Accident Analysis vs Emotions

[ArcticDiver]

Now would be a good time to point out that self-reported near misses are a whole different thing than what we are calling an accident. Many times a near miss is wholy a matter of perception about an event that caused the reporter to reexamine procedures, equpment and skill.

These should be wide open for back and forth discussions with the person who has first hand knowledge of the event, the reporter. But, even then just because the reporter thought something specific was the cause doesn't mean it actually was. But, in a good discussion eventually that will come out.

We have enough people on SB who are trained in logical thought and research that valuable information could come from all that.

 

[ArcticDiver]

...It'd be real nice if there *was* Accident Investigators, if there was the scuba equivalent of the FAA or NTSB, and if there was published accident analysis, but there isn't. In the absence of such an agency you and rick don't have a policy that deals with reality, but is wishing for the perfect world.

No wishing for a perfect world. Me and my warts would really stick out then. But, there is more than one way to accomplish this. Probably the easiest since we have people on SB from just about every place on the planet where people dive and since DAN already exists is to put political pressure on the local folks who are already charged with investigations to do a better job and to report it to DAN. DAN probably would love to expand the size of their rice bowl so it is just a matter of forcing the dive industry folks to properly report and the local investigators to properly do their job.

This kind of thing has been done before with other kinds of incidents. Many people think that keeping the facts quiet helps them. I happen to believe that if the facts were known training and evaluation would improve. With improved training and evaluation safety would be even better than it is. With improved safety, especially the image of safety, there would be more divers. With more divers the cost of our diving would go down and there would be more opportunities for diving. Everyone wins.

 

[lamont]

Now would be a good time to point out that self-reported near misses are a whole different thing than what we are calling an accident. Many times a near miss is wholy a matter of perception about an event that caused the reporter to reexamine procedures, equpment and skill.

These should be wide open for back and forth discussions with the person who has first hand knowledge of the event, the reporter. But, even then just because the reporter thought something specific was the cause doesn't mean it actually was. But, in a good discussion eventually that will come out.

We have enough people on SB who are trained in logical thought and research that valuable information could come from all that.

How is that different from discussing a fatality? The recent ice diving fatality spawned a lot of discussion on TDS. Quite a bit of it was garbage, but it introduced me to the issue of tethered ice diving vs. cave-protocol ice diving. It also made me yet again go over procedures for auto-inflation of a wing. We're still basing any discussion of the accident on the buddy's report (just like your example of self-reported near misses) and we could still be missing the real cause of the accident. How is discussing that fatal accident different from discussing your example of a near miss, and why can't the SB people who are trained in logical thought and research produce valuable information from the fatality?

 

[ArcticDiver]

How is that different from discussing a fatality? The recent ice diving fatality spawned a lot of discussion on TDS. Quite a bit of it was garbage, but it introduced me to the issue of tethered ice diving vs. cave-protocol ice diving. It also made me yet again go over procedures for auto-inflation of a wing. We're still basing any discussion of the accident on the buddy's report (just like your example of self-reported near misses) and we could still be missing the real cause of the accident. How is discussing that fatal accident different from discussing your example of a near miss, and why can't the SB people who are trained in logical thought and research produce valuable information from the fatality?

Because the primary source of information, the near miss reporter, is available for examination and cross exam.

 

[HowardE]

Already on the SG thread... there's more condolences than anything else. I thought there was a special forum in SB for condolences, and that A&I is for accident discussion, etc.

 

[dldiver]

Already on the SG thread... there's more condolences than anything else. I thought there was a special forum in SB for condolences, and that A&I is for accident discussion, etc.

I was just about to mention taking a look at the SG thread to drive home the point of this discusssion. But see I was beaten to it...

Then I saw Misdirected's comment about the Passings forum.

 

[H2Andy]

i just think this type of partitioning is anal ... Christ, what's wrong with talking about an accident, in all its facets, in one thread?

why do we have to make everything one huge bureocratic exercise in futility? you can't keep these topics separate. when you do, you just get frustrated users. the accidents forum as designed is broken. it does not work. it kills discussion. its sole function is to keep people from talking about an accident. what kind of forum is this?

enforce the TOS, by all means. don't let people name-call or be rude. even enforce the TOS a bit more strictly if needed

but open the thread, let the members comment, and leave well enough alone

 

[HowardE]

i just think this type of partitioning is anal ... Christ, what's wrong with talking about an accident, in all its facets, in one thread?

I know it might be a bit anal... but it's almost like a hijack (IMHO) when a discussion gets good, and then you get a string of 10 "prayers and wishes" -

Not to be disrespectful... but I personally don't think the 2 should mix.

 

[H2Andy]

well, the ten people who posted before you disagreed ...

we need to find ways to co-exist, not partition off ourselves from others

we really need to keep rules to a minimum and learn to self-regulate; otherwise we're just inviting intrusive mediation by well-meaning people, who then get to hear our whining about why was this moved, and then we tell them to back off...

see the irony?

 

[HowardE]

well, the ten people who posted before you disagreed ...

we need to find ways to co-exist, not partition off ourselves from others

we really need to keep rules to a minimum and learn to self-regulate; otherwise we're just inviting intrusive mediation by well-meaning people, who then get to hear our whining about why was this moved, and then we tell them to back off...

see the irony?

OK. I see your point.

It just seems that condolences and well wishes adds the human element in paramount to the equation, thus adding more emotion. Whereas the analytical approach isn't emotional, rather it's just an analysis.