Want rapid accident analysis and want the IUCRR to determine a mechanism

[bent]

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

I have no idea what your point is. Most likely the effing cameras play a major part. It took them forever to drop the stages probably because they were filming. It's not far fetched at all that they keep filming after they dropped the stages. It takes attention away and that gives anyone ample oppertity to screw up. Calling it story, scenario, theory or whatever is semantics.
You have a better explanation or any evidence whatsoever that the cameras were no factor? No, probably not.

In Mexico is easy to miss a jump or get lost in places.

Yeah, especially when you're distracted. Did they survey? Did they use brand new rebreather? Or is there anything else that could have taken some of their attention away?

Fact is: They had cameras, they dropped stages early, they swam a weirld way trying to get out.
Missing return pressure and/or passing jumps because they were distracted by camera makes perfect sense considering what we know. I have no idea why this is not obvious to you.

What evidence is there that they had another 'emergency or got stuck'? Based on what? What you're doing is pure speculation.

I think it's actually dangerous what you're doing. You're doing is downplaying the danger of being busy with other stuff while in an underwater cave!

[cmalinowski]

I have no idea what your point is.

You keep saying that, but my point is simple. Folks preach possible solutions as gospel truth. They/You take Occam's Razor to a wrong level. Since not everything is known, there is no way to know.

Most likely the effing cameras play a major part. It took them forever to drop the stages probably because they were filming.

Nice leap. I see what you did there. You are trying to make fact out of of speculation. You have no idea because you weren't there, but you inserted a reason (they were delayed dropping stages because they were filming) that you wanted to fit your story. You are so worried about "knowing for sure what happened" that you make stuff up so that you feel you "know what happened," even though there is zero chance that you will ever actually know what happened. It's that simple. Stories are great. And stories are a great learning tool. But they are just stories. Many stories are built on facts, like your story. The fact is they took ages to drop their stages. The fact is they were filming during the dive. You started to make the rest up. Your story should be considered and discussed and lamented upon as a possible situation that can happen in a cave, but not actually be used as the basis for any fact of what happened to these two.

It's not far fetched at all that they keep filming after they dropped the stages. It takes attention away and that gives anyone ample oppertity to screw up. Calling it story, scenario, theory or whatever is semantics.

I never said it was far fetched. But it's still... fetched. Stories/scenarios/theories/whatevers are not facts. And without all the facts, something we cannot get here, Stories/scenarios/theories/whatevers should be called into question when treated as the only scenario.

You have a better explanation or any evidence whatsoever that the cameras were no factor? No, probably not.

Maybe I'll take some time, go back to the report, pull out some stuff and make up a story of my own. Since it would be based on items from the report, it has to be true according to you.

Fact is: They had cameras, they dropped stages early, they swam a weirld way trying to get out.
Missing return pressure and/or passing jumps because they were distracted by camera makes perfect sense considering what we know. I have no idea why this is not obvious to you.

It very well could be what happened. I just don't think that it should be fact, like you are stating.

What you're doing is pure speculation.

Agreed... and that makes two of us, but at least I know the definition of "fact."

I think it's actually dangerous what you're doing.

And I think what you are doing is dangerous. You are not opening up to the possibility that other factors may have played a role, or that other things on the dive should be discussed. You found a possible cause, maybe even the most likely one, and made it the sole discussion point of what happened to cause their death. That's the dangerous part. You are stating something as truth that cannot be proven as such, and marking it as the thing that needs to be fixed, not thinking that maybe some other stuff contributed. Was this cave new to them? That adds task loading too, especially in MX as we've agreed MX requires slightly higher level of "navigational awareness." To me, that could be as much as a contributing factor as the camera. You might argue that the camera caused the nav issues, but it could just as easily have happened because some MX caves can have challenging navigation areas. To me, it would seem just as reasonable to say "back off of thirds a bit in a new-to-you cave and be hyper-aware of your gas" as a lesson learned here as it would to say "remember that cameras task load you and can lead to dangerous scenarios." Because they are both reasonable items that could be a contributing factor to this tragedy, but your reluctance to discuss anything other than the camera is downplaying other dangers associated with this dive. Why would you want to do that? Why would you want to focus on only one thing that could have contributed instead of opening up other areas for discussion that could save someone's life in the future? I don't get it. I think a healthy discussion could be had on whether to clean up jumps if you are passed thirds. But we'll focus on cameras being evil and forget discussion on other aspects of the dive because you seem to just want to find one single thread and call it a day. You seem to want closure to a story instead of openings for discussions that could help divers in the future. To me, that's dangerous.

I think that if just facts--all that we can get (computer/timer logs, video, all equipment from head to toe, etc.), not assumptions and speculation, were put out, that many possible scenarios might be put forth and discussed and used for learning purposes. Not all of them would be what happened, but they all could be what happened. And that's worthy of discussion and learning. I know that will never happen, and I applaud the amazing work of the people who put together these detailed reports. They help an immense amount, but by the reporters' own admission in the report, there's healthy speculation and assumptions. And that leaves room for discussions all around.

You're doing is downplaying the danger of being busy with other stuff while in an underwater cave!

It is not my intention to downplay the danger of being busy and the affect it has on a dive. If that is what you are taking from this, then then so be it, but I think you are just trying to argue for argument's sake at this point. You are hyperfocused on one thing, something that was not even heavily mentioned in the report, and making it the reason for the deaths. Task loading of any sort, including just a new-to-me cave and trying to landmark everything, is extremely important to recognize and take into account on a dive. I think every possible scenario and thing should be discussed because it's important to learn since we'll never truly know what happened.

We're not going to agree, and you've taken up more of my time than I should have let you. Good luck. Dive safely. Learn where you can. Share your knowledge.

Take care,
Chris

[oceancurrent]

Ah, semantics, semantics... Both of you are right in your own right. There is a list of likely issues that can reasonably be assumed to have played a role given the facts. Beyond that, the only two people who could tell what happened are with St. Peter.

My personal experience with taking video in a cave concurs with the assessment that it is a distracting activity that is seriously detrimental to navigation. I have a reasonable amount of experience in amateur underwater photography and video. Producing good results requires a lot of concentration (camera control, lighting, framing, model orchestration, etc). For that reason, I don't like taking my camera in caves. The one time I took the camera into Ginnie with a couple models to shoot some brief video segments, I found myself on a very different kind of cave dive than I had experienced before. We had a fairly detailed plan and deliberately kept the dive simple (shoot at the Park Bench, the Keyhole, and the Lips). I found the directing and filming activity to require so much of my concentration that I lost 90% of my navigational awareness in the tunnel vision. Every time I finished a shot and looked around, it took me a few moments to get my bearings on the surroundings, even though I knew the place like the back of my hand. It was a total WOW moment! It was a good thing that we stuck to places where you just can't get lost and had a group member responsible for navigation. I just can't imagine doing this in a cave that I am not intimately familiar with and not screwing up the navigation.

I imagine that shooting semi-pasive video (let a GoPro roll and just point it at interesting sights together with your primary light as you pass them) would not be as detremental on navigational awareness in a group, but still sufficiently so to require accounting for it in the dive plan.

[bent]

You are not opening up to the possibility that other factors may have played a role, or that other things on the dive should be discussed.

Nooo, I'm open to possibilities that are supported by any circumstantial evidence. You haven't given any alternative possibilities.
We don't know, we don't know, we don't know... that's all you've been saying. The street and my car was wet in the morning... was it a watertank truck that exploded in the neighbourhood or was is one of those fire fighter planes dumping water? Or maybe rain? Well, I guess we don't know as I can't prove either from my doorstep. You're using the same type of argument all these conspiracy wackos use. The the Queen of England is an alien lizard that gave you covid... I guess we don't know, you can't prove it to be wrong, have you even met her?
Sometimes common sense goes a long way.

And I think what you are doing is dangerous.

Yeah, right. Saying cameras and being distracted is dangerous, is dangerous.

To me, it would seem just as reasonable to say "back off of thirds a bit in a new-to-you cave and be hyper-aware of your gas" as a lesson learned here as it would to say "remember that cameras task load you and can lead to dangerous scenarios."

You really dont get it. You are NOT hyper-aware of your gas or anything else when you're playing with your camera. People have limited bandwith. That's the whole point!

I think every possible scenario and thing should be discussed because it's important to learn since we'll never truly know what happened.

No, reasonable scenarions should be discussed. You wrote very long posts and have failed to mention any reasonable scenario.

... and you've taken up more of my time than I should have let you.

I've taken none of your time, buddy. You wrote long rambling posts without making any point.

[bent]

I found the directing and filming activity to require so much of my concentration that I lost 90% of my navigational awareness in the tunnel vision. Every time I finished a shot and looked around, it took me a few moments to get my bearings on the surroundings, even though I knew the place like the back of my hand. It was a total WOW moment!

Yeah, and that's what chris doesn't seem to understand. Being distracted causes alot of issues you wouldn't otherwise have.
If all you have to do is check you gas and pay attention to the line, you're much less likely to miss a jump or when you hit return pressure. IMHO it's really counterproductive to muddy the water by discussion stuff that happens after #### has been chucked into the fan.

[Dominick Gheesling]

I use this video when I teach certain courses:


Four or five years ago two of my former students tried to kill themselves in Little River. One of them was a professional photographer and taught photography. He was a few months out of full cave and excited about the sport, he wanted to share the beautiful things he was seeing with the world. The other one was also a few months out of full cave and enthusiastic, he wanted to help (and be a model in the process). They decided to take photos in the cave from the Florida Room out and missed the big white pointy thing where the Serpentine and Merry-Go-Round meet up. The continued past it and merrily swam all the way back to the Florida room (while passing several contradictory line arrows in the process). It could have easily been a bad day, but thankfully it ended well.

INFAMY!!! I was there! And there was a 3rd diver!
Personally, I made extensive efforts to analyze and correct every aspect of the dive that led to our mistake now known as "Dom's Dilemma". The short version is that we missed the GIANT ARROW and just kept swimming around the circle until someone noticed the arrows pointing the "wrong" way.

Again, the short version...

(on exit swim)
As the camera person (rear diver), yes... I was completely distracted with making photographs and was not keeping track of navigation.

The model (middle diver), upon debrief stated they were exerting most their attention to "looking cool for the camera" instead of navigation.

The lead diver, not certain what happened with their navigation.

1. The camera absolutely, directly influenced this botched dive.

2. All divers on any team are responsible for navigation.

3. When task loading will be heavy, a designated safety/navigation diver can be the difference between a crappy dive and someone dying.

4. Slow, Progressive Penetration. Learn the cave not just the line markers.

[kensuf]

I miss you and your enthusiasm man. Hope all is well!

[cmalinowski]

Yeah, and that's what chris doesn't seem to understand....

I understand it just fine, and I have said as much. You can stop the personal attacks now. I responded in kind, so I guess I'm just as guilty, but I'm done. Maybe it's the vehicle through which we are discussing it, or maybe my verbose nature caused my points to get washed out. Either way, it's not being productive for discussion on this subject.

IMHO it's really counterproductive to muddy the water by discussion stuff that happens after #### has been chucked into the fan.

I'm not being argumentative when I say I don't understand what you mean here.

[lord1234]

Snip

I think if a statement of facts were released in a timely manner, that would tamp down the speculation and whispering in the community. Not opinion, just facts. There were two fatalities in the past few weeks, one involved a lot of speculation and noise due to the lack of facts surrounding the event, the other didn't because facts were released quickly.

Ken, this right here is the crux of the issue. I had an incident in little river a while back, where a dive went bad. I saw the CDF rabbit hole start forming and chose to rapidly plug it with the facts of what happened. In the end? I got a few messages of people saying they were glad I(and my buddy) was ok. How much less BS could happen on this(and other diving forums) if those that performed a body recovery gave as factual an analysis as possible. No speculating of "the diver made a mistake" but a "just the facts ma'am" kind of approach.

[bent]

No speculating of "the diver made a mistake" but a "just the facts ma'am" kind of approach.

But if you just know how the diver was found, it doesn't really give people a learning oppertunity. There is gotta be some speculation about what could have happened.
We know how the two ccr divers were found in EN a few years ago but I have no clue what to make of it. IMHO there is a diffenece between wild speculation and comming up with likely scenarios based upon the available evidence by people who are familiar with the kind of dives. I think the latter is needed in order to get any lessons out of an accident.