Wow - having been away from SB for a day or so this has grown since I first posted, when very little was known because it was all so fresh. I have actually found the divergent views and opinions being expressed fascinating, and to a certain extent reflecting the background and in some cases nationality of the writer.
It does leave a number of thoughts and questions in my mind. I have also read quite a few news reports and comments, both on this and other forums, and that gives glimpses and insights into something of what seems to have happened - although with the caveat that news reports and so on are not always reliable sources.
The facts appear to be that an unqualified (for cave) diver has taken an unqualified diver on a dive which appears to have been beyond the techniques and equipment being used. One of the reports stated the dive computers showed they had been to 233 feet, and only had air available, a dangerous decision in any ones book. OK in the past people went deep on air, but now we know so much more about why this should not be done, (CNS toxicity etc.).
They apparently had insufficient air for the deco obligation a dive of that depth would give them, even had they got back to the drop tanks they had left behind them, and they no access to accelerate deco gases or procedures so had a hour or so of deco obligation which they could never hope to fulfil.
So for the moment if we forget the ages and 'qualifications' of those involved the problem appears to be that the dive plan, if it existed was either defective in that it did not cater for the dive environment and conditions, did not exist at all, other than "lets dive and see what happens from there", or else the dive plan may have been sound, but it was ignored and not followed. any of these three situations would very quickly have led to a dive from which there was no means of return.
After the dive plan the next major error was depth and gas choice - 233 foot on air is certainly not defensible these days with what we know about diving, and TRIMIX would have been a far more appropriate choice. Finally gas management - there simply was not enough available for the profile they dove.
Finally they were testing new gear - not clear what gear, but one report suggests the son received new air tanks for Christmas, certainly new gear testing and shakedown should ideally be done on a dive dedicated to the purpose, and not on a marginal or critical dive if you are not familiar with the gear.
So the problem seems to have been poor planning and execution, poor choice of activities, leading to an unrecoverable dive.
OK - what could have prevented that? - certainly there is a large case of when you are unconsciously incompetent you don't know what you don't know, so perhaps they did not know how to properly plan a dive of that sort, and did not perceive the risks, formal cave training would certainly have led to a far higher chance that the dive plan would have been sound and that the requirements of gas choice and management would have been more appropriate.
Breadth of experience, regardless of qualification, could also have greatly mitigated the risks, but in this case we know the father was in prison for two years leading up to December 2012, so regardless of how long he has had a qualification (9 years according to one report) at best he had been diving for about 12 months since a lay off of at least two years, so the diving experience of the father has to be called into doubt.
Likewise with the son, age aside, how much experience has he had? - clearly not enough to recognise the problems with the dive plan, or else his position and relationship with his father meant he was unable to challenge the failings. If his only diving training had come from the father, as seems likely, then he like as not did not see the problems for himself anyway.
So who can or should we "blame", either legally or morally?
There is mention in some reports that another diver, one of those who recovered the bodies had leant gear to the father. The interview I have read makes it clear that this was sometime in the past, does not in anyway suggest that it was cave diving gear, and clearly states that the cave diver refused to mentor or buddy the father until he was cave certified. It makes it clear he knew the father was cave diving, and he disapproved and told the father so, but what more could he do to stop him - legally nothing in my view. It isn't clear that he knew that the father was taking his son with him.
I don't see anything here to attach any blame to this person, and nothing to suggest he or his gear was in anyway involved with the tragic dive on Christmas Day.
The site management? - I know nothing about the area other than that I have read here and the diagrams in Sheck Exleys 'Caverns Measureless to Man', which has a description and basic sketch map. But it seems to me that it is a remote site, little or no onsite management, and it would be unreasonable to expect the management to do more that they have, i.e. the warning signs and advice against diving.
The divers themselves? - certainly - in the UK the father would be at risk of prosecution for endangering a child, whether there was a negative outcome or not - in UK law recklessness is defined by a court case referred to as [R v Caldwell], decided in 1971, which is still the standard today - a person is reckless if he gives no thought to a risk, or perceiving a risk goes on to take it anyway (vastly abbreviated definition but enough for here). So to focus on just one aspect, the risk of CNS at 233 on air, whether the father recognised the risk or not he would have been liable to prosecution for this. In UK law being a legal 'minor' the son cannot legally make this choice for himself, and the father is legally liable for decisions made on his behalf.
Should we insist on a cave certificate? - actually, controversially, I am not that convinced in the value of cards. What matters is comprehensive training and skills, whether on a formal course or not. After all how many people on this forum dive solo, side mount and so on without the appropriate cards or even started diving before agencies existed. Does that make their experience and training invalid? of course not.
The same applies with caves, in the early days there were no agencies offering qualifications. Early pioneers found put what worked and what need to be done, often at great personal cost. Yes - we now have the benefit of courses which distill the essence of all these years of learning and which accelerate the diver to the point of having those comprehensive skills and training, and are most certainly the most effective way of getting to that level, but that need not be the only way.
OK - rant/ramble over - there were some horrendous decision taken over this dive, and decisions taken which would be illegal in the legal framework I worked in, but how widely should the blame be spread? - only as far as the father in my opinion, this entire incident can and should be laid firmly at his door. - Phil
