Do they owe us and explaination?

[DandyDon]

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).

Ah ha! That's what we presumed at first, but - what if that's not at all what happened. We presumed it was a DM rescue that went bad, but - maybe the DM was in trouble first?!

Do I have information that says otherwise? Unfortunately - not that I can publish. I wasn't there. Yet, unfortunately, no one with the truth is coming forward.

...given the resort's first post and statement that they will "post information when it becomes available from authorities", (the) expectations have been set.

Do they owe me an explanation Cornfed? I guess not. Do they owe the diving community an explanation? I think so.

 

[cornfed]

Do they owe the diving community an explanation? I think so.

Why?

 

[cdiver2]

Why?

I think what we are all talking about when we say owe as moral duty as opposed to a legal obligation. At least that is what I mean,

 

[cdiver2]

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.

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.

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.

1/ If I am going to A dive resort how do I know if air is good/bad.
2/ As you said most accidents fall into your 1-2 categories, the operative word hear is MOST not all. So if a accident is in category 3 how would we know if a report is not issued.

 

[cornfed]

1/ If I am going to A dive resort how do I know if air is good/bad.

Accident analysis helps you find general or universal rules. It helps you determine things like, "don't dive bad air" but it doesn't tell you who does or doesn't have bad air. While reading an accident report you may learn that operator A has bad air, but that's a side benefit of doing the accident analysis and not the main goal.

2/ As you said most accidents fall into your 1-2 categories, the operative word hear is MOST not all. So if a accident is in category 3 how would we know if a report is not issued.

I don't mean to be rude, but you need to do a better job reading what I wrote. I clearly stated that,

That doesn't mean you shouldn't look at each accident that happens.

I think what we are all talking about when we say owe as moral duty as opposed to a legal obligation. At least that is what I mean

I'm still not convienced that they have a moral obligation to provide details. But I am sure of one thing: The only thing more laughable than expecting them to have already provided full detailed account of the accident (which only happened three weeks ago) is to demand that said account be provided on an internet chat forum.

 

[cdiver2]

Accident analysis helps you find general or universal rules. It helps you determine things like, "don't dive bad air" but it doesn't tell you who does or doesn't have bad air. While reading an accident report you may learn that operator A has bad air, but that's a side benefit of doing the accident analysis and not the main goal.

I don't mean to be rude, but you need to do a better job reading what I wrote. I clearly stated that,

I'm still not convienced that they have a moral obligation to provide details. But I am sure of one thing: The only thing more laughable than expecting them to have already provided full detailed account of the accident (which only happened three weeks ago) is to demand that said account be provided on an internet chat forum.

OK asgain

1/ I dont need an accident report to tell "me dont dive with bad air" even a non diving half wit knows that.

2/If a accident is caused by bad air how is this being reported a "side benefit"

3/ so what is the main goal of a accident analysis.

I also think you need to read a little better. No where have I said when or where should a statment be made, only that I think they should make one.

Do they owe the diving community a statment (moraly) that would depend on two things
1/ Do you have any (morals)
2/ If the answer is yes then at what level are those morals. CCV owners may or may not have moral standards as high/low as yours or mine.

 

[Wijbrandus]

I will give kudos to the resort for coming forward immediately when the incident happened. That had to be a hard decision for them, esp with all the emotional turmoil they had to be going through. However, since they started it, they should keep the information flowing.

I'm still not convienced that they have a moral obligation to provide details. But I am sure of one thing: The only thing more laughable than expecting them to have already provided full detailed account of the accident (which only happened three weeks ago) is to demand that said account be provided on an internet chat forum.

For the record, I asked the question, directly e-mailing the resort (the original poster of the statement). My e-mail was recieved, but never responded to or acknowledged. Then I asked on the resort's own message boards. First, I was flamed. Then, the thread "vanished". When you can't go through primary channels, secondary channels (like ScubaBoard) become your only resort.

And nothing in the one and only statement released by the resort said that the DM died last. The statement was glaringly ambiguous on that point. They said only that one died within a few minutes of the start of the dive, and one died on ascent. That right there makes me think that it was their own DM that had a problem, but then I've always had a "grassy knoll" kind of mind.

2. The DMs autopsy results are known but I haven't seen their results(per CCV)
(only the results of the guest)

I have seen nothing released on the client casualty. Was there an article or release that stated what happened to him? Can you point us to it?

As a paying customer who is arriving in less than two weeks, am I "owed" an explanation for the dive incident that took their own employee and a client? Maybe not. Am I "owed" anything at all? Just a guarantee that they have reviewed everything within their control and found nothing wrong with their equipment or procedures.

Keep in mind, I have never been to the resort in question. So to me, they have everything to prove. I don't know if they are a five-star Hilton, or some 3rd world gulag with 1960's equipment (over-dramatization, but you get the point.) Everyone on the board seems to fall over themselves praising the place, and that's great, and that's the reason I'm going. But right now, they are looking to me more like a WaveDancer tragedy than a top-of-the-line resort, and I think that's a failure of their own PR department.

 

[cerich]

Yes it is good to know why an accident took place so hopefully others can learn and possibly avoid.

No ,the dive operator owes you me and all else nothing. Simple fact is that any accident today will involve investigation by authorities, possible legal action and long lasting effects for both the famlies of the victim and the other divers that day.

Just because we find out about an accident right away with internet does not mean you or anybody deserves instant answers as to what happened.

Afetr the legal process is finished the important information will be available. The thing is by then it's old news and your curiosity will be taken up with something newer.

 

[Wijbrandus]

Yes it is good to know why an accident took place so hopefully others can learn and possibly avoid.

No ,the dive operator owes you me and all else nothing. Simple fact is that any accident today will involve investigation by authorities, possible legal action and long lasting effects for both the famlies of the victim and the other divers that day.

Just because we find out about an accident right away with internet does not mean you or anybody deserves instant answers as to what happened.

Afetr the legal process is finished the important information will be available. The thing is by then it's old news and your curiosity will be taken up with something newer.

You are correct. So the Londoners shouldn't expect the police to have done anything by now about the train bombs either. Funny how they can get all sorts of information, oh, and even arrests. And it's all out there in the open.

When the doctor drowned on the Spiegel Grove a couple of months back, our press was all over it. There are fifteen different articles I can find on the subject with google this morning, including statements from everyone involved. Didn't take them weeks. There were releases the same day, with continuous followups.

I guess we need to get Geraldo Rivera down there. He's bored since there wasn't anything to report on the Natalee Holloway case. After all, it takes a long slow investigation before anything can be released.

 

[DandyDon]

Why?

Well, for one...

...given the resort's first post and statement that they will "post information when it becomes available from authorities", (the) expectations have been set.

I'm sure that they want our business. A statement telling what they can now would help. Ignoring our requests for information, particularly as they did to Wijbrandus simply leaves minds to wonder? Going to the CCV board to ask the question was a direct approach, but I am not surprised that Wijbrandus was censored.

I'm sure the resort is still a safe one to dive, probably safer than before, and I guess we will have to wait on returning guests to tell us what they heard. I would prefer a more direct source, tho.