Mailing List Archive

Mailing List: techdiver

Message Display

Bill,

it all comes down to this hypothetical scenario: If someone dies because of
a medical problem/shark attack/collapsing cave ceiling (** pick your
favorite disaster**) in 30, 60, or 100 feet (**pick your favorite, moderate
depth**) of water BEFORE conducting a dive to 200 feet using *** (choose
from any of the following: deep-air, butt-mounted light, bungied long hose,
breathing off the short-hose) - was any of these offensive techniques the
CAUSE, or were they just a present but irrelevant to the outcome?

In other words, can we really end the analysis after finding the presence of
ONE circumstance (just because you consider it poor technique) - or do we
need a full report of ALL circumstances to REALLY learn from the incident?

>> Would you care to name someone who committed the supposed transgression
you have
just described? <<

I read this list to catch the occasional contributions by Rich Pyle - the
rest I quickly read diagonally (and usually end up discarding for lack of
substance.) If it is important to you to establish, who speculated on
specific accidents before the facts were published FIRST HAND by those on
the scene, then please refer to the list archives. I don't keep files.

>> In the case of Palmer... ...the truth turned out to be far worse than the
speculation. <<

I can't verify your claims, so I am unable to either agree or disagree with
you. If you'd like to post the full, joint FIRST HAND report by those on the
scene, I'd be glad to discuss that document with you.

(I happen to think, that Rob Palmer's accident reporting was handled
extremely poorly by those on site, and its mis-handling reflected
unfavorably on everyone involved, specially on the "big names" who I hold to
a higher responsibility. I remember receiving a private E-mail on the day of
the accident by one person stating essentially, that "no-one wanted to
overshadow subsequent diving by talking much about what happened". In my
opinion this lack of a sense of duty was unprofessional and did as much
damage to Palmer's name as what then happened on the Internet. By trying to
not "spoil their fun" they fueled much of the subsequent speculations.)

>> these fataliites occurred outside of the US and what appeared in the
"official" report was probably suspect.<<

I did not make this clear. To me, the "official" report is NOT the one by
the authorities (as it typically would lack relevant details) but the one
filed in the Accident Analysis files.  I was unfortunate to aid in the
recovery of a cave diving victim at one time - and I can tell you that the
authorities never learned more than they needed to know to rule this an
accident (and to not impound everyone's personal property - or worse). But I
made certain that the report filed jointly with the cave diving agencies
contained every single detail that all of us were able to remember.

>> In the case of several recent domestic fatalities we know for a fact that
the paritipants perjured themselves to the invetigating authorities on many
of the
details to cover up their own stupidity, complicity and incompetence. <<

I can't condone perjury - but I do recognize the necessity to limit one's
exposure to potential wrongful death claims. Again, I am NOT talking about
the report issued by the authorities.

>> Whe someone gets killed, where almost all of the obvious facts suggest
unadulterated stupidity <<

In all fairness, almost EVERY cave diving accident can be traced back to
violations of basic cave diving rules. So, if we were to generalize, and
classify incidents as either "human error" or "equipment malfunction" or
"environmental disaster", then I cannot fault you for claiming that probably
99% can be traced to human error!

>> we do not need the final report from the medical examiner before
discussing the cricumstances surrounding the death. <<

I agree 100% that the medical examiner's report is not needed. But we DO
need a full and complete first hand report of the circumstances BEFORE we
"discuss" them or before we "analyze" the accident and point to the
reason(s) involved.

What I have observed in recent years, is a tendency for people to inflate
their ego by conducting an analysis BEFORE all the circumstances were
reported first-hand (which sometimes can take several weeks).

>> This is especially true when the taint of "deep air" is associated with
the incident.<<

Don't expect me to argue in favor of either highly narcotic or highly toxic
gas mixes. However, just because an accident occurred while a certain
circumstance was present does not mean we can allow ourselves to just jump
to a convenient conclusion. Otherwise our conclusion might overlook another
aspect that we otherwise might learn from!!!

Example: Statistics probably would prove me right, that 80% of victims were
using black fins. If I now publish that fact, and then wrote 50 messages
every time some "idiot kills himself in black fins" (despite my proven,
statistical fact that black fins were present in so many cases) - wouldn't
you agree that my "analysis" of the accident might be impressively quick and
technically correct ("another stroke dying in black fins"), but that my
short-sightedness also cost me the opportunity to REALLY learn from the
accident?

>> Have you forgotten the list of 50 or more fatalities which was published
on this forum? <<

I have seen that list and have shut up, because the intent was to encourage
the use of less-narcotic mixes. But don't expect me to give any real credit
to a bunch of "email addresses" CLAIMING that all these deaths were caused
by "deep air". I can neither agree - NOR disagree - because I honestly
believe that NOONE has actually reviewed each case and VERIFIED whether
"deep air" was indeed the cause, or whether "deep air" just happened to be
present.

>> Instead of pointing your little finger at the real problem (...) you
chose instead to make suggestive innuendos about the voice of truth. <<

And what makes you believe that YOU know the "real problem" or that you'll
recognize the "voice of truth".

This is NOT religion - this is diving. Go ahead, pray to your forum-god and
be happy. I strongly prefer NOT for someone to digest the facts for me and
then spit out whatever their interpretation is. I support the organized
collection and reporting of ALL facts so that everyone can see on what the
analysis was based on.

>> Your mention of "less-seasoned hot-heads" implies the existence of
"well-seasoned cool-heads".  I would appreciate it if you would enlighten us
all with your list of these dive industry luminaries. <<

When I state that a class "A and B" exists, and you conclude that there must
be class of "non A and non B", then you cannot assume that I must be able to
enumerate your class "non A and non B".

<< I am waiting for your reply to the above. >>

Uh-uh.

Andy

--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.

Navigate by Author: [Previous] [Next] [Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject: [Previous] [Next] [Subject Search Index]

[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]

[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]