Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Chris, I don't know who you are or what evperience you have. But what I
do know is that you have some way of convoluting everything ever put out
on this list. You are a master magician the likes of David Copperfield,
and obviously the time on you hands to write these extremely boring and
long posts. The point is the woman is dead. She made bad judgement calls
concerning her instructor, who no doubt shouldn't even hold that
certification. Seems to me its a problem for the certification agencies
to get off their asses and get rid of these offenders and to also hold
instructors to much higher standards.
This woman can do nothing about that now. Only some of us are willing to
maintain our high principles and get rid of this completely unrighteous
form of certification for lame instructors.
Peoples lives are on the line hear and the agencies are the ones to
blame.
Erik
>From owner-techdiver@aquanaut.com Tue Sep 1 08:05:25 1998
>Received: (mail@lo*)
> by bighorn.terra.net (8.8.6/jr3.9) for
> id KAA13907; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 10:07:40 -0400
>Precedence: bulk
>Errors-To: owner-techdiver@aquanaut.com
>Received: from bighorn.terra.net (root@lo*)
> by bighorn.terra.net (8.8.6/jr3.9) with EXEC for techdiver
> id JAA11907; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:47:55 -0400
>Received: from gossimer.nettally.com (gossimer.nettally.com
[199.44.114.224])
> by bighorn.terra.net (8.8.6/jr3.9) with ESMTP for
<techdiver@aquanaut.com>
> id JAA11896; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:47:54 -0400
>Received: from [199.44.114.71] ([199.44.114.245]) by
gossimer.nettally.com
> (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID#
0-52017U5500L550S0V35)
> with ESMTP id com; Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:39:38 -0400
>Message-Id: <l03102802b2105b4b55bc@[199.44.48.20]>
>In-Reply-To: <588042b1.35ea0bd3@ao*.co*>>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 09:56:52 -0400
>To: cavers@ca*.co*, techdiver@aquanaut.com
>From: techvid@ne*.co* (Brown, Christopher)
>Subject: Re: safety message
>
>Alan -- I apologize for any additional pain resulting from our
examination
>of the tragedy you have suffered. That is not my intent, but inevitably
is
>a by-product of the scrutiny that tragedies incur.
>
>My view is that, while we always focus on the *most immediate* cause
and
>effect of an accident (in this case, the in-water handling), we too
often
>ignore the causes *leading up to* the tragedy itself. And by missing or
>undervaluing that component (the *precursors*) of an accident, we will
>never find anything more than *half* of the answers we are looking for.
>
>Shouldn't we examine *The Path that takes us in harm's way* just as
>carefully as an accident itself? That's what I've been trying to sort
out.
>Because if we can, in the first place, avoid the path that leads to it,
>then the accident can't/won't happen!
>
>As we have all seen, in this and many other accidents, there are
>conflicting aspects that haven't been and may never be reconciled.
>
>Apart from the other erroneous/false/partial/misleading "info" I tried
to
>get *any/some* insights from, we have the latest versions like:
>
>>she still was being held captive by her instructor cert, she never
>>finished it >and if still here would have quit as she would still be
>>needing to do some >other shit for him.
>
>And
>
>>she was tired of his unorganized crap and could not wait to be done
>
>And
>
>>she really only wanted her instructor rating, derick pushed the rest,
mony
>>was >his motivator, this will come out after the trial
>
>And
>
>>we were to go to JJ for this but her "friend' talked her into doing it
with
>>him, money was his motivator, towards the end we had discussions on
this, she
>>was tired of his unorganized crap and could not wait to be done,"
>
>And
>
>>her friend had more infuence on her, he was an instructor trainer for
>>christ >sake,
>
>So, again using solely what we've been told here in net posts: a very
>independent person, an experienced divemaster, who's tired of her
instr.'s
>"unorganized crap", and only wants her rec. instr. cert., but is very
>impatient ("could not wait to be done") is coerced/forced (by his
>withholding what she wants -- the rec. instr. cert.) by her instr., to
buy
>a dry suit and take a tri-mix course, as preliminaries, not for deep
cave
>as we were originally told, but to go cave diving in Mexico where
neither
>the suit nor the tri-mix are necessary, after talking it over with you
to
>go to JJ instead and deciding not to, and without you knowing anything
>about it, hops in the water so task loaded (dry suit/trimix/stage all
on
>the same dive with no staggered build up) that a tragedy ensues.
>
>Can you understand the confusion anyone looking at this must feel?
Alan,
>these contradictory assertions, from your own posts, don't make any
sense.
>You rail that I have misconstrued or twisted things. Yet -- when it
turns
>out that the "info" I was going by before -- stuff previously posted
about
>the circumstances that put her in this position -- is all false, you
never
>bothered to correct *a single piece* of that misinformation? And these
new
>explanations don't really make a lot of sense either. I'm not, by any
>stretch of the imagination, trying to absolve her instructor's handling
of
>the dive -- but *what the hell was she doing there*?
>
>>she was tired of his unorganized crap and could not wait to be done,
>
>So she gets in with him even deeper, both literally and figuratively.
>
>Alan, we can't tell from any of this whether she *went against her own
>better judgement* -- or *whether her judgement itself was actually
poor*.
>We'll never know. And that's why the *issue of our judgement-making
process
>itself* is so critical. Someone else said "if the instr. had been
>hogarthian this wouldn't have happened." That's only *partly* the
problem
>-- if she had made better judgements, she wouldn't have had that instr.
--
>wouldn't have been beyond her abilities -- *she would not have been
there
>at all*.
>
>And that is my entire focus -- not to hurt her, you, or anyone else.The
>*real* question is: *How are we fooled into making BAD JUDGEMENTS?
About
>our gear, our instr., our own abilities, the abilities/knowledge of
others,
>our next dive?*
>
>Because if we get the first part right (and make good/realistic
judgements)
>-- THEN THE NEXT PART, THE DEADLY PART, *WON'T HAPPEN IN THE FIRST
>PLACE*!!!!!!!!! With good/accurate judgement, we wouldn't put ourselves
in
>harm's way. Whether the instr. was a failure, the equip. was less than
>adequate or wrong for the job, etc. etc.would have made no difference
-- if
>she'd *never* gotten into situations *having* those deadly components
in
>the first place.
>
>It's *unarguably* critical to have the best/proper gear, the best
instr.,
>the best poss. conditioning, etc., etc., etc., for the things we are
going
>to do -- but NONE OF THAT MEANS SHIT IF WE DON'T HAVE A REALISTIC VIEW
OF
>THE RISKS! NONE OF THAT MEANS SHIT IF WE DON'T HAVE OUR HEADS SCREWED
ON
>RIGHT ABOUT WHAT WE ARE REALLY DOING!!!!
>
>These are very complex issues and questions: there are no easy answers,
as
>much as we'd like to find some. That's why I ask questions and look at
what
>shakes out. Safety is *not* a political or an economic issue -- as much
as
>others want to make them so.
>
>We have to be *absolutely correct* in our judgements about what can can
>handle and what the *actual risks* are -- but we constantly see that
divers
>are blinded to *actual risks* and have misleading/inaccurate *perceived
>risks*, Examples:
>
>Tragically, a knowledgeable, experienced diver makes a quick bounce, in
>open water, no more than 90 feet away from his friends (extremely low
>perceived risk) -- and through missing/ignoring the actual risk --
dies.
>
>A diver makes scooter-powered, long-duration, mixed-gas, extreme depth
and
>extreme penetration dives (for the rest of us, a very high perceived
risk)
>and tells us he has *taken the risk out* of this kind of diving (IOW,
has
>made it *no risk*). (And I don't care whether the "taken the risk out"
>quote supposedly came from a deceased diver or the from the one who
waves
>it about -- it's still waved about as if it's true.)
>
>And then another diver tells us she has premium gear, knows the WKPP
>leaders personally, and doesn't dive with strokes -- yet failed to
graduate
>from intro to apprentice cave diver.
>
>Yesterday we get a story of two divers who buy two sets of premium gear
>(they're DIR now, boy) by mail-order -- and just hopping off the boat
is a
>cluster. Maybe they forgot to buy the video that tells them how to do
it,
>right? Seems I can remember someone telling us that the mass-marketing
of
>tech diving has got to stop because it's killing people? This sounds
like a
>pretty good job of marketing expensive gear.
>
>As I said before, safety is not a political or economic issue. It's an
>issue of being in touch with reality: of recognizing that we can be
>deceived about *perceived risks* by marketing/sales jobs,
>propaganda/politics, and ego-trippers as easily as we can be deceived
about
>the "facts" surrounding a fatality -- and that the *actual risk* is
that
>any of us, no matter how experienced, how well trained, how well
equipped,
>how fit, or where we are diving -- are at *all times* within about 60
>seconds of dying when we are underwater.
>
>If *anyone* skews your perception of the perceived risk, then they are
>partly responsible when things get out of hand. If someone says "this
or
>that equipment insures you are a safe diver", or "I make real dives,
yours
>are not", or "this or that instructor insures you will be a risk-free
>diver", or if someone says he "*always* Does It Right", or that he
always
>maintains the *only truly safe* standards, or has "a perfect safety
>record", or has "taken the risk out of any/this kind of diving", isn't
your
>perception being skewed?
>
>I and others have been judged "full of shit" and "dangerous" for
>scrutinizing what we hear on the lists. For having the temerity to say
>"huh?" instead of unthinkingly swallowing everything floated before us
on
>here. i contend that it's crucial to beware of *everyone* who claims to
>have all the answers -- esp. when questioning seems to cause "problems"
for
>them. Agree, disagree, flame, be threatened, whatever. But if you are
told
>to "shut up and don't ask questions" then you'd better be ready to
accept
>the consequences of turning off your brain. You are being told to
*accept*
>rather than think for yourselves. IMO, *that* is the path into harm's
way.
>
>Take care.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Christopher A. Brown
>The Technical Diving Video Library http://www.aulinc.com/video.htm
>ameruwlite@ao*.co*, Fax: 352.669.1256, or Phone: 352.669.5483
>
>Life is short -- this is not a rehearsal.
>
>
>
>--
>Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
>Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to
`techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--
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]