything to be learned here.

There is even less to learn when you look at the fatalities. Nearly 75% of the people where catergorized as "overweight" and 40% we listed as some degree of obesity. Almost 45% of the people who died hadn't made any dives in the previous 12 months. My open water instructor told me to stay in shape and take a refresher if I stopped diving for a while.

And 100% were alive, and would likely remain so if they stayed out of the water.

Maybe knowing the proximate causes for all these accidents might help

Hence the potential usefulness of accident analysis.

A comprehensive analysis may not yield useful results due to insufficient evidence. Often times there is no surviving witness to the event commencement, or even development, only recovery. Medical examinations often indicate ultimate cause of death which is often not the cause of the accident. Sometimes the particulars of an event is known to some who wish to keep it private for personal, business, legal or other reasons. The result is that a public comprehensive and conclusive analysis is the exception rather then the norm in dive accidents.

So we often have no alternative but to speculate in an attempt to determine possible causes. This speculation, which will likely not yield conclusive results about any particular accident, will nevertheless yield useful information as to possible causes for many divers. Divers can incorporate this knowledge in their own diving to prevent future accidents.

Whether this speculative discussion is fair to those directly involved or not is a matter of opinion. Good form, rudeness, talk, be quite, listen, leave, its everyones choice. I don't consider speculation to be rude If done respectfully and noted as such in discussing a sensitive subject in this forum, rather potentially useful. There are sympathy or condolences threads that should remain undisturbed by other matters.

 

[fmw625]

Accident results are slow. I still can't find out any more on the tank explosion in Florida last year at a LDS. Almost a year ago.

 

[DandyDon]

I have been patient in allowing reasonable time for CCV to give a statement on this terrible accident in which a Texas guest and a very popular DM were lost, with my condolences to both families, and my support of CCV as a resort with a very good safety record. But I am now with those who feel it is high time for a preliminary explanation...!!!

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.

Yes sir indeed. Noticed that as well. Some posts just have to be removed in good taste, but I can't help but wonder...?

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.

Yes sir, and one must wonder - is CCV innocent and being quiet just hoping we'll stop fretting over this, or - are they afraid to post on it...?

I wouldn't post that question if I had not received some first hand information suggesting a surprising twist on this accident. Since I was not there, I am not one to post second hand info, but where is the info from the other people on the same boat? Who was the unfortunate Texas tourist's dive buddy? Why is no one talking in the open? Its' obvious that many of us want to know what went wrong so we can avoid the same possibilities.

 

[Bill51]

Accident results take 25% longer to release than it takes the courts to figure it out, or until some statute of limitations expires for civil action.

 

[cornfed]

Geez, don't log in for a couple days an look what happens...

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.

I didn't say that. I said that when looking at the causes of different accidents most of them can be traced to something which was covered in OW.

And 100% were alive, and would likely remain so if they stayed out of the water.

You're right. It is very hard to die in a scuba diving accident unless you're scuba diving.

So we often have no alternative but to speculate in an attempt to determine possible causes. This speculation, which will likely not yield conclusive results about any particular accident, will nevertheless yield useful information as to possible causes for many divers.

I agree.

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.

You're completely right that you need to know if an operator is safe. But I don't think you should use accident analysis to do that. Accident analysis tells you diving with bad air isn't a good idea but it's your job to determine who does or doesn't have good air.

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.

When you look at an accident you will find one of three things: that you don't have enough information to learn anything, that there isn't anything new to learn because you looked a previous accident which had similar causes, or that you learned something new. If you take a step back I think you'll realize that the last one is very rare and that most accidents reviews fall into one of the first two categories. That doesn't mean you shouldn't look at each accident that happens. It means you need to be better about doing some basic triage on the reports.

Damn it! I have been patient in allowing reasonable time for CCV to give a statement ... But I am now with those who feel it is high time for a preliminary explanation...!!!

Don, nobody owes you or anyone else an explanation. I don't care how much it pisses you off that they won't give you one, but they don't owe you anything. You can come up with a long list of reasons why one would be justified, but they bottom line is they don't owe you anything.

 

[carldarl]

Your attitude and hint that you know more are both out of line and sad. The only "owing" around here is the apology you owe. IMHO

I have been patient in allowing reasonable time for CCV to give a statement on this terrible accident in which a Texas guest and a very popular DM were lost, with my condolences to both families, and my support of CCV as a resort with a very good safety record. But I am now with those who feel it is high time for a preliminary explanation...!!!

 

[berick]

In general, I don't think an explanation is owed. However, given the resort's first post and statement that they will "post information when it becomes available from authorities", they expectations have been set.

I share DandyDon's frustration in the tardiness of posting, but, I'm sure that will not have any impact upon whether or when a statement is issued on the accident by the resort.

I would think there is information the authorities (and the resort) have that hasn't "officially" made it into the public realm.
1. I feel (can't guarantee) sure the tanks and scuba equip have been anaylized.
2. The DMs autopsy results are known but I haven't seen their results(per CCV)
(only the results of the guest)
3. Statements have been taken by those present (even though there are
no direct witnesses -- but CCV said the DM died on ascent?-- curious)
I wonder what a "direct" witness is?
4. I'd bet most if not all tissue samples have been analyzed.

I'm sure the lawyers have long ago said "no more comments" to CCV.

I've read a couple of years of DAN reports and don't believe I've ever seen a double accident where both a DM and diver dies, and, especially not after the guest had already drown (therefore, not capable of injuring the DM in a panick).

cornfed said "When you look at an accident you will find one of three things: that you don't have enough information to learn anything, that there isn't anything new to learn because you looked a previous accident which had similar causes, or that you learned something new. If you take a step back I think you'll realize that the last one is very rare and that most accidents reviews fall into one of the first two categories."

Well, this does look extremely rare but I doubt the lawyers will allow any "preliminary" information from the resort. Even though rare, maybe cornfed is right and it will fall into category 1.

As far as the resort, I visited CCV im May and would go back in an instant. The people are wonderful, the dive shop was great, and I had the most relaxing vacation of my life.

I'll just wait for some sort of official announcement from the Honduran government or the 2007 DAN report. Anything else would have to be a post from one of the non-"direct" witnesses which seem to be extremely conspicuous by their absence on this accident.