Originally Posted by
cmalinowski
I think it's okay to say that the camera could have caused them to be task loaded and make mistakes. It's when it starts to become mixed in with definite cause, something we will never know, that I consider it an issue and I want to push back. When that happens, people want to put rules around restricting things. That's my point. Examining possible causes and identifying situation where something like this could have happened is healthy. Specifying with certainty that such and such (the use of camera in this case) was the cause is not. Even without a more likely story. And I'm glad you used that term, story, because that's all it would be: Made-up scenario that could have been the cause.
I am not saying that speculation on possible scenarios is bad. It's necessary in my opinion. Just not as actually defining what happened when what actually happened is not actually known. There were probably myriad other pieces of gear these two had that could have somehow played a part, but because they weren't in the report, it's not focused on. In my opinion, as mentioned above and previously, putting out the facts, and only the facts, is good and healthy for learning and speculation, even if the speculation is not actually the cause of the accident. So, do I think it's a good opportunity to evaluate working dives, like video use, because it could have been a contributor to this accident? Yes. Do I think saying that it was, in fate, a contributor to this accident is correct? Absolutely not, because we just don't know. But we're in agreement that most dive accident analysis will have uncertainty. But, I think there is a lot unless there is an actual witness, and even that would have some uncertainty. My only concern is when we try to fix that uncertainty with speculation to fill in the blanks and then treat it like certainty. Once again, treating it like an educational opportunity of "one possible scenario is x, and here is what we can learn from that scenario" versus "one possible scenario is x, and without further stories coming forward, we'll just start making that the cause." That also stifles additional learning opportunities because people start to focus on that.
I think it's a bit odd that the report assumes that all navigational decisions and protocols were followed because some were still in place. For all we know, they were not all followed. In Mexico is easy to miss a jump or get lost in places. White line on limestone with right-angle line continuation and a jump ahead of you (where the line you are following turns, but there is a jump five feet ahead to another line) is an easy thing to miss... says someone who watched someone miss one. But we don't know that all of those jumps/navigational items were actually in place. We take it for truth because someone speculated on it in a report. They may have good reason to believe it, but it may not be known. Maybe the video showed all of the jumps in place, but I don't remember that in the report. If I was decently passed thirds, for whatever reason (emergency? Stuck? etc.), I wouldn't spend the time to necessarily pick up all of my jumps. I'd be high-tailing it out of that cave to my get to my stage ASAP. And if that mindset is also assumed for these divers, then maybe all of the nav aids weren't in place. But, even if they were in this case (we don't know that with certainty if I recall), we can speculate that they weren't and learn from it.
I do appreciate the discussion, and contrary to how my messages may come across, I don't really want to argue, and I think we all have the same desire: To learn things from these tragedies.
Chris
