Do they owe us and explaination?

[StSomewhere]

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.

All I know is that there was so little info available (intentionally IMO) that I decided to back out of my CCV trip.

They may not owe me any information, but I don't own them any of my scubadollars either. :mad1:

 

[cornfed]

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

Accident analysis should provide generic or universal lessons which can be applied to a variety of situations. There has been a lot of accident analysis in cave diving and the cave community has come up with several guidelines. One "rule" is to get trained. They don't say which agency or which instructor to use but simply that you need to be trained. They also say to carry three lights but they don't say which brand. Asking if the air in someone's tanks was bad is like asking which instructor to train with or which brand of light to carry.

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

So you would conclude from this particular analysis that you haven't learned anything new. I would also like to point out that he only reason I keep using this bad air example is because accused me of ignoring it.

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

You claim that knowing if a particular dive operation is pumping bad air is important. I agree. But it's like asking which instructor to sign up with or which brand of light to use. Consider the hypothetical case where someone takes a cave class from John Doe, the worlds worst cave diving instructor, and then dies in a cave while following all the cave diving "rules". Well the cave diving "rules" say to get trained so we haven't learned anything new in this regard. He also had his three lights, ran a guideline, etc. However, in the course of studying this accident we might discover the victim was trained by John Doe and it comes to light that Mr. Doe really is the worst instructor in the world so the victim's skills where up to snuff and that's what ultimately caused the accident. Should we amend the "rules" to say, "Get trained, but don't get trained by Mr. Doe"? Of course not, that is far too specific. The information about Mr. Doe is a side benefit because it helps you put the rules into use but it doesn't help you shape the underlying rules.

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.

I don't think I said that you did.

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.

I'm sorry, but I not going to get into a philosophical discussion about morality. Because frankly I don't think it's going to help anything here.

Tom started this thread asking whether "they" owe us and explain. At this point I'm not sure whether "they" specifically refers to CCV or to dive operations in general. Regardless, I have yet to see a convincing argument that to "they" do owe us anything.

Several people have said they want to know what happened so they can learn from the mistakes. Fine, wait for the reports to come out. But while you're waiting please don't complain that information is coming as fast as you'd like.

Other people have tried to argue that the accident details are essential to determining whether they should dive with a particular operation. Frankly, I think this is a very short sighted view of accident analysis.

Don has put forth two interesting arguments. First, that providing details is good for business. It certainly is but does a company really have an obligation to provide good service? A company is under no obligation to make smart choices. If enough people are unhappy with the way a business is run the company won't have enough clients to stay in business. His second argument, that CCV claimed they would provide more details, is what I find most interesting. There is always the possibility they are waiting for a complete story or that they don't have anything addition to report at this time. At the same time, the only thing compelling them to provide additional information is a post on an internet chat forum. And well, Don, if you're going to argue that they should honor their promise because it's the right thing to do and the information is so important to keep other divers from making the same mistake, why are you sitting on information? You claim to have an uncorroborated account of what happened and if it's that important to diver safety, shouldn't someone tell it? If it isn't that important then why is everyone complaining that the need the information in order to be safe? If you're going to argue that CCV should provide the details because it's the right thing to do, how can you claim to be justified in not releasing the same details? If you're waiting for your information to be substantiated before releasing it, how can you use that same information to justify someone else releasing information?

 

[H2Andy]

All I know is that there was so little info available (intentionally IMO) that I decided to back out of my CCV trip.

this is one of two rational courses of action

i took the other one, which was to go ahead with my scheduled vacation

personally, i found CocoView to be a very well run, professional dive opperation

i do wish i knew what happened, but as with many accidents, we may just
never know

 

[DandyDon]

this is one of two rational courses of action

i took the other one, which was to go ahead with my scheduled vacation

personally, i found CocoView to be a very well run, professional dive opperation

i do wish i knew what happened, but as with many accidents, we may just
never know

I certainly would not cancel a planned trip over this. Indeed, I'd suggest to anyone who has plans to go with them. Planning a future trip there might be another thing, tho - with current lack of information.

 

[StSomewhere]

this is one of two rational courses of action

It wasn't the accident, it is their reaction to the accident that I thought was a problem. I'm not a real big "sweep it under the rug" kinda guy, I guess...

 

[Wijbrandus]

It wasn't the accident, it is their reaction to the accident that I thought was a problem. I'm not a real big "sweep it under the rug" kinda guy, I guess...

This was our concern as well. Same as you, we almost cancelled the trip. Finally, we decided to go anyway, despite some reservations.

What it ended up coming down to for us is this: No one else can be responsible for our diving. I'm fairly confident that the outfit in question has made sure it wasn't their equipment (of any kind) that was responsible for the incident. I can't be sure, but that would be the prudent thing to do. Any further responsibility lies upon my dive buddy and I. Our equipment is newer and within current inspection. We've had our training, our shots, and recent experience. We will plan our dive, dive our plan, and have a good time.

Will we be particularly cautious on this trip? Sure. But then someone will always point out that we should have been anyway...

 

[berick]

"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?"

From 2nd CCV post (June 24 and still on CCV website):
". . . We do have the cause of death back on Randy, but felt it was not our place to release that information. The family is devastated, and we wished to respect their privacy until they chose to speak. We are copying their release to The San Angelo Standard Times below.(below in CCVs post)

As expected, the cause of death came back as Submersion asphyxiation, or drowning . . ."

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ccv/vpost?id=503742&trail=15

 

[Tom725]

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,

This thread must have hit a nerv cause it is still going. When I asked the question, I never thought it was a legal requirement - it is Honduras and not the US - I was asking if they morally owe us an explaination. When they take your money it may create an obligation to distribute the information. That is the purpose of the discussion.

I suspect that the legal worries are not the main think holding up the information. The liability laws are not the same there.

 

[berick]

Tom725,
It just seems there is a lot of interest and emotion on the particular incident that sparked the thread. If the thread had been started in a vacuum, it probably would have died awhile ago . . .

I think there may be a bit too much emotion for me to keep feeding the thread, though.

 

[Wijbrandus]

From 2nd CCV post (June 24 and still on CCV website):
". . . We do have the cause of death back on Randy, but felt it was not our place to release that information. The family is devastated, and we wished to respect their privacy until they chose to speak. We are copying their release to The San Angelo Standard Times below.(below in CCVs post)

As expected, the cause of death came back as Submersion asphyxiation, or drowning . . ."

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ccv/vpost?id=503742&trail=15

Ok, thanks. I did see that. I thought perhaps you'd heard something more.

Water would be outlawed if all scuba deaths were really due to drowning and didn't have some other cause.