I recent read a thread on UKC. I was very bored and drunk in a bar in Santiago, and sadly there were no stewardess to look at. Anyway the threads starter stated a firm belief that WE shouldn’t speculate over the causes of accidents, and the well quoted argument that it helps use avoid future accidents just isn’t a valid excuse.
I have to disagree with this stance on several levels. First on a professional level, it is now common practice that through a forum like the Heads of Outdoor Centres, AMI, BAMG or other networks that near misses and accidents are reported and share, precisely for the common good and to help avoid further similar accidents.
“It is the risks you don’t know your taking that are likely to kill you” old instructor proverb!
Even near misses are discussed at length at virtually any outdoor centre where I have worked. Where an open and frank discussion explores possible ways to avoid the incident in future. I really think that many people would be surprised at what some people see as near misses in a teaching rock climbing setting, the important thing is, is that the instructors are staying current and learning about mistakes that have happened to other and taking those lessons and applying them to there own work.
The classic analogy is an iceberg. 9/10th of it are hidden under water, these are all the near misses and close calls. For every one fatality, there is a presumption that there will be 10 very close calls and up to 100 or more near misses. If we only look at the 1 fatality then we totally miss the opportunity to learn from those 100 or more other incidents, one of which may have prevented that one fatality.
To me it is a no brainer, if I apply that to my work life, why shouldn’t I apply to my personal climbing. Over the past 15 or more years I have climbed I have heard of and speculated over many incidents and accidents, some minor, some major and some with fatal consequences. I have done this in the pub or at the wall with friends, I tried to work out what could have happened rather than what did happen, as there are often more than one possible cause.
My point is that I have done this way before I ever joined a rescue team, so why should I change now. What has changed since the first time I saw or heard of an accident is the way in which that information is conveyed. Now we have blogs and internet forums. Quick media with a rapid turn around. I can see why it leaves a bad taste in many peoples mouths as sometimes the next day or even that night news can propagate across the world wide web.
What do you think? Should we dissect an incident and find the anatomy of an accident?