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

[The Chairman]

Yes. Your thread is all about Brian unfairly bashing PADI. I'll even concede that Brian should not have bashed PADI in the way he did, but it sure brought the real issue to the table, which *may* have been his intention all along.

I agree with your concession but disagree with your contention. There were already a few discussions here on ScubaBoard about this very case before Carney's letter, so the issue was already on the table. These issues have been on the SB table for years, yet we haven't seen any agency come in to discuss them with us. No, not even Carney. Yes, he's been invited. I have yet to hear, outside of the SB environment, anyone suggesting that Carney's letter has anything to do with generating a discussion about standards. It's all been, "Can you believe that PADI threw that instructor under the bus???" That was at DEMA, that's been on dive boats, that's been hanging with other shops doing DSDs for disabled people in a pool and that's been the case in over a hundred discussions with dive pros about the letter. If it generated any discussions about standards or safety it was by sheer accident and not design. If that was his intent, then he needs a class or three on persuasive writing. We don't need to re-invent history here. This ain't Russia where the Czar is always right. Sometimes, the czar needs to be told he has no clothes.

Pete, I challenge you to speak to Carney. I'm betting you haven't since this letter and thread was started. I'm betting he will speak to you. I challenge you to speak to Concannon. He may speak to you. His loss if he doesn't. I also challenge you to speak to Peter Mayer. What he has to say will open your eyes to a lot of things that you don't know. As far as I can tell, the only person you have spoken to that is intimate with this case is Hornsby. I suspect he's biased.

In all of this, I have been contacted both by PADI (including Hornsby) and Concannon. I have asked YOU for Mayer's phone number and you were going to ask him if you could give it to me. Fortunately, I followed the first rule of diving and didn't hold my breath! You are always free to give mine to him or anyone else who asks. Carney knows my phone number. He's certainly called a number of my friends talking about me behind my back. If he has something to say to me, I'm sure he's capable of pushing those ten little digits. Again, I won't hold my breath. My cell is (407) 509-0947, the office phone is (904) 406-Pete (7383) and the home phone is (305) 735-3281. Of course, anyone can always find me here along with a quarter million of my closest friends. I'm just not that hard to reach.

 

[Omisson]

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.

The autopsy report said the child was 4'11" and 123 pounds.

---------- Post added January 5th, 2015 at 02:32 PM ----------

Yes. Your thread is all about Brian unfairly bashing PADI. I'll even concede that Brian should not have bashed PADI in the way he did, but it sure brought the real issue to the table, which *may* have been his intention all along. I have spoken to Brian numerous times before, during, after DEMA and even recently. Have you spoken to him since you wrote your missive? Have you investigated the underlying causes? BoulderJohn brought it up yesterday. He hit the nail exactly. His question (and I'm paraphrasing because I'm lazy) is "what should PADI have done?" and he hits the subject exactly.

Have you spoken to Peter Mayer lately? I have done that, too, but I also spoke to him as this was happening. I spoke to him at least every couple of months. Peter made a bold statement. His statement was that he wasn't going to settle frivolous lawsuits anymore, because it encourages more frivolous lawsuits. I applauded that stand, I applauded it then, and I applaud it today. Now, perhaps this particular lawsuit isn't frivolous. I'm not a lawyer, and I slept on a boat last night. But maybe it is. We've heard lots to blame the instructor for, and rightly so. We've heard lots to blame the parents for, and rightly so. We've heard lots to blame the pediatrician and his PA for, and rightly so. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I feel that a skilled attorney could make a case that the parents and the physician (and his staff) were major at fault. Yes, the physician was dismissed because of jurisdictional reasons, but maybe that would work in a skilled attorneys favor, shovel blame on someone with no liability to protect his client.

But PADI wouldn't play that game. I'm sure they had their reasons. As Hornsby said in one letter, the attorney (Concannon) was setting up to attack the standards PADI was using. Then I read the letter that Hornsby wrote to the court outlined earlier in this thread. What I read was: "We follow all RSTC and ISO standards. Everyone else does too." I don't find that an affirmative defense. It would be the same as "I follow the standards set by my scuba shop. All of the other instructors in this shop do too". That's great if the shop's standards are high, but what if the shops standards suck? So it boils down to (in my boat captain's mind) the RSTC and ISO standards suck, but we're going to follow them, because everyone else does.

Now, Peter Meyer didn't have a seat at the RSTC table, but I'd bet that Willis insured 1/3 of the world's instructors. And Willis couldn't effect the RSTC, except through Brian Carney. But Willis (in the form of Peter Meyer) said "I think the DSD ratios suck, and we're not going to allow 1/3 of the instructors in the world to follow them any more."

BOOM!! That's bold. Even Hornsby says that conducting DSD is more dangerous (folks are more likely to be hurt participating) than other scuba programs. /BOOM!!

So now, PADI and their lawyers and underwriters aren't welcome at the table. That's got to throw them in a tizzy. Concannon (being paid by Willis) is going after the ratios. For some reason PADI is hanging on to those ratios with both hands and a foot, and refuse to drop them to 2:1. I'm sure they have their reasons that make sense to them. But you know, I remember a letter from Richardson stating that PADI would never ever ever (with a little foot stamp) support solo diving. If you don't remember it, I'll dig it out. I'll even wave it in your face, along with my self reliant diver card.

So, to answer BoulderJohn's question, When PADI expelled their instructor, then wouldn't stand with Willis to defend the instructor they had just kicked out, when they had (what Willis felt) was a winnable case, you are correct, they had to come in on the side of the plaintiffs to defend the standard.

Now I'll toss one back. What makes PADI so in love with the 4:1 student to teacher ratio for the most admittedly dangerous thing we can teach? Why will they not reduce it to 2:1 as Willis imposed on 1/3 of the dive instructors on the planet? And forgive me if I'm wrong, I assume 1/3 because 90% of the liveaboard dive boats, all of the SDI shops, and PADI Australasia all use Willis. If I made an assumption that's out of line, I apologize. But the question remains. Why wouldn't PADI (the 800 lb gorilla of certification agencies) stand with Willis (the 800 lb gorilla of insurance companies) to a) fight this lawsuit, which I believe is winnable and b) reduce the ratios of the program which is most likely to result in a student casualty?

Pete, I challenge you to speak to Carney. I'm betting you haven't since this letter and thread was started. I'm betting he will speak to you. I challenge you to speak to Concannon. He may speak to you. His loss if he doesn't. I also challenge you to speak to Peter Mayer. What he has to say will open your eyes to a lot of things that you don't know. As far as I can tell, the only person you have spoken to that is intimate with this case is Hornsby. I suspect he's biased.

---------- Post added January 5th, 2015 at 11:19 AM ----------





I seem to be out of likes for the day. But I like both of these.

This is the fundamental sales pitch that I don't buy. How is the Willis case legally defendable?

As far as I can see It isn't.

As I see the legal angle- The fault is 70% the instructors egregious errors and 30% parents (and doctor).

Maybe the attorney can con the jury into finding some fault in the ratios but I'm sure that the numerous standards and common sense violations coupled with the ancillary things like defective equipment will not change that ratio beyond 1/3 each.

- so please explain how *IF* PADI stayed in - HOW they could have won?

 

[RJP]

As a scuba facility owner, I'm supposed to think they are a tool that "hooks" prospective students into signing up for OW classes. Based on conversion percentages, it doesn't work very well.

My personal experience - as dive pro who's done plenty, and a marketer with some level of expertise in consumer behavior - leads me to believe there are several specific reasons for this.

Additionally - unrelated to safety/ratios/etc - I have been giving DSDs a lot of thought for the past several months. I've swerved into a very interesting (albeit highly niched) approach to DSDs that has revealed an important insight about participation that I think may have broad implications.

To avoid derailing this thread ............... hold on... give me a minute to stop laughing and catch my breath ............... I'll start a specific thread elsewhere to share this information.

 

[Britt]

Not quite sure where the insecure comment comes from. I am just dumbfounded that people don't understand the difference between a CEO calling out another organization, versus the membership for whom the guidelines are meant. In Mr. Carneys case, for example, he is the mouthpiece for that organization, and receives his marching orders from both the BoD and the members. While the message may have been presented as his own (likely for tactical reasons), I would bet a fair amount that the BoD of ITI Holdings was given both first review and ok. You and I, on the other hand, are not the mouthpiece for that organization and are held to a different level.

Understanding that Mr. Carneys message likely had BoD approval and support, it clearly becomes, not a personal message, but a statement from ITI as a whole. Thus, criticizing Mr. Carney is clearly criticizing both ITI and its subsidiaries.

Frankly, kind of amazes me how many are missing that.

I think its safe to say that ITI is ran by Carney and he does as he pleases. That became more than obvious to me in the last year. I doubt that the BoD reviewed the letter until after he had already decided it was going out. Based on what I personally have seen, unless it is a major issue, the staff of the agency either turns a blind eye to his actions, endorse his actions, or just ignore his actions. Either way, he does as he pleases.

 

[Wookie]

- so please explain how *IF* PADI stayed in - HOW they could have won?

I have no idea, my mind does not work that way, I've never been in a courtroom in any capacity for any reason while a trial was going on. I hear it's actually quite boring with lots of papers going back and forth, and what I see on Law and Order isn't real. That's for others smarter than me to figure out.

But I do know one thing. When I moved to Key West, I had an unfortunate fatality on my boat. We recovered the victim, brought him to shore, made our statements, etc. Nothing more was said by the papers, by the news, by anyone for 3 days. The reason nothing was made newsworthy was that the Key West dive operators circled the wagons around me and hunkered down. I did not know I was the recipient of that action until many days later. The story got out because one operator just couldn't stand it and had to tell a paper all about how we killed this fellow (he was on the next mooring over), and how our response was inadequate, how we were a bunch of bumbling fools, etc. Well, I'm still here and he's long gone, but the point is, when you have a legal team that PADI and Willis should have been able to put together, they ought to be able to make a jury believe it was an act of God by the end of the day.

If the largest insurer, who also have the biggest exposure (it was their instructor, after all. The instructor no longer belonged to PADI by the time the suit was filed) think they can win, and I just got off the phone with the person who could confirm that, why would PADI throw $800k away like they did?

Again, I ask. Why is PADI holding onto to their ratios so hard?

 

[redacted]

- so please explain how *IF* PADI stayed in - HOW they could have won?

I seriously doubt if they could have expected to successfully defend their standards/training. I figured that is why they were willing to settle.

With one instructor and multiple students if one student gets away, contact and control are at serious risk. If that does happen, it may require a qualified assistant to avoid breaching standards.

 

[scagrotto]

How many things about a PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving program (note the registered trademark symbol) can be altered, changed, deleted, ignored or otherwise modified and have the program still actually be considered to be a PADI Discover Scuba^®Diving program?

I'd say it's pretty simple, at least in terms of PADI's legal involvement. It's no longer a PADI DSP when you change at least one of two things: what you call it when you market it to people, or PADI's grant of authority to market and teach it. If PADI allows you to market and teach it and you call it PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving, then it is PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving even if it's run very poorly.

As near as I can tell, PADI gave the instructor his PADI certification and authorized him to market and teach PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving, as well as other PADI courses. Depending on how long he was an instructor, they presumably renewed his authority to market and teach those classes.

Because PADI requires that participants are registered, PADI was notified each time he provided somebody with a PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving class. Because PADI requires that participants are registered, each participant presumably filled out paperwork indicating that the class being offered was a PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving class, and a PADI medical form was required. Until after the Tuvell accident PADI apparently took no action to stop him from marketing and teaching the PADI DSD. The only logical conclusion is that PADI knew he was offering the class and continued their implicit blessing.

After the accident PADI booted him for violating the required PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving standards. If PADI didn't recognize it as PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving there would have been no requirement to follow the PADI standards for which PADI expelled him.

PADI has a great argument that their standards were violated and that those violations are the cause(s) of the accident, and that reduces or eliminates their liability. I see no legitimate argument that it wasn't a PADI DSD.

Why is PADI holding onto to their ratios so hard?

I see only two reasons for an agency to change the ratio. One is to remain competitive with other agencies, but that only works in the other direction. You're 4:1 puts you at a disadvantage if another agency allows 6:1, but if they drop to 2:1 it's advantageous to remain at 4:1 in terms of the cost of the product. The other reason is for better safety. The problem with the latter is that it's an implicit admission that the old ratio wasn't as safe as it could have been. You can try to claim there's some other reason, but I don't think there's any getting around safety as the bottom line. That makes it a risky move when people are waiting to sue (or already suing) based on a claim that 4:1 is unsafe.

 

[boulderjohn]

I have no idea, my mind does not work that way, I've never been in a courtroom in any capacity for any reason while a trial was going on. I hear it's actually quite boring with lots of papers going back and forth, and what I see on Law and Order isn't real. That's for others smarter than me to figure out.

But I do know one thing. When I moved to Key West, I had an unfortunate fatality on my boat. We recovered the victim, brought him to shore, made our statements, etc. Nothing more was said by the papers, by the news, by anyone for 3 days. The reason nothing was made newsworthy was that the Key West dive operators circled the wagons around me and hunkered down. I did not know I was the recipient of that action until many days later. The story got out because one operator just couldn't stand it and had to tell a paper all about how we killed this fellow (he was on the next mooring over), and how our response was inadequate, how we were a bunch of bumbling fools, etc. Well, I'm still here and he's long gone, but the point is, when you have a legal team that PADI and Willis should have been able to put together, they ought to be able to make a jury believe it was an act of God by the end of the day.

If the largest insurer, who also have the biggest exposure (it was their instructor, after all. The instructor no longer belonged to PADI by the time the suit was filed) think they can win, and I just got off the phone with the person who could confirm that, why would PADI throw $800k away like they did?

Again, I ask. Why is PADI holding onto to their ratios so hard?

So, did your fatality include serious violations of standards that were likely the cause of death?

Those others who stood by you in order to keep the death a secret--would they have accepted the blame for the incident, even if they did not think they had any fault in the incident, and willingly paid millions of dollars in case you were sued for serious violations of standards leading to that fatality? That's what true friends, do after all, isn't it?

 

[Wookie]

So, did your fatality include serious violations of standards that were likely the cause of death?

Those others who stood by you in order to keep the death a secret--would they have accepted the blame for the incident, even if they did not think they had any fault in the incident, and willingly paid millions of dollars in case you were sued for serious violations of standards leading to that fatality? That's what true friends, do after all, isn't it?

Wasn't my fatality, it happened from my boat. Amazing the difference, isn't it?

What did Brian tell you?

 

[cerich]

Again, I ask. Why is PADI holding onto to their ratios so hard?

Possibly because if they go to lower ratios the resorts will go back to what the did in the 80's and early 90's...offer non agency branded resort classes. Which means no more selling the materials, no more HUGE database of DSD divers being accumulated(which has a value on it's own merits). In short, money.