One dead and one Missing at Buford Springs (FL, USA)

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Thanks! Can you provide a link to that information?

Here is the link that shows surfacing and doing another dive:


Looking for the other news article that says they were in recreational equipment but I’m currently teaching so a little short on time.
 
Here is the link that shows surfacing and doing another dive:


Looking for the other news article that says they were in recreational equipment but I’m currently teaching so a little short on time.
As I am sure you can see, the link you posted does not work. Also, being in recreational equipment does not necessarily mean AL 80s.
 
As I am sure you can see, the link you posted does not work. Also, being in recreational equipment does not necessarily mean AL 80s.

Take it for what it is but they were in single AL80s and had already completed one dive. I don’t have the time to dig up the news article but it has been published and confirmed as well by folks I know and trust out that way.
 
I just feel a need in threads like this to separate the speculation from the confirmed facts. Over my 18 years of reading these threads on ScubaBoard, I have seen how often someone's speculation gets repeated and eventually is assumed to be fact. I have no outside knowledge myself. I have searched for information, but I have found nothing new.

Here is an example of how a simple fact gets distorted. We know from the news stories that the kids heard one of them say he thought his tank was leaking when they surfaced. That leads to people saying they did the second with a leaking tank. We don't know that. I have been in many situations floating on the surface over the years in which someone hears something and wonders if he or she has a leak. A buddy checks and either says things are OK, makes an adjustment to fix it, or determines it is inconsequential. Any of those could have happened. We just don't know, and it is not wise to act as if we do.
 
I just feel a need in threads like this to separate the speculation from the confirmed facts. Over my 18 years of reading these threads on ScubaBoard, I have seen how often someone's speculation gets repeated and eventually is assumed to be fact. I have no outside knowledge myself. I have searched for information, but I have found nothing new.

[...]
"Proof by repeated assertion" we used to call it, when I worked in a large research lab. There would be an unexplained kink in some data, and someone would say, "It might be a thermal effect." Before you knew it, everyone was referring to "The thermal effect." It is a very easy trap to fall into, and a very misleading one. You are right to call it out.
 
It can be very powerful.

In my one experience on jury duty, we were the first jury in our area to be allowed to take notes during the trial. During voir dire, we all heard the questioning of all potential jurors, and we all heard the defense attorney ask each one if they would be willing to acquit when they proved a specific point. We heard him repeat it in the opening statement. We heard him hammer on it in his closing. In deliberations, the two people on the jury who had decided not to bother taking notes were totally convinced on the point by all that repetition, and the 10 of us who did take notes had to show them that the defense had never produced that promised evidence. (Amazingly, the totally incompetent prosecutor had not mentioned that in her own closing.)
 
I have a thread in the cave forum with the video from the NSS-CDS conference where they (Jon Bernot and Charlie Robinson) announced it.
Thanks for pointing it out. Hopefully we'll see some results from the effort. He says the results will be published in the NSS ACA journal. So far, that hasn't happened. The most recent cave diving accident on the ACA is from July 2020 - and I know of 6 deaths from 5 accidents this year.

I bet the IUCRR guys are pissed.
 
Thanks for pointing it out. Hopefully we'll see some results from the effort. He says the results will be published in the NSS ACA journal. So far, that hasn't happened. The most recent cave diving accident on the ACA is from July 2020 - and I know of 6 deaths from 5 accidents this year.

I bet the IUCRR guys are pissed.
Cave diving deaths have been reported in the NSS-ACA journal in the past. It is just hard to get the information needed to write them.
 
As I am sure you can see, the link you posted does not work. Also, being in recreational equipment does not necessarily mean AL 80s.
The IUCRR post on facebook referred to the deceased as "openwater divers". You can infer what you want or don't want from that statement, but I certainly take it to mean they appeared to be diving a standard "open water diver" set of equipment, not that the IUCRR searched every SCUBA agency out there to determine their certification status.

Link to IUCRR post
 
The IUCRR post on facebook referred to the deceased as "openwater divers". You can infer what you want or don't want from that statement, but I certainly take it to mean they appeared to be diving a standard "open water diver" set of equipment, not that the IUCRR searched every SCUBA agency out there to determine their certification status.

Link to IUCRR post
Let me go back through the history of this conversation.
  • Someone talked about the limits of diving depth with AL 80s.
  • I asked if it was confirmed they were diving AL 80s
  • I was told it was confirmed they were diving AL 80s
  • I asked for a link
  • I did not get a link.
  • I pointed out that being recreational divers does not mean they necessarily used AL 80s.
  • You replied with a link to the IUCRR post saying they were "open water divers," stating that you "certainly take it to mean they appeared to be diving a standard "open water diver" set of equipment."
So, is there a law I don't know about in Florida requiring that recreational divers use AL 80s when they dive? If so, I could be in trouble, because I always use higher capacity steel tanks when I do recreational diving in that area. I haven't been busted yet. Am I just lucky?
 

Back
Top Bottom