How important is armchair incident analysis?

[Trinigordo]

There are a lot of people out there that seem to think there is something of urgent importance to be gleaned from each and every incident that occurs. Another thread is currently running that asks whether such analysis might lead one to give up diving. That would certainly be a solid result of incident analysis. Are there any others?

I am asking three things:

1) Can you list anything you have changed in your diving as a result of armchair incident analysis?

2) Have you ever helped clarify, resolve or bring about any good by armchair analysis?

3) If the answer to both 1 and 2 are no, isn't this form of armchair analysis the cyber equivalent of freeway rubbernecking?

Are you forgetting that every "rule" we as divers have been given has been at the cost of someone's life by armchair incident analysis? Would you rather more people make the same mistakes instead? And I have yet to do any incident analysis, but for those interested I see it as a valuable tool.

 

[gcbryan]

I think analyzing factual reports or descriptions help remind us of what we already know but perhaps we will now place greater emphasis on those situations. I agree that posts trying to guess what went wrong or where the poster passes judgement are useless.

I find Dan reports to be interesting and in Flying magazine there is or used to be a column called something like "What I learned about flying from that mistake". It's written in the first person however.

I'd rather read something like Richard Pyle's "Confessions of a Mortal Diver" where the person lived to describe the many mistakes that lead up to the bigger mistake. That seems to be the pattern in all activities where there is an incident and not just diving.

 

[miketsp]

The mere fact of thinking about an accident, whether speculation or analysis, is often sufficient to make people take more care and reduce accidents in a subsequent period - at least until the effect wears off.

 

[Kim]

How many of y'all have become better at other endeavors ... such as driving a car ... by analyzing the accidents of others?

Aren't training, experience, and common sense really the tools by which we learn?

Diving accidents, more than most, seem to be chronically short of facts to study. We can reach conclusions based on what we believe probably happened ... but ultimately it's an exercise in reinforcing that which we are already inclined to believe.

I don't see a whole lot of learning going on in any of the conversations that take place around diving accidents ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I also agree. I think that the final real conclusions surrounding an accident made after all the facts are in (as far as possible), can lead to valuable changes being implemented - which happens. I think that the often unreal speculation that kicks off without much knowledge leads to very little of value. That's like assuming that the guy hit the tree and killed everyone in the car because he was drunk when in reality his brakes had catastrophically failed.

 

[HowardE]

I also agree. I think that the final real conclusions surrounding an accident made after all the facts are in (as far as possible), can lead to valuable changes being implemented - which happens. I think that the often unreal speculation that kicks off without much knowledge leads to very little of value. That's like assuming that the guy hit the tree and killed everyone in the car because he was drunk when in reality his brakes had catastrophically failed.

Exactly. Or an in depth hypothetical analysis about a dive accident.

The person must have ox toxed. They over inflated their BC, and passed out... whatever.

What is the benefit, when the diver really had a heart attack and died. Is an in depth hypothetical "analysis" going to benefit anyone?

The mere fact of thinking about an accident, whether speculation or analysis, is often sufficient to make people take more care and reduce accidents in a subsequent period - at least until the effect wears off.

This may help some people justify their continued diving, in the face of a new possibly unfounded fear. But if the alleged diving accident is another pre-existing medical condition, then isn't running every diving scenario moot?

 

[Dragon2115]

1) Can you list anything you have changed in your diving as a result of armchair incident analysis?

2) Have you ever helped clarify, resolve or bring about any good by armchair analysis?

3) If the answer to both 1 and 2 are no, isn't this form of armchair analysis the cyber equivalent of freeway rubbernecking?

1. Yes, I carry several pieces of gear (SMB, spool, mirror, light, whistle, glow stick, strobe, and a dye marker) because of incidents where, for whatever reason, the boat wasn't there when the diver surfaced. Based on incidents like these I have taken steps to make sure that I am as easy to spot in the water as possible.

Based on incidents where a diver had a situation develop because they couldn't get their buddy's attention I carry signalling devices such as a tank banger or rattle stick.

Based on other incidents I have read about I plan on adding a pony bottle so both my wife and I have our own redundant emergency air supplies. We like to do lobstering and photography. These activities can put us in situations that would be less than optimal should an OOA occur such as each of us being on opposite sides of a large rock trying to work a lobster out of its den. Add to that the fact that sometimes I dive without my wife and I have no idea of how good my next insta-buddy is going to be.

2. Here on this forum, I would say no. Out in the real world I would say maybe. It's hard to quantify what would have happened if you had not passed on some tidbit of knowledge or personal experience to another diver during a casual conversation.

3. Well, since my answer to both questions was yes this one doesn't really apply to me. However, I will say that freeway rubbernecking does actually have some good to it if someone goes past the wreck site and they think to themself about how they don't want to end up like that and it changes how they drive, regardless of whether or not they know the details about how the accident occurred.

 

[Walter]

I also agree. I think that the final real conclusions surrounding an accident made after all the facts are in (as far as possible), can lead to valuable changes being implemented - which happens. I think that the often unreal speculation that kicks off without much knowledge leads to very little of value. That's like assuming that the guy hit the tree and killed everyone in the car because he was drunk when in reality his brakes had catastrophically failed.

So if you stopped driving drunk as a result of the incorrect speculation, it wasn't a good thing?

 

[Kim]

So if you stopped driving drunk as a result of the incorrect speculation, it wasn't a good thing?

Of course it would be - on the other hand if the brake failure isn't correctly identified then a lot more innocent (and not drunk) people could easily die as a result. "Finding" the answer can be very dangerous. It tends to make people stop looking (and thinking).

 

[HowardE]

It's been proven that driving with a seatbelt is safer than without.

What if the driver had been drinking, but suffered a heart attack while behind the wheel?

---

The real question is - how does an in depth hypothetical analysis prove useful, when the premise is wrong? If people go and analyze to the nth degree, a SCUBA accident that isn't even because of SCUBA, then what is the real benefit?

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I agree Bob... it's usually more of an excersize in one upmanship. Many want to appear to be the most indignant about the way the victim (or their buddy) must have caused the accident. It's just a variation of the "Stroke du jour" syndrome.

I dunno if it's that so much as simply a need to talk about it. As has been seen recently, different folks will discuss it in different ways. It fills a need ... but that need is different in different people, and it rarely involves learning anything.

Often you get the feeling that they truly feel that "It couldn't happen to them". Which is true right up to the time it actually happens to them.

I think we're all good at denial ... to one degree or another. If we weren't, activities like scuba wouldn't be so popular.

About the only thing I've ever learned by involving myself in "analysis" of an accident involving a former member of ScubaBoard was that his family was reading every word, hoping for some solace ... and perhaps some words from "friends" that would help ease their pain. Maybe they're here to share some insight into the accident, but decide not to after seeing what the responses would be like.

However well-intentioned we may think we're being, we need to consider whether it's wise to speculate on what we think may have occurred. Unless we were there, the best information we can hope to get is someone else's interpretation of what occurred. Can we really learn from that? Do we really want to? Or is that nothing more than justification to fulfill a deeper need?

How many of you would stand beside the scene of a fatal car crash and tell everyone at the scene what the driver should have done differently? What if you knew his family was in the crowd? In our discussions on ScubaBoard, they usually are.

What would you hope to learn from it, ultimately?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)