This thread is pushing forward on multiple paths simultaneously but it seem there are at least 5 stages identified where serious injury might have been able to be lessened/avoided
1. Decision to do 2 -- or 3 -- planned 220 ft dives X days/weeks after trimix class, with X CCR/trimix experience, X equipment and gases, X team members, X goals, etc.
2. Decision to do the third 220 ft dive - reportedly a bounce dive to free an anchor (per Brian Stewart interview) - potentially an extemporized dive (reported but unconfirmed)
3. Decisions of what equipment, gas and team members to take/send on that third dive
4. Actions taken/not taken by the 2 divers on the ascent from the 3rd dive and at the surface
5. Actions taken/not taken by those who were not on the dive (divers or passengers not involved in the third dive, any crew) once both divers had surfaced
There's been a lot of attention to #3-4 in the last 24 hours, understandably, but what about #2 - before the dive even occurred?
Suppose it was an extemporized dive to free the anchor. Even if the most experience CCR diver proposed a high risk dive plan, and if Mr. Stewart agreed to join to that dive for whatever reason, could there have been an opportunity not only for Sotis or Stewart (who may have been the only ones reading their gauges, computers, etc or with full knowledge of their profiles on dives 1 and 2, and who of course remain responsible for their own safety) but for anyone else on the boat whether diving or not to help achieve a safer resolution than a bounce dive to retrieve the anchor?
Could those on the boat have decided to leave the anchor on the bottom for that afternoon if the risk of retrieving it (or of making a serious error in the process of receiving it) were too high?