This is the press release from DCRO.

The Derbyshire Cave Rescue Organisation was called out by the police on Sunday evening to go to the aid of a party of Cavers from Sheffield two of whom were exhausted and suffering from exposure at the foot of an underground waterfall called Garlands Pot in Giants Hole near Castleton.

A rescue team of twenty seven attended and the first members to reach the marooned cavers found one already unconscious. Both cavers were recovered from beneath the waterfall and brought to the surface in a two hour rescue operation in high water conditions. The unconscious caver was taken by ambulance to hospital in Stockport but was pronounced dead after arrival.

Click to expand...

This is a tragic event. Because of the nature of UKCaving.com and to prevent un-necessary speculation, I will add that all I know is that the caver was thought to have somehow become stuck on the pitch in high water.

There will be a inquest in due course, whereby the facts etc will be ascertained. Please refrain from speculation and gossip on UKCaving.com.

My thoughts are with the family and friends of the deceased.

I'm locking this to prevent any further discussion - please don't start any other topics on this matter for the time being.

We have many Derbyshire cavers and DCRO members on this board and i'm sure you can all understand why we don't want any spurious discussion regarding this tragedy until the full facts are made clear.

Now unlocked.

http://derbyshirecro.org.uk/call_outs.html said:

A party of five climbers and cavers from South Yorkshire were on their way out of the cave having completed a round trip when two of them got into difficulties on Garlands Pot where conditions were very wet.
DCRO were called and a team eventually totalling 27 attended. The first party to arrive at Garlands Pot found the two cavers on the pitch with a third member of the party (who had gone back after raising the alarm) at the top.
Two of the party had been trying unsuccessfully to get their unconscious companion to the top of the pitch. With the additional manpower and equipment provided by the first rescuers both cavers found on the pitch were recovered to the top.
Two of the party, although tired and hypothermic, were able to make their own way  out of the cave with assistance.
The third and unconscious member of the party was evacuated by stretcher and handed over to the ambulance service. He was taken to hospital in Stockport where despite attempts to re-warm and revive him he was eventually pronounced dead. Our condolences go to the family and friends of the  deceased.

Click to expand...

With the greatest condolences to the family, if there should be lessons to be learnt by other cavers would someone be prepared to post these or if appropriate kindly PM me is you wish, so that I could pass these on to our few SRTing club members here in the South. 

If it is considered inappropriate (for reasons I could not know), then no worries.

Thank you 

Does anyone know more specifically what the cause was?

ie, was it just that the water levels had risen or were there also any other issues?

I do not know the details and circumstances, and my condolemces to the friends and relatives of the deceased.

My thoughts and opinions are that perhaps a hauling system / self rescue technique malfunctioned. SRT is an area where personal skill and expertise is essential for every individual. This of course assumes the problem was related to the pitch directly and not some other issue.

Brains said:

perhaps a hauling system / self rescue technique malfunctioned

Click to expand...

"Malfunctioned"? I would be highly surprised if tried-and-tested kit failed in a routine scenario; Occam's Razor would rather have it that insufficient training is more likely than malfunctioning equipment, surely. 

What i've heard (and this may not be in any way correct) is the following:

- The casualty became unconcious at some time before or when they reached the base of Garlands.
- The others in the group attempted to haul him using a device along the lines of a Petzl Mini Traxion
- Problems were encountered with the hauling system and they found it hard to lower the casualty who was now caught in the water
- When they eventually lowered the casualty DCRO arrived on the scene, took over the rescue and removed the casualty to the surface

Please don't take this as fact and if anyone knows better then please post up to prevent any innaccuracies.

To clatify my earlier response, by malfunction I meant user error, rigging error and equipment failure... but again I state I do not know the circumstances and no fault should be implied from my opinions.

Ad the Capn says "insufficient training is more likely than malfunctioning equipment"
To reiterate an old training saying, remember the 7P's!
Proper
Planning and
Practice
Prevents
Piss
Poor
Performance

echoing brains again i don't know the details or circumstances and my condolances to the family but it would be usefull to know if the casualtie was unconscious before or after the attempts to haul the person up the pitch where made or if the casualty became unconscious whilst attempting to make there way up the pitch under there own steam. i would venture that in a smiler situation the response should be to sit tight and not attempt the pitch and instead wait for rescue and that trieing to move anyone in that advanced state of hypothermia is perhaps unwise without a stretcher as the exertion is likely to kill the casualtie. it would also perhaps be wise for groups going into caves in high water or "sporting" conditions to take extra precautions against becoming traped by flood so that they don't feel forced into trying to make a bid for the exit as this can often be a cause for things to go seriously wrong as a group hurries for the surface they are more likely to make mistakes than normal perhaps a kit containing a small group shelter (these are infinitely better than survival bags imho though either is better than neither) and some emergency food along with a first aid kit would be sensible as this can all pack into small tacklesack. these are just my thoughts its incredibly easy to solve a problem in hindsight and i don't mean to make it sound like the group involved did anything foolish and never having been in a cave in full flood i cant say what my own reactions would be or if the outcome would be any different. One last thing and this may have had nothing to do with any of the last three deaths but i would say that there seems to be bit of a trend towords groups undertaking trips because they re in sporting conditions this is fine as long as the group is familiar with the system and has the experience to deal with any arising situation but if an experienced group takes a less experienced member with them thinking they'll be alright because the trip wouldn't cause them any difficulties this can lead to serious problems its up to the experienced members of the party to be able to judge the conditions of the cave and wether or not its suitable for ALL members of the party.

Someone with a copy to hand might be able to correct me, but I seem to remember John Frankland commenting in the CRO book that deaths and serious problems with hypothermia had virtually ceased since the introduction of the wet-suit. That garment is far less frequently used these days and I get the impression (again nothing more than that, though an analysis of the stats might not be a bad idea) that hypothermia is becoming a problem, again. For example, I gather that many people do a Swildon's Round Trip these days in fleece & oversuit combinations.

Now, many of us elder types would have given up caving long ago if we had still to put on full neoprene kit for every trip and so I am the last to decry modern caving dress, but it does need to be stressed that  fleece/oversuit combos are not going to keep you warm if they are not keeping you dry.

I would suggest that severe hypothermia is unlikely in any well equipped caver whether they choose to wear a wetsuit or over/under suit combination.  There are exceptional situations, of course, such as prolonged immersion or suspension is water.  There is no information on what the deceased was wearing - it would be interesting to know this.

I can see almost no circumstances in UK caving where it would be necessary to attempt a self-rescue hoist of an unconscious casualty.  Quite apart from the obvious effects of hanging a hypothermic person under a waterfall there are the other considerations of harness suspension syndrome and airway management.

The only sensible course of action, I would suggest, in the circumstances described would be:

Call out cave rescue urgently
Remove casualty from spray and draughts
Insulate from the ground
Use body heat and any spare clothing to reduce heat loss (especially around the head)

Specialist survival equipment like a bivy bag, shelter, or blizzard pack is an obvious potential life saver in this situation.

bubba said:

What i've heard (and this may not be in any way correct) is the following:

- The casualty became unconcious at some time before or when they reached the base of Garlands.
- The others in the group attempted to haul him using a device along the lines of a Petzl Mini Traxion
- Problems were encountered with the hauling system and they found it hard to lower the casualty who was now caught in the water
- When they eventually lowered the casualty DCRO arrived on the scene, took over the rescue and removed the casualty to the surface

Please don't take this as fact and if anyone knows better then please post up to prevent any innaccuracies.

Click to expand...

It would certainly be appreciated if anyone could confirm this or elaborate in areas where lessons could be learnt.   
Thanks all

The facts as they are known presently have already been published on the DCRO Call Outs Page and Press Release.

Other facts to bear in mind:

Nobody has said whether SRT was used or Ladder and Lifeline. Garlands Pot is a relatively small pitch and the only one requiring equipment to complete the Round Trip.

Nobody has said whether wetsuits were worn or not.

There were other parties in the cave on the same day.

The detailed circumstances leading up to the tragedy are only known to those in the group which included the deceased.

As with and such death, there will be an inquest.

And, most importantly: there are survivors of this sad tragedy.

I suggest we refrain from trying to explain what happened until the facts have been determined and made public. At that time we can then learn from the incident, if there are any lesson to be learned.

paul said:

I suggest we refrain from trying to explain what happened until the facts have been determined and made public. At that time we can then learn from the incident, if there are any lesson to be learned.

Click to expand...

So, is this topic to be locked again, then?

P.S. Surely it is a presumption that the facts behind this case, as with others, are to be made public.

So, yet again, we are being asked to censor ourselves. Why can cavers not discuss caving accidents on here?

Are we not to be trusted?

What have we done to deserve this lack of trust?

graham said:

Someone with a copy to hand might be able to correct me, but I seem to remember John Frankland commenting in the CRO book that deaths and serious problems with hypothermia had virtually ceased since the introduction of the wet-suit.

Click to expand...

"...the fact we have not lost a patient from hypothermia since 1969 is a direct result of better clothing, an understanding of the heatloss spiral, and because we now have equipment and techniques to handle the critically cold in remote and hostile settings."

Page 154, Race Against Time, 1988. There's a following paragraph about where and how wetsuits have made all the difference that I don't have time to type out in full right now.

Well remembered!

Facts are facts and as such don't need to be determined. An inquest or other legal proceeding makes an interpretation of those facts for a specific purpose.

Let's look back at the Manchester Hole tragedy. The inquest didn't take place for two years, made only tentative conclusions and one of the main people involved declined to give evidence about some of the key issues anyway. One of the key issues which an inquest focuses on is apportioning blame and that can have the unfortunate side effect of meaning that witnesses decline to give evidence. So relying on an inquest seems to me to be a dodgy business as far as learning lessons is concerned.

Something I would like to ask is what role does the BCA have (or could have) when when fatal accidents occur? In many adventure sports the governing body has a safety committee which makes an independent investigation into all serious accidents which occur. The primary goal is not to apportion blame, but to learn lessons and spread knowledge which can make the sport safer. The BCRC at least produces some kind of incident report and statistics, but there isn't much in-depth analysis.

Mark

paul said:

I suggest we refrain from trying to explain what happened until the facts have been determined and made public. At that time we can then learn from the incident, if there are any lesson to be learned.

Click to expand...

Thanks Paul.

I guess this illustrates why we lock these topics in the first place!

I'm not going to re-lock this topic now but in the meantime treat my statements above as pure speculation. I have heard that is what happened but i'm not sure whether the source was 100% accurate, as i was at pains to point out. Perhaps I should have just not posted anything; i'll probably regret it later <sigh>.

In the meantime let's keep discussion on this topic positive and sensible and bear in mind Paul's post above.

All the facts will come out in the inquest - until then we are all just specuating.

After seeing how this has panned out, i'm leaning towards a forum policy of locking discussion of fatal accidents until the inquest has been carried out, as even i don't seem to be able to refrain from posting what is quite possibly an incorrect account of events 

bubba said:

All the facts will come out in the inquest - until then we are all just speculating.

Click to expand...

So relying on an inquest seems to me to be a dodgy business as far as learning lessons is concerned.

Click to expand...

:idea: