2002 DAN Accident Report
- Thread starter Former FLL Now MSP Diver
- Start date
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
I've been watching the DAN site and the new 2003 report is available at the DAN America website now as well.
<Edited for Add>
Reading through the '03 report, DAN seems to be much more aggressive this year as far as the reporting of potential contributing causes & possible circumstances regarding accidents and fatalities versus the '02 report plus more supporting information (i.e. some info from autopsies that wasn't seen last year.) There also seems to be more specific profile information this year with depths and times on most reports being much more specific than last year.
<Edited for Add>
Reading through the '03 report, DAN seems to be much more aggressive this year as far as the reporting of potential contributing causes & possible circumstances regarding accidents and fatalities versus the '02 report plus more supporting information (i.e. some info from autopsies that wasn't seen last year.) There also seems to be more specific profile information this year with depths and times on most reports being much more specific than last year.
Got a link to that '03 report
OP
Former FLL Now MSP Diver
Contributor
Is that 2003 report a YTD report, or is it the 2003 report with full year 2002 information?
You need to be DAN member to access the report on the Americas site. The SEA site allows anyone access.
Marc
You need to be DAN member to access the report on the Americas site. The SEA site allows anyone access.
Marc
(Going off of memory) The '03 report is the '02 full year, not an '03 YTD.
Link to Dan Accident
I was checking this out today. Does anyone know where to find a listing of accidents victims by training agency? I'm curious..
Thanks for the link to the DAN 2002 report, FLL Diver. I found the Cases really interesting reading. The 2003 report would have 2001 data and is only available to DAN members. I quit DAN, but that is another story...
Am I the only one that finds DAN's statistics frustrating? For example, they say 70% of dive injuries were males in 2000. But unless you also include the percentage of males actively diving, that could mean males are more or less susceptible to injury. If 90% of dives are done by males, we look pretty good. But if its 65%, males are more prone to accident. And of course, there are a whole host of other variables you have to hold constant, to test for just one. For example, if male divers generally dove deeper than women, that could easily explain it. So the DAN statistics always leave me wondering, where is the normative case?
I think that is the term, my statistics are about 30 years out of date.
What is interesting from reading the 2000 Case studies on fatalities, it seems from a qualitative reading, there are many novice diver fatalities, and many experienced, technical, instructor or just plain middle aged, diver deaths. And plenty of them have (oops I mean HAD) medical conditions. Why are those medical questionnaires not being used by the general diving public, not just to screen students? Why are people on drugs with heart conditions diving? Darwin again? We can't stop them?
Guess I am showing my Canadian big government regulatory roots, eh?
Am I the only one that finds DAN's statistics frustrating? For example, they say 70% of dive injuries were males in 2000. But unless you also include the percentage of males actively diving, that could mean males are more or less susceptible to injury. If 90% of dives are done by males, we look pretty good. But if its 65%, males are more prone to accident. And of course, there are a whole host of other variables you have to hold constant, to test for just one. For example, if male divers generally dove deeper than women, that could easily explain it. So the DAN statistics always leave me wondering, where is the normative case?
I think that is the term, my statistics are about 30 years out of date.
What is interesting from reading the 2000 Case studies on fatalities, it seems from a qualitative reading, there are many novice diver fatalities, and many experienced, technical, instructor or just plain middle aged, diver deaths. And plenty of them have (oops I mean HAD) medical conditions. Why are those medical questionnaires not being used by the general diving public, not just to screen students? Why are people on drugs with heart conditions diving? Darwin again? We can't stop them?
Guess I am showing my Canadian big government regulatory roots, eh?
If anyones interested, BSAC have released their 2002 accident report:
http://www.bsac.org/techserv/increp02/
It shows a levelling of incidents but for the first time in a few years DCI is the major result (replacing boat/surface injuries), making up 37% of reported incidents.
UK wide there were 14 recorded fatalities (all agencies) 6 of which were depths below 50m and 2 of those were solo dives. 3 involved buddy separation.
Max depth of 21-30m accounted for the most common area for an accident to occur with 31m-40m in second place. However, "unknown" makes up 3x that figure so the stats could be unreliable. These are absolute figures so do not reflect thhe ration of total dives at shallow depths: deep depths.
Of the DCIs, 57 involved dives deeper than 30m, 40 involved rapid ascent , 30 missed deco stops and 22 repeat diving.
Delayed SMBs have been implicated in a lot of the incidents and at least one fatality hinting training in their use and deployment needs to be improved.
---
Its an interesting read anyway with some surprising results in certain areas and common causes.
http://www.bsac.org/techserv/increp02/
It shows a levelling of incidents but for the first time in a few years DCI is the major result (replacing boat/surface injuries), making up 37% of reported incidents.
UK wide there were 14 recorded fatalities (all agencies) 6 of which were depths below 50m and 2 of those were solo dives. 3 involved buddy separation.
Max depth of 21-30m accounted for the most common area for an accident to occur with 31m-40m in second place. However, "unknown" makes up 3x that figure so the stats could be unreliable. These are absolute figures so do not reflect thhe ration of total dives at shallow depths: deep depths.
Of the DCIs, 57 involved dives deeper than 30m, 40 involved rapid ascent , 30 missed deco stops and 22 repeat diving.
Delayed SMBs have been implicated in a lot of the incidents and at least one fatality hinting training in their use and deployment needs to be improved.
---
Its an interesting read anyway with some surprising results in certain areas and common causes.
Similar threads
