Posted by Ken Kurtis on June 01, 2004 at 17:03:06:
In Reply to: Re: Drifting Dan . . one more time posted by Puzzled on June 01, 2004 at 15:13:52:
Puzzled wrote: "I guess I take issue with trying to cloud the main issue, which is that Dan was left behind."
Not trying to cloud the issue at all. But, as I thought I had clearly stated in the article, there were TWO issues here.
The issue that got picked up in the press was the issue of abandonment. No question, as I stated clearly in the article, that that shouldn't have happened.
However . . .
What gets glossed over is the SECOND issue of diver error that caused Dan to be lost in the first place. My intent in writing this is not to place blame but to step back and look at the overall incident and say here-are-some-lessons-we-can-learn. From that standpoint, you MUST look at the divers errors too.
One thing that seems to get lost in the haze of discussion is that even if the roll call had been done properly at the rigs, Dan STILL would have been lost. It's pure speculation as to whether he'd have been found quickly on whether it still would have taken the Boy Scouts to pluck him out.
But the bottom line in this is that the roll call didn't cause Dan to drift away from the boat. Dan caused Dan to drfit away from the boat. And Dan didn't screw up the roll call. The DMs did that and ended up being the catylist in Dan's abandonment.
Two seperate issues. Two seperate screw-ups. Two seperate sets of lessons. (IMHO)
NAUI Instr. #5936
Co-owner, Reef Seekers Dive Co.
Beverly Hills, CA
Post a Followup