Re: Triple Fatality Spiegel Grove Sat AM

The statistics make sense, but they also remind of my former boss who
reasoned that if you could live to 100, you would almost be immortal
since you see very few obits for anyone over 100 years old.
Unfortunately he died just after his 50th birthday, and I still miss
him and his sense of humor.

On 25 Mar 2007 17:44:47 -0700, "-hh" <recscuba_google@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Kari" <karibelle2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"-hh" <recscuba_goo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

My intent was to merely compare the grouped ("all participants")
averages between the two activities. It would be quite difficult to
try to compare individuals.

that makes sense and it does answer the question I was trying to
ask...

There is some information by which we could start to look at
identifiable subgroups. For example, novices in both activities tend
to have higher accident frequency rates, so the average risk for their
subpool would arguably be higher.

Wouldn't the subpool of "technical d(r)ivers" also have a higher
incident than average?

Maybe, maybe not. The only real assumption we can make about
technical divers is that they're more likely to be incurring a more
difficult dive...ie, higher risk. Typically offsetting that risk is
higher levels of training, skills and experience. However, for one of
the deceased, he was only originally certified in 2000 and had "over
300" (ie, less than 400) lifetime dives, and which by presentation
would have had to have included all of his "rec" experience base. As
such, we don't know if this was his 3rd Tech dive or his 300th,
although the latter is, naturally, preposterously unlikely. And
overall, we don't know how much of the likely higher risk is being
offset by likely higher skills/practices in risk management &
mitigation. Its another "N variables, too few equasions to solve"
sort of problem.


And among the "average divers" I'd be curious how one defines that
person. Is there a number of dives that moves one into the "safer"
category? or a level of training? A particular mindset? etc.

Simplistically, I'd SWAG it as ~3 years experience, under the
rationale that I recall that someone someplace once claimed that the
'average diver' only stays active in the sport for 5 years before
effectively dropping out (so 3 years would be the midpoint), plus when
you look at the DAN fatality statistics, the first and second years
have high numbers which would appear to suggest that they are the
period of highest statistical risk. Oh, and because people appear to
get 'safer' after this trial-by-fire period, either through hands-on
experience or more training, that the initial training being offered
today isn't doing that great of a job at addressing & mitigating the
risks present.


I'm sure that some of us here are more likely to suffer an injury than
others - we can't all be at the top of the curve... I'm just curious
what would contribute to those, among this group of "average"divers.

And part of that 'some of us' is the segment of aging divers who
aren't as fit as we used to be, but we're probably not very willing to
admit that. It appears that a lot of the fatalities amongst the
"average" set are probably more due to general health factors, where
diving becomes a relatively strenuous physical activity, which becomes
an impetus for congestive heart failure, etc.

However, the DAN statistics might tend to not exactly agree, since
they report that the average age has gone up by 6 years within the
past 5 years, which means that our gap vs. the average hasn't been
widening. Of course, that also raises the question as to why the
average age is going up so quickly, as this would generally suggest a
steep decline in younger people taking up diving as a new hobby, given
that there are reports that the market is shrinking (which
functionally forstalls the alternative explnation, namely an explosion
in growth of bluehairs taking up diving).



-hh


.