caveseeker7:
Let's hope we get access to a good accident analysis we all can learn from.
db8us:
What makes me angry is the feeling (i do not say fact) that the breather-community does not want to hear that it even MIGHT have something to do with either the machine or the training. I just think (and this means it is my personal opinion and no fact) that we are dealing here with denial...
padiscubapro:
and with regards to your prev post there are reports that the RB in question was recently modified, it was the diver's first test dive with the modified unit AND his first Solo RB dive, but again we should wait for the official accounting since it still just amounts to rumours..
Actually, none of these statements are mutually exclusive.
First of all, yes, both these deaths are tragic. One victim leaves family and friends, the other four children as well. How do you quantify tragedy? The loss and the pain. It really is very sad, in the true sense of the word. To family and friends, what actually caused the accident is most certainly secondary to the sheer tragedy of the accident itself.
But then there is a duty to other rebreather divers, and to those who read this forum (and others) but haven't yet taken the plunge. This is what proper accident analysis is for. To prevent future tragedies. Therefore, information must be open, transparent and honest. Although it may seem unseemly at times, rapid analysis and informed discussion is the
sine qua non of safe rebreather diving.
Here is my take on the above statements, and on the preceding threads (using the writers' handles instead of real names) on the tragic Subic Bay accident only:
(1) db8us points to another RB death and hints at a possible non-disclosure of all pertinent facts.
(2) padiscubapro hints that there may indeed be some reports which clash with the published reports on the Dräger list.
(3) caveseeker7 and padiscubapro both argue the need for proper accident analysis, which in fact is what db8us also seems to ask for.
(4) the point that at least two members of the RB community (and you can add mine and, I'm sure, BigJet's to that list too, and that's just this far) do ask for an honest accident analysis indicates that we're not in denial and that db8us's fears in this regard are unfounded.
(Please correct me if I've misunderstood anything or anyone above. This is just my own take on events.)
Now, I realize what db8us is driving at. Undoubtedly there have been
some fatalities in the RB world at large (regardless of make) where there have been attempts at spin, omission of true facts and in some instances perhaps of downright lying. On both sides of the fence, as a matter of fact.
Yet I would argue that RB fatalities are more carefully examined and more intensely discussed nowadays than any other scuba deaths, including arguably even cave fatalities. Most serious RB divers do want to be informed of any and all possible failure points on their rigs, and most manufacturers want to have safe and happy customers.
Certainly there is controversy and different takes on facts, but there is a very active anti-RB - and in particular anti-Inspiration - agenda in many places, so perhaps the defensive attitude in many quarters is to be expected.
I'm not quite sure which incident Joe is referring to, but if any rig has been modified in one of the fatalities above, it would be very important to have the facts stated clearly in the report. Sadly, if indeed one of the fatalities
was the first dive with a modified unit, it seems very avoidable, as a deep dive (if we're talking about Subic Bay) and a solo dive hardly are the right ways to go about a maiden dive on modified rig. Certainly this is pure speculation, but if that indeed forms part of the final conclusion in the accident report, it must be clearly stated as such.
Even if it points to 'the wrong mindset for diving RBs' or to complacency. Even if it
doesn't point to a specific rebreather or further any specific agenda. Because the truth could prevent future accidents for others.
Otherwise we are
truly in denial.
