An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc

[The Chairman]

ummm, yes. I posted the 7 mill farmer john thing a while back and was promptly corrected that it was a 5 mil one piece suit.

Some went as far as listing several incorrect things as "FACT"...

I have no idea which one is factually correct. The plaintiff's lawyers are saying one thing the other side contends it's different. I don't have the suit in front of me, so I have no idea which one is right. The last time (and only time) I wore a 7 mil was in the ocean and with an aluminum tank. I required 22 pounds to sink my fat arse.

What's far more important to me is the timeline. In the letter we are led to believe that PADI tossed the instructor after the proceedings started. In fact, he was expelled within a couple of weeks of the incident report, which was about a year before any litigation, so it was not a reaction to the law suit, but to the breaking of standards. Also, we are led to believe that PADI has assisted and is continuing to assist the counsel for the deceased. The only document that has been presented to demonstrate such monstrous behavior is one that was "clawed back" and so can not be used by the deceased's counsel. There has been no other evidence presented to us that demonstrates any "bizarre behavior" (Carney's words) and the one document that has been give to us was rendered inadmissible by PADI's counsel, so it's a moot point. As far as I can tell, Carney's letter does not address the over weighting issue just as it does not address any other safety issues or standards. It only deals with the court case and not the accident that precipitated it.

To end, I could care less what Carney intended,or for the weak in many areas PADI rebuttals, as instructors we have a obligation to our students, that means when our understandings of issues that affect our students change, we need to change.

As an SDI/TDI instructor I care. We have many, many threads that deal with the other issues of this tragedy. In fact, if Carney's letter had addressed any of them, then I would not have felt obliged to start this thread. It didn't. Your signature quote says it all...

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -George Orwell

 

[boulderjohn]

I am not clear on the significance of the difference between a 5mm farmer john and a 7m farmer john. As I posted a while ago, according to all the weighting guidelines I could find, the suggested amount of weight for a 7mm farmer john for a diver of that size under those conditions ranged from about 11 pounds to 15 pounds. So if those of you who are insisting that he was wearing a 7mm suit turn out to be correct, then the student was only overweighted by 15-19 pounds. Congratulations! I am sure you feel vindicated.

If it turns out he was only wearing a 5mm suit....

 

[Zippsy]

Cerich, you are starting to sound like awap in disguise. There are too many things I find wrong with your posts so I'll bow out now and move on. I always said that I should never have more posts than dives and with my number of posts on this topic, I'm getting dangerously close to blowing that. I guess I've found out what I needed and am able to find out and said what I needed to say. Lord knows I can't change your open mind, nor should I have tried. Peace.

 

[redacted]

I am not clear on the significance of the difference between a 5mm farmer john and a 7m farmer john. As I posted a while ago, according to all the weighting guidelines I could find, the suggested amount of weight for a 7mm farmer john for a diver of that size under those conditions ranged from about 11 pounds to 15 pounds. So if those of you who are insisting that he was wearing a 7mm suit turn out to be correct, then the student was only overweighted by 15-19 pounds. Congratulations! I am sure you feel vindicated.

If it turns out he was only wearing a 5mm suit....

OK, I have tried to look at this from another angle. I have a 5mm full suit and it required 14 lb to make it neutral. I'm 71" tall and 220 lb. Estimating the child to be 62" and 150 lb and using this surface area calculator (Body surface area calculator - BSA) would give the child about 20% less surface area so a 5mm jumpsuit on him would need about 11 lb. I estimate a 2-piece FJ adds about 50% more neoprene so that would be 15lb and adjusting from 5mm to 7mm should add another 40% which would put the childs 7mm FJ at 21 lb. But those are all for neoprene buoyancy at sea level (1 ATM) and Bear Lake is at about .8 ATM) Unrestricted gas expansion would therefore add another 25% or you could go with something somewhat less if you assume the expansion is restricted. That would put the 7mm FJ in the 25 to 28 lb range (and a 5mm FJ around 18 lb).

When I am properly weighted, I have to add 3 to 5lb to kneel solidly on the bottom. (Well, at stingray city it took an extra 2 lb that I expected and had to add a rock to be able to kneel and play with the rays.) The way I see it, is if it was a 5mm, the child was fairly heavy and if it was a 7mm FJ then it probably was right about what he needed.

Somebody want to check my math and my reasoning? Zippsy - maybe you could do that.

EDIT: Good to sleep on things like this. The addition of weight to facilitate kneeling on the bottom is unnecessary due to wetsuit compression. My experience was in tropical water without neoprene. So 23 to 25 should be about right for the 7mm FJ.

Always great to see demed's valuable contributions.

 

[demed]

The way I see it, is if it was a 5mm, the child was fairly heavy and if it was a 7mm FJ then it probably was right about what he needed.

too much posting on the internet and too little diving - this is the result.

 

[scubadada]

So many weight calculations...the kid simply had too much weight, how much, is a point of contention. Though there are good guidelines for weighting, it comes down specifically to you and your equipment.

I'm 5'10" and weigh 185 pounds. With a full 7mm, hooded vest, thick gloves and booties, in the ocean, with an steel tank, I use 15 pounds and am just a touch on the heavy side. In fresh water, 30 pounds would easily be twice, probably closer to three times, the weight I would need.

The kid was overweighted

 

[The Chairman]

The kid was overweighted

More importantly, the kid was never weighted properly and was never given the rudimentary skills that are a part of a safe DSD program. Don't get distracted by all the red herrings from the elephant sitting in the middle of the room. After all, I have seen many, many over weighted students here in the Keys that were still safe. Let's face it, for most of us, if you can kneel easily in the sand: you've got too much weight. There are a couple of instances where that might be attractive, but normally it's not. The over weighting is simply a part of the overall pattern/problem. Either way, it was never addressed by the letter. I can't say for any other case, but in this one, it's my perception that PADI got it right. How can anyone, in good conscience and who has a modicum of understanding, slam PADI for removing this guy as an instructor? They did the right thing... at least here.

 

[Wookie]

How can anyone, in good conscience and who has a modicum of understanding, slam PADI for removing this guy as an instructor? They did the right thing... at least here.

I don't think a single person (knowing what we do now) will fault PADI for expelling this instructor. I commend and applaud PADI for expelling this instructor. I wish PADI had looked at this instructor long beforehand and expelled him years before. May we now move on to the real issues?

 

[danvolker]

Maybe the point is, we should discuss the hypothetical that illustrates the issue:


So, for some "OTHER KID"...SOME OTHER HYPOTHETICAL CASE----
Do you Believe that ---- If an Instructor that has overweighted a child by 30 pounds, to the point that the kid can not swim to the surface with inflated BC, and then leaves this child for any reason....that this instructor has demonstrated such bad judgement that they should :

1. Be prosecuted for Criminal Negligence ( even if the kids survives)
2. Have their Instructor certification revoked for judgement so bad as to be considered a permanent mental defect
3. Be suspended as an instructor, still be supported by the Agency, treated as any other profit center
4. Given a warning that this behaviour will result in a suspension or termination of instruction credentials should such behavior ever be reported again
5. That agency will not actually do anything about this, as they are not a police entity, and the only real sanction would be from a lawsuit should their be a wrongful death claim.

Personally I would go with #2, but I would not fight against #1 being applied. My biggest concern is that the Industry would support #4 or #5, and this is an even bigger problem.

 

[The Chairman]

I don't think a single person (knowing what we do now) will fault PADI for expelling this instructor. I commend and applaud PADI for expelling this instructor. I wish PADI had looked at this instructor long beforehand and expelled him years before. May we now move on to the real issues?

I've reread the letter several times now, and that seems to be the central message. Is this 'real issue' you refer to, even in the Carney letter? If so, could you point out where it is? If not, why do you think that the letter was about something it never even mentioned? I'm not trying to belabor the issue, but it gets tiresome when a few keep claiming that simply bashing PADI is not what the letter is about and then go off on subjects never referred to in the letter. FWIW, the letter is the original topic of this thread.