Fiona Sharp death in Bonaire

[The Chairman]

But of course, no one is claiming that they are owed anything, as far as I can tell...

When people want to keep you in the dark, they often rely on this sentiment. It's like they retain some power over you if they keep some things to themselves. I don't understand the mentality and I probably never will though I see it often up here in Cave Country. Maybe they think that knowing the truth will cost more people their lives? I'm not interested in the politics or the power plays: just in understanding what happened so I won't make the same mistake and die. Apparently, I'm an entitled SOB for not wanting to die.

 

[stuartv]

When people want to keep you in the dark, they often rely on this sentiment. It's like they retain some power over you if they keep some things to themselves. I don't understand the mentality and I probably never will though I see it often up here in Cave Country. Maybe they think that knowing the truth will cost more people their lives? I'm not interested in the politics or the power plays: just in understanding what happened so I won't make the same mistake and die. Apparently, I'm an entitled SOB for not wanting to die.

Wanting info does not make anyone entitled. But, a "want" is not necessarily a "need" and nobody (of those in this thread, as far as I can tell) has a right to demand any info. Presenting a question as a "need" (I need to know this so I don't die - if you don't give me the info and I die because I didn't have it, it's on you), when it's really just a "want" is, politely, not right.

I WANT to know, too. But, I'm not going to make anyone else feel like they are somehow putting me at risk if they don't tell me.

 

[helodriver87]

Wanting info does not make anyone entitled. But, a "want" is not necessarily a "need" and nobody (of those in this thread, as far as I can tell) has a right to demand any info. Presenting a question as a "need" (I need to know this so I don't die - if you don't give me the info and I die because I didn't have it, it's on you), when it's really just a "want" is, politely, not right.

I WANT to know, too. But, I'm not going to make anyone else feel like they are somehow putting me at risk if they don't tell me.

I'm gonna have to disagree there. I do think it's a need. I've had friends involved in serious helicopter crashes, some involving fatalities and serious injuries. All were investigated. And the findings of those investigations were distributed and briefed across the community. Everyone knew who was involved. Some were close to those who died. And that fact was handled with care and appropriate tact. But the facts were put out there and fault was assigned in every case. Because everyone makes mistakes and we all learn from it. It doesn't matter if 95% of the accident was totally out of the crew's control. If the investigation board found that the crew could've taken a different action that may have contributed to a different outcome, it gets briefed. Because on the off chance you run into that situation or one like it, you now know more than you did before and maybe that little nugget of knowledge sticks with you and saves your life. We all understand mistakes don't make these people bad pilots or crewmembers, it makes them human. And we've collectively agreed as a community that it's more important to know everything in the interest of safety than it is to hide facts in a pointless attempt to protect someone's reputation at the expense of possibly preventing future accidents. We have a huge problem adopting this kind of attitude in the cave community and it's going to get more people killed.

 

[Schwob]

I'm gonna have to disagree there. I do think it's a need. I've had friends involved in serious helicopter crashes, some involving fatalities and serious injuries. All were investigated. And the findings of those investigations were distributed and briefed across the community. Everyone knew who was involved. Some were close to those who died. And that fact was handled with care and appropriate tact. But the facts were put out there and fault was assigned in every case. Because everyone makes mistakes and we all learn from it. It doesn't matter if 95% of the accident was totally out of the crew's control. If the investigation board found that the crew could've taken a different action that may have contributed to a different outcome, it gets briefed. Because on the off chance you run into that situation or one like it, you now know more than you did before and maybe that little nugget of knowledge sticks with you and saves your life. We all understand mistakes don't make these people bad pilots or crewmembers, it makes them human. And we've collectively agreed as a community that it's more important to know everything in the interest of safety than it is to hide facts in a pointless attempt to protect someone's reputation at the expense of possibly preventing future accidents. We have a huge problem adopting this kind of attitude in the cave community and it's going to get more people killed.

Thank you for that. I am neither a pilot, not a tech diver nor a RB diver. But I have to think that to most technical and otherwise “analytical” folks this makes a lot of sense. I guess a wrongly chosen tone in a question never helps and it also does not help when no more facts than reported can be unearthed. Generally it continues to amaze me how much energy is spent on commenting on the verbal style of o others their competence or lack there of wild speculations on what might have happened conjured up with no additional facts from thousands of miles away, opinions on right / need / want or what ever else not actually, really pertaining to the actual topic. Is there also actual gate-keeping going on? I don’t know. I am not accusing anyone of doing so. Comment’s like (not an exact quote) “ you need to go to Bonaire and talk to those in the know, that are not on SB over a few beers” seem to suggest that there is more info and that it may possibly be known to some on SB, who however then choose not to share it. Maybe not to burn a bridge with a buddy on Bonaire. Maybe because asked not to. I would not know. Might help to just put it out in plain language. Might not help.
So there, now a non RB diver just wasted all that airspace saying nothing relevant to learning from Fiona’s last dive. The factual, dry airmen way of doing this as outlined by helodriver87 surely would put an end to comments like this by me (and others).
So, are there additional facts that are known ... somewhere... or not?

 

[tursiops]

So, are there additional facts that are known ... somewhere... or not?

Yes, that has already been stated.
Are you going to get them by asking on SB? I doubt it.
Do I have any additional facts? No, except that Buddy Dive has effectively banned solo diving: it is not taught, it is not supported, it is not allowed on their vessels or under their control.
Does anyone else have additional facts? Yes, for example the read-out of her handset. Would that info put to rest all the speculation and recrimination and angst? I doubt it, but I've not seen it.

 

[Jack Hammer]

What I fund lamentable is the presumption that anybody with information should rush right out and post it on Scubaboard. That seems to be the definition here of what constitutes publicly releasing information, as if no other forms of public dissemination matter.

 

[shoredivr]

If it’s true Buddy dive has banned solo diving, IMO that’s an ineffective strategy. Properly prepared and equipped solo divers are no more or less likely to die than buddied divers. Arguements ad nauseum on the solo thread. People die in buddy pairs also.

It would seem that the casualty wasn’t properly equipped for the intended dive?

 

[ChuckP]

If it’s true Buddy dive has banned solo diving, IMO that’s an ineffective strategy. Properly prepared and equipped solo divers are no more or less likely to die than buddied divers. Arguements ad nauseum on the solo thread. People die in buddy pairs also.

It would seem that the casualty wasn’t properly equipped for the intended dive?

Emotional decisions are rarely the correct ones and decisions forced by underwriter companies are purely CYA decisions.

 

[Storker]

If it’s true Buddy dive has banned solo diving

Huh? Care to elaborate? I sincerely don't understand what "Buddy dive has banned solo diving" means. Who or what is banning solo?

We might - most probably would - argue whether solo diving is a good idea if we were to discuss the issue. Add tech/NDL/advanced depths and run times, and the terrain becomes seriously gnarly. And I don't think we'd ever agree on the topic. But can we at least agree on a common understanding of terms?

 

[drrich2]

No, except that Buddy Dive has effectively banned solo diving: it is not taught, it is not supported, it is not allowed on their vessels or under their control.

Any idea whether they've formally forbidden it at their piers or to take advantage of a shore diving tank package there when solo diving? Can't find it on their website.

I've stayed at Buddy's before, and liked it. I liked Apartment F1 at Sand Dollar better and really liked the Dive Friends Bonaire setup (tank exchange sites conveniently spread around), but I preferred Buddy's breakfast buffet (sorry, Breezes'N-Bites) and house reef (preferred Buddy's pier entry, and the option to head south toward Bari Reef or north toward the Cliff as opposed to mostly just Bari Reef from Sand Dollar Condo.s). I've wondered which I'd pick for a return trip.

But if Buddy's has gone anti-solo diving 'scuba police,' you may've clarified that!