4 ms·
> options that the rescue team are familiar with and trained for. Eh, don't overestimate how common this rescue was. The techniques they used in the end appear
by petertodd 8y ago
> options that the rescue team are familiar with and trained for.
Eh, don't overestimate how common this rescue was. The techniques they used in the end appear to be unprecedented underwater - cave diving is sufficiently dangerous that rescuing people who can't move under their own power is unheard of. So people don't train for that.
Notably, while the the two cave divers who actually found the kids had done successful cave rescues before in dry caves, this appears to be the first time they've ever successfully rescued someone underwater - all their prior experience underwater was body recoveries (one of which following a failed attempt(1) to rescue a cave diver).
Heck, there's a school of thought in cave diving that rejects the usual scuba diving practice of having a buddy in favour of diving solo. It's common for the rescue attempt to simply end up killing the dive buddy as well rather than saving a life: https://cavedivinggroup.org.uk/in-praise-of-solo-cave-diving/ https://cavedivinggroup.org.uk/in-praise-of-solo-cave-diving...
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stanton_(cave_diver)#Caving_and_rescues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stanton_(cave_diver)#C...
- flukus 8y ago> Eh, don't overestimate how common this rescue was The operation was unique, just about every rescue operation is in some way, but the equipment they're using is all the same stuff that's familiar because they've trained with it. Getting a dead body through a cave is fairly similar to a live one and the differences between the two is something they were very cautious about taking into account. Introducing a new piece of equipment they're not familiar with is an additional unknown that compounds the ones they were already facing.