Accident Analysis vs Emotions

[HowardE]

Ever ran a Net search on a dead relatives name, just to see what it would come up with? Try it.

I think the reason for that rules is so that deceased's love one won't run a Search on the diver looking for the obituary or whatever and see a SB discussion thread on the hit list, then stroll in to see the analysis discussion.

Nope, that rule is pretty important and needs to be enforced better.

What's more important IMO is the blame. As long as people aren't blamed, what is the harm? I don't think that naming names is all that important for true analysis of a situation, because the names are truly irrelevant, but the point is...

If people discuss a person's death (that has been printed in the newspaper)... That is not a private matter - like it or not. If the information is made public, then it's a public matter. It's just overly protective.

 

[ArcticDiver]

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?

Assuming these are researched statements whose truth has been verified beyond a reasonable doubt they can be accepted as facts. But what do they tell us? Very little. Now, what would we like to know if we are going to actually learn anything from an event such as this?

Here is a brief, by no means all inclusive, list:
-First, was this a Crime, an Accident, or Suicide? What facts and circumstances support the conclusion?
-Were drugs, including prescription, alcohol and OTC, involved? If so; what effect, if any did they have on the event?
-Was an autopsy performed? What was the result?
-Did the decedent have a physical problem that interfered with his ability to cope with the situation?
-Was his diving gear examined? Was it functioning correctly? Was it tested for any intermittent problems that might have contributed to the problem?
-Was the breathing gas tested to determine that it met purity and composition standards and was appropriate for the dive being undertaken?
-Was the reported rescuer interviewed to establish that in fact an attempted rescue was taking place and to see if rescue procedures were the best that could have been used under the circumstances?
-What facts support the idea that he was diving beyond his training? Has his diving history been investigated to the point that his formal and informal training has been determined?
-If it was established that he had no informal training then who was his instructor? Have the students from this instructor had similar problems in the past that maybe didn't result in a fatality?
-Since in SCUBA the instructor is also the evaluator, does the record show that the limits this diver was restricted to were clearly communicated to and understood by this diver?
-How frequently did this diver dive?
-Did he have a history of behaviour that would have made him prone to risky, unreasoned behaviour? Or, on the other hand, was he mature beyond his years and inclined to cautious, reasoned adventure?

Well, maybe the point is made by this short and incomplete list. Real accident analysis and education from that analysis is a time consuming, detailed process. It isn't until the process is complete, often months after the event, that the factual picture is painted. But it is that picture that provides the best information to guide others.


And, oh yes, there will be people who will not take the time to read the most carefully reasoned and prepared report and will still spout off with their favorite perspective, supported or not. After all this is the cyberworld. But, despite that I believe the scuba industry, mainly us, would significantly benefit from true accident analysis.

 

[Ocean One]

I have read all the posts in this thread and offer my 2CW: I am one of those folks that "hijack" an A&I incident with a condolensce post as I feel it is appropriate for fellow divers to suppport each other. I re-read the sticky and see no rule against it.
I concur that perhaps a sub-division can be made where sympathy message can be posted so as not to interfere with those that wish to investigate, speculate or whatever that happened in an incident. I do very much enjoy reading about diving accident from a learning stand point based solely on whats posted as known information provided in the media. Yes, I know the media is NOT very reliable on facts.

Perhaps sub-divisions are the way to go to allow differing venues of discussion

 

[HowardE]

we know he was diving beyond his training

This is an assumption. It may be a "safe assumption" - but without the actual person there to verify that statement. It is still assuming.

 

[PerroneFord]

I was under the "assumption" that this had been verified. That was my recollection from reading about the accident in various venues. If it's untrue, then my apologies.

 

[Cacia]

I concur that perhaps a sub-division can be made where sympathy message can be posted so as not to interfere with those that wish to investigate, speculate or whatever that happened in an incident

hell-o

yes, that would be so much better, mixed objective threads are a mess. People often lash out with misplaced grief. I support speaking freely, without names, and let the conversation go where it will. Otherwise, the conversation just goes underground.

Speculation is an important tool in diving safer, we "speculate" every day.

I remember when it was suggested that PE could have been a likely cause of the BJD death. This emphasized the importance of hydration after long international flights where people sit for extremely long periods. It does not matter if this was
"speculation" because it was very educational to consider the common context of this risk. If readers make the effort to walk and hydrate, skip alcohol, etc, and be mindful of this very common risk regarding flights, then this is a positive thing.


I see no harm in considering multiple causes for a given accident...very useful exercise.

 

[H2Andy]

the Accident Analysis forum was set up by a Mod who is no longer a Mod, based on his philosophy of how ScubaBoard should conduct its accident analysis.

i think it is probably a good time to review that philosophy.

-- why blank out names when they are taken from a public document, such as a newspaper article which is linked to in a post anyway? (makes no sense)

-- why not discuss the details that are known? as Lamont has stated, we will never know the full picture, so ... saying we have to wait until all the details are in is basically killing any accident analysis on here

-- i don't like Rick's idea (sorry Rick). what is the big deal? people should be able to discuss an accident just like they can discuss anything else on ScubaBoard. if a post violates TOS, it can be removed. why the heavy-handed Big Brother approach to accident analysis?

on the other hand, if the ownership doesn't want to have that sort of discussion going on in ScubaBoard, as others have said, there are excellent accident analysis forums out there, such as The Deco Stop.

 

[Cacia]

Suppositions, biases, and comments by those who take advantage of the situation to promote their personal or business agenda are not.

I trust most of us are smart enough to sort that out.

 

[El Orans]

The current A&I set-up is being revisited.

 

[ArcticDiver]

...-- why not discuss the details that are known? as Lamont has stated, we will never know the full picture, so ... saying we have to wait until all the details are in is basically killing any accident analysis on here...

Gee, from a lawyer I would have expected a more rigorous thought process. What we have on this web site now is Accident Gossip based on few, if any, known facts and lots of guesses. Plus, there is lots of jumping to conclusions. It has already been pointed out that just because a person may have been diving beyond their training is no sign that training level was a significant causal factor the accident cited.

It is better to ban all accident/incident discussion than to allow gossip that may lead others to faulty and possibly dangerous conclusions.

I suppose there is an analogy between the due process to discover all the pertinent facts and the due examination and analysis to determine the facts in accident analysis. They need to be let run so we have the best chance of being able to learn something meaningful from the events.

Add on: From this thread I gather we are all united in expressing dissatisfaction with the way accidents/incidents and condolences are currently handled on this web site. Perhaps the owners, whose rules we are obligated to follow, will reexamine the issue and come up with some changes that will better serve all needs.

Thanks El Orans. You posted while I was typing.