DevonDiver
N/A
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.
On this, we disagree.
Planning aside, it takes a coordinated team to run a project of this size. The group publicized themselves as a team... just see the Scuba TEC Facebook page.
Every member of that team had a personal responsibility to understand the nature if the task they were involved in. Ample resources are available to accomplish that....including this very board... on which some team members were posting... AND receiving unambiguous warnings.
Each team member ultimately had 3 courses of action:
1) To veto the project and remove themselves and their support from it.
2) To maintain involvement, but voice concerns and/or request amendments to the planning or conduct.
3) To offer full and positive support to the project, denying or stifling any concerns that may arise to them... encouraging and empowering Garman in his delusions.
I've been told at least 1 member of the team has serious concerns. I've not been able to clarify whether he voiced those concerns, suggested alternatives or threatened veto.
I've also been informed that several divers closely involved with Garman abstained from involvement in the project. One was "due to issues with Scuba TEC".
I might be wrong, I'm not able yet to confirm this, but I was under the impression that Garman's initial diving/ technical instructors/mentors were involved with the project? If so, how do we believe these people "knew nothing" and we're seduced by Garman's "expertise"? That those people had no idea of the factors involved, or the issues that have plagued past depth record attempts and famously killed divers before?
We can deny all I've written above, or we can look to understand how psychology causes it to happen.
None of this denies that Garman was a driven, compulsive, compelling and, probably, charismatic leader. A flawed leader, but one, nonetheless, the built a team around himself to attempt the project.
One good question that arises... which I think many people would identify with, that issue of deciding to support a flawed project or walk away from it.
Can you do "more good" by remaining involved and trying to steer things towards safety, or send a definitive message of disapproval by abstinence from further involvement.
On a lesser, more survivable project, I can understand why people might remain to help... deciding they can do more good by helping, than by walking away.
But, with hindsight, or greater awareness of the true risks, we can all see that 'electing to stay and support' was never going to effect the outcome in this particular instance.
The team should have unanimously vetoed support, categorically preventing Garman from making the attempt....if not as a 'wake up call', then by eliminating access to the resources and trained manpower he needed to accomplish the dives.
People 'sanctioned' Garman's project. They had a responsibility to understand what they would sanction. They had ample means to clarify that understanding. They chose not to... or did, but gave approval anyway.
That is why I suggest Groupthink as a psychological issue permitting the accident to occur.