Incidents are not always accidents. Accidents are always incidents...Kenny - Assistant Instructor/ScientistOctober 4, 2006 at 09:25:13Thanks, Curtis, for your "correction". As you can see from the dictionary definitions posted elsewhere "incident" is the correct term and, most importantly, in modern usage, it's more inclusive than "accidents". To term the report "Accident Reports" would be to leave out the example of the recent diver who pretended to be missing for three days. Incident, yes; accident, no.
It would also miss out any incidents where heart attacks or other natural causes were factors. It would also miss out any incidents where a diver deliberately killed his wife/partner (as recently and substantially reported on CDNN). It would miss out an incident where a diver panicked and struck out for the surface. It would miss out any incidents where divers were attacked by marine life.
So, if you want BSAC to produce an "Accident Report" should it remove any such incidents? They wouldn't be accidents under your perception of the word. Or if you do deem them as accidents, then in what way does your definition of "incident" and "accident" differ?
The important fact is that incidents can be precursors to accidents. Incidents can sometimes be accidents. Accidents are always incidents. Therefore the term "incident" is more inclusive than accident. To answer your question for 10 year olds: 1. Three divers were rescued after a scuba diving ( ___________ ). a) incident b) occurrence c) episode d) accident
The most correct answer is a) incident.
We don't know why they were rescued. Did one have a heart attack? Did their boat run out of fuel? Did a fourth, evil, diver deliberately fire them into shark-infested custard from a cannon? We just don't know, so we can't say it was an accident. I hope to read about it in an Incident Report. Please, fill one in. If it turns out to be accidental we can file it in the sub-category "accidents" within the umbrella category of "incidents".
On another point, I'm glad you wrote about the BSAC's reporting of the Bangor, Maine incident. At least that disproves the earlier points about BSAC only reporting UK incidents. Further to your quote "Those of us who dive (with the notable exception of Kenny and BSAC) understand that scuba diving always subjects divers to risk of injury or death" I can assure you that when I dive I have the utmost respect for the safety of my buddies and students. That's why I
use data from the Incident Reports, and CDNN as well as thorough Dive Plans and Risk Assessments. The technically correct definition of "accident" is almost identical to "incident" in that both describe a chance event or happening but common usage and understanding of each means that most people will define an accident in much stricter terms, as you did. I have no problem with the modern take on the word. I agree with your usage; for example the SUV
accident (It's also an incident, by the way, but I prefer accident in this instance - I could of course suggest that the occupants of the SUV were members of Jackass, and deliberately drove into a wall, making the incident in no way accidental. But I won't. I've played with you enough). I would ask you to expand your critisism of BSAC and its "long and steady decline into provincialism and irrelevance" but, to be frank, your posts are neither informative nor
enlightening. You make a soundbite claim without pursuing your arguement. I'll parry both your claims, in the meantime, with examples: By provincialism I'm assuming you mean being solely concerned with one's own region, in which case you've answered your own point by quoting the incident report from USA. As BSAC, from it's very name, started in Britain and has expanded internationally I don't get your point. The irrelevence issue: BSAC teaches with
constantly updated methods and continues to thrive. A specific example would be the recent moves to update casualty rescue in line with the most recent guidelines from international rescue and emergency organisations. Not all diving organisations are doing this yet, some are waiting until all the present rescue manuals are sold. So, relevant, forward-looking, up-to-date. Yip. Also, I loved that you pointed to the media's unerringly correct wording. Next time I read a media
report about a diver with an oxygen tank strapped to his back I might even think of you as I chuckle. Just to reiterate though, every incident in BSAC's report is indeed an incident. It's not, as you stated, a distortion to say that. Neither does it downplay any risks. I'd suggest that to use the word "accident" would be to sensationalise. As I said before, the report is available for use by anyone who wants to be aware of these risks and make their diving safer.
If the report didn't exist I could see your point that someone was trying to hide the facts that incidents occur in the sport of diving. As far as I know, BSAC are the only organisation to publish these reports (but if you can point me to others I'd love to have a look - it can only help to make diving safer) so it's very odd that you attack them for hiding things! I'll finish off by quoting, as you did, from the BSAC Incident Report. "A diver
completed a 40 min dive to a depth of 28m with a 10 min stop at 6m. Later that day, while travelling home, he developed a pain in his shoulder. He sought medical advice and attended a recompression facility. He was kept in overnight and received recompression treatment the following day which resolved his symptoms." So, Curtis, was it a) an accident, b) an incident, c) neither, d) both? | 
