Accident Analysis vs Emotions

[CHUD]

Facts, causal facts, are useful as a learning tool. Suppositions, biases, and comments by those who take advantage of the situation to promote their personal or business agenda are not.

I disagree with the suppositions part of your comment. As I stated earlier in this thread, I find hypothetical discussions to be very instructive. I agree that people taking advantage to promote an agenda are not helpful, but I think that happens far more rarely than you apparently do -- and I don't think it's a legitimate reason to squelch discussion.

 

[ArcticDiver]

I disagree with the suppositions part of your comment. As I stated earlier in this thread, I find hypothetical discussions to be very instructive. I agree that people taking advantage to promote an agenda are not helpful, but I think that happens far more rarely than you apparently do -- and I don't think it's a legitimate reason to squelch discussion.

I grant you your right to disagree. In fact without disagreement SB would probably take up a lot less server space.

I also agree hypothetical discussions are very useful. They are used productively in many training environments.

But, what we are talking about here is learning from a specific accident or incident. To do that we have to know the causal facts in that event. Lacking those facts all we can do is swap ignorance.

 

[CHUD]

I grant you your right to disagree.

Gee, thanks. But you should know that I would disagree without your permission, too.

I also agree hypothetical discussions are very useful. They are used productively in many training environments.

But apparently cannot be useful here, in your opinion.

But, what we are talking about here is learning from a specific accident or incident. To do that we have to know the causal facts in that event. Lacking those facts all we can do is swap ignorance.

Agreed that we're all talking about learning from an accident or incident, but you are arguing to squelch exactly the type of hypothetical discussions you espouse above. The only difference is that the outcome inciting the discussion would be a known fact, but the discussed causes and divers' actions would be hypothetical -- and such a discussion can be a powerful teaching/learning tool and shouldn't be dismissed outright.

I grant you your right to think such a conversation would be "swapping ignorance" -- and I'll exercise my right to be quite sure that you're mistaken.

 

[LAJim]

Analysis and condolences don't go together. When I see a lot of condolences I don't want to post to the thread - it has in effect been hijacked.

Special TOS revisions for A&I could not only ban names but also any messages or sentiments intended for the victim or family - all of that could be in a well wishes/sympathy forum or in regionals. SB A&I has been getting worse. It is loosing value.

Read the fatality reports from DAN. I conflate and paraphrase: "Inexperienced diver with alcohol and cocaine in his system initiates a solo dive with 500 psi in tank, becomes entangled, and dies". "Morbidly obese diver with history of heart disease, diabetes, and six other health probems ... etc." Any serious discussion of some of the accidents is going to involve some harsh criticism.

 

[dldiver]

Analysis and condolences don't go together. When I see a lot of condolences I don't want to post to the thread - it has in effect been hijacked.

Special TOS revisions for A&I could not only ban names but also any messages or sentiments intended for the victim or family - all of that could be in a well wishes/sympathy forum or in regionals. SB A&I has been getting worse. It is loosing value.

I totally agree with you!! (Hence my earlier suggestion that A&I should be split into more specific sections: "reports & condolences" and "learning discussions".)

Who's attention do we have to get or what do we have to do to consider making that change???

 

[ArcticDiver]

Analysis and condolences don't go together. When I see a lot of condolences I don't want to post to the thread - it has in effect been hijacked.

Special TOS revisions for A&I could not only ban names but also any messages or sentiments intended for the victim or family - all of that could be in a well wishes/sympathy forum or in regionals. SB A&I has been getting worse. It is loosing value.

Read the fatality reports from DAN. I conflate and paraphrase: "Inexperienced diver with alcohol and cocaine in his system initiates a solo dive with 500 psi in tank, becomes entangled, and dies". "Morbidly obese diver with history of heart disease, diabetes, and six other health probems ... etc." Any serious discussion of some of the accidents is going to involve some harsh criticism.

Absolutely.

One of the reasons our military is so effective is the use of after action critrique and accompanying ctriticism. The same is true in other fields as well.

Criticism based on known fact is an extremely valuable tool for learning and correcting any deficient practices. From known fact one can develop hypothetical scenarios that would help people deal with future problems. What would you do if? My complaint is that the Incident and Accident forum today contains precious few causal facts.

I guess if I was Lord of SB I would abolish condolences and gratuitous comments from the Accidents and Incidents Forum. Perhaps establish a separate forum for survivor emotional support because that is important both to the survivors and to many of us.

Then require using a specific format for Incident and Accident reporting. That would make clear what items are known as causal facts, what is guessed from the circumstances and why the poster thinks that, and any lessons learned. The Cave Diver format is a good start, but may not be the best.

A specific, required format would tend to focus on understandable critique and minimize the tendency to stray. It would also, over time, develop into a truly valuable source of data on scuba casualties, instead of what it is today.

Just a skeleton of an idea that needs a lot more flesh to bring to life.

 

[PerroneFord]

A young man of age 19 died recently diving in a cavern. We know the location, we know he had two buddies, we know he was diving beyond his training, we know someone tried to rescue him, we know he ran out of air. Facts and casual facts.

How did the discussion go?

 

[DandyDon]

If analysis could be done while leaving out the victims names, that's great.

That has been a long established special rule for A&I - in the Required Reading Stickies, just ignored too much. Need to stress that more perhaps; I am already in the threads.

I totally agree with you!! (Hence my earlier suggestion that A&I should be split into more specific sections: "reports & condolences" and "learning discussions".)

The idea idid not appeal at first, but it's growing on me. I guess it was kinda obvious from the posting of the thread that I think the emotions interfere with the learning opportunities. Gets worse when the victim turns out to be a dear friend of a regular SB member who comes on the thread with emotional posts - which happened again and precipitated this thread.

You know those automatic add-ons that go on each and every post with Trader Ratings? How about a small disclaimer like that - in red, on every post - so if a friend or loved one does stumble onto any post there, they read first....

"This is for hypothetical accident discussion and learning only. Condolences and other emotional posts are handled in This forum"

Who's attention do we have to get or what do we have to do to consider making that change???

Oh, the Mods & Advisers read every word in this forum, don't worry. We have our member discussions, they have their back room discussions, and usually the best good for all is announced when appropriate. Don't worry about that part.

 

[DandyDon]

A young man of age 19 died recently diving in a cavern. We know the location, we know he had two buddies, we know he was diving beyond his training, we know someone tried to rescue him, we know he ran out of air. Facts and casual facts.

How did the discussion go?

I don't know. I stopped following it. Was there a point...?

I do know for a fact that if we don't dicuss it, less will be learned.

If we do discuss it, learning opportunities become more possible.

 

[PerroneFord]

Yes, there is a point. The point is that even with all the factors known, our "group" seems to not really glean much from the conversation. I would LOVE to see us do real accident analysis here. There's new stuff almost daily. But as soon as anyone tries to start up a real conversation, it's squashed.

And WHATEVER you do, don't post anything that might express anger of frustration...