The easy, armchair solution to the problem is regulatory restriction. And, in contemporary society, when something like this happens - something tragic which simply SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED (as far as we can tell from the very limited information that is available) - it is usual and customary (and unfortunate) to prescribe as a solution, '
There ought to be a law . . . !' And, we end up with legislation and regulation constructed most often by people who really don't know the 'subject area', who often rely on SMEs who push themselves to the front of the advisor line because they have some particular personal agenda to pursue. This approach - enact a law - is the contemporary equivalent of the Queen of Hearts oft repeated solution to anything that annoyed her, 'Off with their heads!!!' The problem is, you can't really legislate good judgement, any more than you can legislate morality. Yes, you can significantly restrict what
everybody does, but it still won't eliminate, or necessarily even address, the actual problem.
Now, it is safe to say that those of us in this thread commenting so comfortably from in front of our computer screens were probably not present at the time of the event. So, there has been a lot of speculation, much of it informed and thoughtful, some of it ignorant and borderline ridiculous. I know that I was not there. So, I do not know - for certain - what the conditions were at the time of the dive (on the surface, or underwater), what actually happened underwater, what the true level of physical skill and experience the DSD diver possessed, how many divers were in the DSD group, how many dive professionals (and what level of professionals) were involved, etc., etc. etc. All I know is what I have read in media accounts, and I also know that I cannot trust the accuracy of those accounts any more than I can trust a what a politician promises, or a loan shark agrees to.
As I said in post #48, and as tursiops quoted in post 101, PADI (and Island Divers is a PADI shop) makes it crystal clear that the dive professionals involved with DSDs must exercise good professional judgement. The ratios are actually
meaningless . They are at most upper limits, irrespective of the conditions. Dive professionals are expected to use good judgement to determine what is best, given the environment, the diver, etc. And, what we MOST PROBABLY have in this case is a failure of judgement. Depending on what the facts turn out to be, there may have been other, additional violations of standards (depth, preliminary skill instruction, etc.) I don't know that for a fact. But, as I also mentioned previously, that has been the legal outcome in the majority of previous cases like this. If a dive professional uses good judgement, this (most probably) shouldn't happen. If this happens, the dive professional (most probably) didn't use good judgement
So, set the DSD Open Water Dive ratios to 1:1. Fine. I have no problem with that myself, because I don't do DSD OW dives, because of the risk - to me primarily, as well as the diver. For that matter, do away with DSDs altogether. Works for me. Unfortunately, neither action will address a real problem, documented in the majority of previous cases like this - poor dive professional judgement. A reasonably prudent person, one who exercises good judgement, will not take responsibility for the welfare of others, unless s/he is confident that they can address situations that are likely to develop which may cause harm to others or themselves. That is their duty of care as a 'professional'. If the facts as they have been presented thus far turn out to be accurate, then we are once again reminded - unfortunately for this young man, even moreso for his family left to mourn his death - that not every dive professional necessarily sees their responsibility in that light. Sad, but true.
