Doc Deep dies during dive.

[The Chairman]

Pete, I probably didn't express it clearly.

You've suggested over and over again that I'm mud slinging at you and yet you keep on addressing posts and PMs to me. To say that it's a mixed signal is putting it mildly. I have no animosity towards you and never have but you've said I have so many times that people are actually beginning to believe that lie. You might resent me or dislike me, but the converse is not true. If you want to discuss things like gentlemen, then I have no issues with that. Let's discuss, but stop this "he's harassing me" crap! Your ego can't be so fragile that it can't take a bit of disagreement without feeling attacked.

Most divers, myself included, don't dive in a team environment. Most of us are SOBs (Same Ocean Buddies) and have learned over time to rely on me, myself and I. That's not to say I can't be a great buddy when it's called for, but I prefer to dive solo and that goes for tech and cave dives as well as recreational.

I disagree that Garman's support group was a team except in the very loosest respect. Garman was not only the group leader, but he was the sole planner in this endeavor. The rest of the group consisted of sherpas, taxi drivers and of course, cheer leaders. It's my belief that in this case, no matter how much you want to assign blame to them, they were innocent bystanders with little to no comprehension of what was going on or why it was doomed to failure. They had no comprehension that his claimed SAC rate of 1.2 was completely naive, if not down right irresponsible. I doubt they could even spell HPNS much less arthralgia. If they had any concerns, I'm sure he wowed them with his Doctor Babble. He only needed to toss out a bunch of Latin to secure his position as the ultimate authority. It's my opinion that Doctor Babble and Psycho Babble have the same intent in that they over complicate issues in order to assert authority. I believe in KISS. Keep it Simple, Stupid.

It's my belief that there are four deadly sins when it comes to diving, to technical diving in particular and that these lead to most Scuba incidents: Delusion, Denial, Ignorance and Complacency. Sure, ego is a factor in all of those but that's a given even in safe divers just as much as it's a factor in what and how we write. I've quoted the PDF file from the man's divorce to demonstrate that Delusion and Denial were a part of this man's character and that it was pretty obvious to the judge at that time. To be sure, they're a part of all of our characters to some degree and it's that we need to address. Anyone who can look at those four deadly sins believe that none apply to them has already proven that they are at least deluded. If they want to keep on living, they'll work on seeing how all affect them so they can ameliorate their impact and increase their life span.

Now, I am not sure why you feel that coming to terms with Delusion, Denial and Ignorance won't increase the safety of any diver much less a tech diver? Perhaps you can tell why these are irrelevant. Maybe it's because I've had a few more years diving that it's so obvious to me. As I pointed out, few divers operate in a team. They are making decisions about their limits that are skewed because of their delusions, their denials and their ignorance. Moreover, they are making these decisions in the same manner they dive: solo. I doubt you would disagree that the ultimate responsibility for my safety is MINE. Ergo, it's important that I reduce my ignorance with knowledge. That I reduce my denial with feedback. That I reduce my delusions with responsibility. Of course, you should also reduce your complacency with scrutiny, but I didn't see any evidence for that in this incident. Skewed decisions are at least painful, if not deadly. Why would you not want to make good decisions? My second rule of diving is "You can call a dive at any time, for any reason, no questions asked and no repercussions." In other words, the diver is the one ultimately responsible for their own safety. You can't make a good decision in this respect if your view of the dive is overly skewed by your delusions, denials and ignorance. It's up to each diver, tech or rec, to make that decision on each and every dive in order to keep on living. What's so difficult to understand here? Dr Garman killed himself by exceeding his limits due to his delusions, denials and ignorance. Intended or not, he took his own life and that's the very definition of a suicide.

 

[Akimbo]

Yes. That is what I am saying. It costs lives to learn...

Everyone involved knew the Sea Lab III program was far too rushed. At least Sea Lab was pioneering and had a useful purpose. That was a perfect example of a "steamroller" project that got way out of hand. They were trying to beat the clock and the budget.

A touch & go dive of any kind does not. There is no point having people at any depth that don't or can't perform anything useful. Divers have spent countless hours working a lot deeper than this for decades.

Navies, universities, and commercial diving companies around the world discovered and documented the constraints of deep bounce dive physiology decades ago. What exactly are Scuba divers attempting these depth records trying to learn or prove?

 

[CamC]

Intended or not, he took his own life and that's the very definition of a suicide.

I'm certainly not qualified to get between you two on the psychology or the physiology, but while it has contributory negligence written all over it I can't agree with this repeated assertion that it was a "suicide".

From the Oxford English Dictionary: "The action of killing oneself intentionally"; From Webster: "the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally"

 

[kr2y5]

Pinning all the blame on Garman as some sort of manic despot living a fantasy that led to suicide creates a dissociation between reader (diver) and Dr Garman.

I disagree that Garman's support group was a team except in the very loosest respect. (...) It's my belief that in this case, no matter how much you want to assign blame to them, they were innocent bystanders with little to no comprehension of what was going on or why it was doomed to failure. (...) He only needed to toss out a bunch of Latin to secure his position as the ultimate authority.

Maybe you are both right?

It does not take a 1200' dive, the same mechanisms are at play in organizations all over the world. It is the responsibility of the leader to establish a healthy team, and create an environment, in which different opinions are valued. Especially if someone has a bit of charisma, or is in a position, where they have some authority over others, or can easily overpower others, they need to understand the influence they have on people, and take deliberate steps to soften it. This starts when building the team. If you surround yourself with people like you, who know less than you, who are too timid to confront you, or who for whatever other reason will avoid conflict, it is your fault as a leader, and your alone, for putting yourself in such a position. If you find yourself in a position of control over everything, and you don't seek feedback (and mean it), that's your fault as well. One does not have to be an idiot, or a delusional maniac, it is actually extremely easy if you have little experience and know too little about yourself. Many of us have been there, done that. If done on a 1200' dive, it runs the risk of a real suicide, if done at work, it runs the risk of a professional suicide. In either case, I'd think the mechanism is pretty similar, it's just the way people are wired.

 

[The Chairman]

From the Oxford English Dictionary: "The action of killing oneself intentionally"; From Webster: "the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally"

Now, please go and read ALL of the definitions for suicide. We've already covered the etymology and the definitions include both types of "death by self", intentional and accidental. The current taboo covers only an intentional suicide but it really should include all Darwin Award recipients as well as those who are disqualified for that only because they have had children. Killing yourself is the ultimate fail.

For what it's worth, I've been invited to discuss this on Scuba Radio today. It starts at 3:00pm EST and this should be one of the early topics of discussion. For the most part ScubaRadio is a light hearted look at Scuba, but today might be a tad different. Click to listen to ScubaRadio live, between 3:00-5:00pm EDT. It's in evaluation, so you might even hear some off show banter during the commercials.

 

[CamC]

Now, please go and read ALL of the definitions for suicide. We've already covered the etymology and the definitions include both types of "death by self", intentional and accidental. The taboo is about an intentional suicide but that really should include all Darwin Award recipients as well as those who are disqualified for that only because they have had children. Killing yourself is the ultimate fail.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd pin the Darwin Award on him myself, with oak leaf cluster and bar! However, it still wasn't a suicide by any definition I recognise.

 

[wrybosome]

I'm not finding that the quibbling over semantics or the Pete and Andy show is bringing much in the way of clarity or lessons learned out of Dr Garman's death. Could we move on from these topics?

 

[JohnnyC]

I'm not finding that the quibbling over semantics or the Pete and Andy show is bringing much in the way of clarity or lessons learned out of Dr Garman's death. Could we move on from these topics?

This. Quibbling over semantics is right.

The dude is dead. It's time for lessons learned, which at this point seems to only be, "idiot killed himself, whether he intended to or not. Don't be an idiot."

 

[CamC]

I'm not finding that the quibbling over semantics or the Pete and Andy show is bringing much in the way of clarity or lessons learned out of Dr Garman's death. Could we move on from these topics?

Happy to. After a week and a thousand or so posts across several topics (many since deleted) I wasn't seeing much new in the way of further clarity or lessons learned emerging myself, so thought it wouldn't hurt to express my own opinion on what I thought was a salient point. Sorry if that didn't meet with your approval.

 

[dlofting]

The dude is dead. It's time for lessons learned, which at this point seems to only be, "idiot killed himself, whether he intended to or not. Don't be an idiot."

Not so sure. I found Steve's (Doppler's) blog to be very informative and I certainly learned a lot from it. Dr Sawatzky's article on PFNS that Steve referenced was equally good.

I also think that Andy's blog and Pete's original couple of posts were very thought provoking (agree that the quibbling is a bit distracting).

All in all I've learned a lot !