Doc Deep plans 1200' Dive

[rjack321]

@Hetland your accident analysis assumes that if we knew the plan we could pick it apart, find all the flaws, and fix them to make it "safe". There is no valid plan to 1200ft on open circuit. You might as well say you are going to hike up Everest in a bikini, there's no way to reconcile the desire and the goal.

 

[rickgillyon]

@Hetland your accident analysis assumes that if we knew the plan we could pick it apart, find all the flaws, and fix them to make it "safe".

I don't think you understand analysis.

 

[rjack321]

I don't think you understand analysis.

I'm fully aware of the purpose and objectives of accident analysis. Which in this case are pointless - and not just because the plan didn't work. Root cause analysis would take you back to the surviving family members, the "team" and the skipper who facilitated the mere thought of this dive in the first place. His deco schedule, gases, and volumes brought along are tertiary.

 

[Diver0001]

Andy Davis wrote an interesting blogpost about that. At some point this diver would appear to have been either unwilling or unable to back out of that dive. If you haven't read that article, I would recommend it. A Fatal Attempt: Psychological Factors in the Failed World Depth Record Attempt 2015

I agree with Andy that if you're looking at the root causes of this accident that you need to look at the psychology of the man and the group of people surrounding him.

One thing that Andy didn't mention (perhaps because he hasn't reached that age yet) is the pressure the diver might have put himself under due to his age. It was noted that Garman had only been diving for a few years and at the time of the dive he was already 56. Taking the time to gain sufficient experience would have made him too old to make the dive so I think in his deepest psyche he *may* (and this is pure speculation on my part) have been thinking, "if I don't do it now, I'll never do it".

To someone reaching that age, this could be a powerful motivation to accept additional risks.

R..

 

[rickgillyon]

@Hetland your accident analysis assumes that if we knew the plan we could pick it apart, find all the flaws, and fix them to make it "safe".

Your last response bears little relevance to this initial "analysis." Analysis never starts with assumptions like this, in this case that it can be made safe. You just invented the scenario.

 

[Derelict]

Imagine trying to figure out which bottle and which reg is the next one that you're supposed to use, when you're below 300m deep. People get it wrong at 20m with two bottles, let alone 300m with 8 bottles.