Allow Speculation?-Split from Catalina Diver died today

[Madacub]

@DennisS: I think that you make a very compelling argument for the creation of a "Facts only" A&I forum. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

Good suggestion. But it seems self evident to me (but maybe only to me :mooner that the A&I forum should be restricted for facts only (and discussion/examination of those facts). So after the facts are in, people can wade into that thread. Before the facts are in, start another thread to speculate and go off onother tangents (all of which I believe can be useful, as I said earlier).

Someone mentioned that airplane accident investigators speculate, so we should here too. But it isn't the same thing here. Airplane accident (and other accident) investiagtors first collect all the facts. They scrupulously refrain from speculating (in public anyway) until all the factual data are in. Then they speculate about missing pieces of the puzzle. Here we begin with the speculation. And those of us who want the facts laid out have a difficult time figuring those out.

Another benefit of making it clear that A&I should be restricted to facts is that mods will not have to work overtime splitting off tangential threads. (Well, may not have to...)

 

[Bubbletrubble]

Loooks like this discussion is going in the direction of making some changes...

@Madacub: I agree. That's probably a good thing...although now there appears to be several parallel threads on how to accommodate speculation in the A&I forum. It's making it kind of difficult to keep track of all of the good suggestions. I feel like a consensus is forming that there should be a fact-only forum which can be updated as more info becomes available. This way, the people who want "just the facts" don't have to wade through the speculatory posts.

As far as using English goes, we could all switch to German - I hear their irregular verbs are a real blast! (Anyway, that's what Saki says)

Who is Saki?

I just saw your most recent post. I think it can be useful to see how airplane accidents are investigated, but there are limits to how the same methodology can/should be applied to diving incidents. We should acknowledge that an aviation accident presents a very real threat to the general flying AND non-flying public. Scuba-diving accidents don't present the same kind of threat to the non-diving public. Consider that a plane can crash into a house and kill its inhabitants. That's the main reason for all of the government oversight, why accident info is carefully collected, and why aviation experts refrain from speculating until as many pieces of the puzzle are known. The level of public scrutiny is necessarily much higher for an aviation incident.

FWIW, I don't think that the entire A&I forum should be changed to a "fact only" zone.

You seem to have very strong feelings on how to improve our coverage of A&I. Perhaps you should start a thread in the Suggestions forum.

 

[Madacub]

Saki = pen name for HH Munro. Short story writer from 100 years ago. There was a charming story about a talking cat and German irregular verbs.....(Also a delicous spoken version available)

Apologies to German readers - I know nothing about German, wouldn't bet money on what an irregular verb is and as for verbs - well, after reading posts here about "dove" and "swallow", my head is just spinning with information overload. (Now we need a subforum for verbs...)

 

[Bubbletrubble]

Saki = pen name for HH Munro. Short story writer from 100 years ago. There was a charming story about a talking cat and German irregular verbs.....(Also a delicous spoken version available)

Here's the Wikipedia link to Munro's short story entitled "Tobermory." The last line is a real zinger. Very funny. Thanks for calling my attention to it. The spoken version is very well done.

 

[ItsBruce]

I think that splitting A&I into a facts only thread and a speculation thread is unworkable. What exactly is a "fact"? I expect that in diver death cases the only real "fact" will be that a diver died underwater. The cause of death will almost always be an opinion. That opinion may be based on factual observations and may even be rendered by an expert, but it will still be an opinion.

If a thread is limited to "facts," it will become an "Official Findings" thread, with little, if any, opportunity for discussion or learning.

Can anyone here think of a single accident or incident in which all of the relevant facts are known? I can't.

All-in-all, I do not believe that those who complain about speculation are really complaining about speculation as much as they are complaining about baseless assertions that are completely contrary to what seem to be established facts, especially when the person making the assertion has obviously not read the entire thread before making a post.

I will use the "Catalina Death" thread as an example. I am not going back to look or quote precisely (that is a disclaimer), but I recall that , there was a post by someone who I believe was new to the board, that the instructor violated standards. That remark was, if I recall correctly, prompted by comments about the maximum depth for an OW class and some sort of comment about whether the victim was in an OW class or an AOW class. The remark about the instructor violating standards does not even rate as speculation (and I'm not going to take the time to think of the right word for it). Remarks pulled out of the blue (or brown) are uncalled for. IMHO, those are the kinds of things that detract from intelligent discussion or learning and lead to complaints about speculation.

In contrast, in a recent thread about a diver who died in a cave, there was speculation about what may have led to the diver's death. I don't recall the details, but there were things like too much C02, too much O2, too little O2. I'm not sure if an autopsy could even determine that. However, there is nothing wrong with putting those possibilities out there for discussion. In that discussion, observations of the diver's behavior might eliminate one or more possibilities. Observations about the diver's gas (too rich or too lean), might eliminate one or more possibilities. That's all speculation, but it is helpful and useful (or would be to anyone who knows about rebreathers).

I vote against splitting the forum further.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

If a thread is limited to "facts," it will become an "Official Findings" thread, with little, if any, opportunity for discussion or learning.

Some people have complained that the lengthy discussion (much of it speculatory in nature) has served to obscure any known reported "facts." If they would like to discuss issues pertaining to the incident, then they'd presumably choose to create another thread in an A&I subforum outside of "Official Findings." Personally, I see nothing wrong with this approach. It will create more work for somebody, though. IMHO, the burden of defining what constitutes "fact" for the "Official Findings" subforum should be placed on those requesting such a forum. I'll just stay out of it.

I will use the "Catalina Death" thread as an example. I am not going back to look or quote precisely (that is a disclaimer), but I recall that , there was a post by someone who I believe was new to the board, that the instructor violated standards. That remark was, if I recall correctly, prompted by comments about the maximum depth for an OW class and some sort of comment about whether the victim was in an OW class or an AOW class. The remark about the instructor violating standards does not even rate as speculation (and I'm not going to take the time to think of the right word for it). Remarks pulled out of the blue (or brown) are uncalled for. IMHO, those are the kinds of things that detract from intelligent discussion or learning and lead to complaints about speculation.

I was involved in that discussion. I'm not saying that I disagree with your conclusion...but I think that if you are going to articulate an opinion such as this, then you should at least invest the time to read the original posts. That's the beauty of having a written discussion -- it's there for reference.

 

[Kevrumbo]

Ken, I don't know if you're new here or what but I'll tell you this, nature abhors a vacuum. In the absence of facts speculation will abound on any internet forum. Is there really anything wrong with this? Not really since it often provokes interesting discussions and insights into accidents and dive safety. Sometimes it gets dirty, sometimes crazy but often pearls of wisdom are found in every online discussion. If you develop a way to ensure only truly reliable people post only verified facts please let us know. Anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes on an online forum knows everything must be taken with a grain of salt.

Some past objective stats from the Catalina Hyperbaric Chamber with some relevancy to this latest fatality:

Initial Reported or Observed Problem of Divers Brought to the Catalina Hyperbaric Chamber (1995 - 2000):

Buoyancy Problem: 12%
Air Supply Problem: 11%
Buddy Problems: 10%
Decompression Problem: 6%
Equalizing Problem: 6%
Pain: 6%
Uncomfortable: 5%
Environmental Problem: 4%
Equipment Problem: 3%
Medical Problem: 3%
Regulator Problem: 3%
Rapid Ascent: 2%
Fatigue: 2%
Rebreather Problem: 2%
Mask Problem: 2%
Aspiration (water): 1%
Panic: 1%
No Problems Noted: approx. 10% occurrence

Quote: Divers Brought to the Catalina Chamber
--Did They Panic During the Dive?
Panicked: 33%
Did not Panic: 42%
Unknown: 25%

Quote: Divers Brought to the Catalina Chamber and
Suffering From AGE/Drowning/Near Drowning
--Did They Panic During the Dive?
Panicked: 51%
Did not Panic: 19%
Unknown: 30%

Quote:Cases from 1995 thru 2000
Of 154 Divers Brought to the Chamber:
76 (49%) Recompressed:
43 (57%) of which were DCS related
33 (43%) of which were Air Embolism related

78 (51%) Not Recompressed:
23 (29%) Rule Out AGE
23 (29%) Rule Out DCS
19 (24%) Near Drowning
9 (12%) Drowning
4 (5%) AGE/DCS Refused Treatment Against Medical Advice

19 (12%) Full Arrest --Fatalities

 

[Madacub]

@Madacub: You seem to have very strong feelings on how to improve our coverage of A&I. Perhaps you should start a thread in the Suggestions forum.

They have a suggestions forum?

Done.

But I looked at the activity there, not much traffic, and it seems that there is a lot of good discussion happening outside that forum.