13 year old diver dies - Oahu, Hawaii

[Colliam7]

From what I have read in other reports of other incidents and from personal experience in similar situations (OW checkout dives), the problem is that there are 2 different judgments in play in this sort of situation.

A very good point, John. And, unfortunately, it appears - to me at least, from observational experience - that the former is too often compromised by the latter.

 

[yle]

From what I have read in other reports of other incidents and from personal experience in similar situations (OW checkout dives), the problem is that there are 2 different judgments in play in this sort of situation. These two judgments can conflict mightily.

• The judgment of the instructor on the scene as to whether or not the situation is safe
• The judgment of the owner of the dive operation as to whether or not the instructor will continue to be employed if his or her judgments cost the operation too much income.

I was discussing this incident with my son (who is also an instructor) yesterday, and this was exactly the point we agreed on. Instructor is sent out by the shop on a boat with their DSD participant (or several.) If that instructor decides not to allow them in the water, those DSD participants are going to want their money back... and the shop owner won't be too happy about that (at $129 to $179 a person.) So naturally there's a lot of pressure on the DSD instructor to put those people in the water and get the job done.

 

[J J]

Where I did my DSD dive is an SSI shop, so not sure how well that matches up with this. But it was in a quarry with low vis. Ratio there is always 1:1. My wife had to wait while I went and vice versa. In addition to that the max depth was either 15' or 20' limited by a buoy attached to you. The whole time the DM has a hold of you as well. You're not going anywhere they don't want you to.

 

[boulderjohn]

I was discussing this incident with my son (who is also an instructor) yesterday, and this was exactly the point we agreed on. Instructor is sent out by the shop on a boat with their DSD participant (or several.) If that instructor decides not to allow them in the water, those DSD participants are going to want their money back... and the shop owner won't be too happy about that (at $129 to $179 a person.) So naturally there's a lot of pressure on the DSD instructor to put those people in the water and get the job done.

I had an interesting conversation with the Director of Instruction of a dive shop. His exact words were, "Instructors are a dime a dozen." He was referring to the fact that in that shop in the American midwest, with no good diving nearby, an instructor came by looking for work on the average about once every two weeks. If an instructor currently on the payroll did not like any of the shop's policies and was willing to take any kind of a stand on it (like insisting that standards be followed), that instructor could be replaced very easily by one who was happy to do as instructed.

 

[Colliam7]

There is a thread currently open in the SPG: Scuba Related Court Cases forum ('Try SCUBA Accident . . . What happens next'; Try Scuba Accident..what happens next?), that is well worth reading. It involves an accident - death of an non-certified diver - that occurred during a Try SCUBA experience (the SSI parallel to the PADI DSD program).

A SB user has posted some comments written by the involved Instructor that make for particularly compelling reading. The comments were apparently posted on Facebook in a language other than English, and a somewhat coarse English translation is what has been put in the thread.

I encourage everyone participating in this thread to read the posts in that thread, particularly if you have formed some firm opinions about the accident that prompted this current thread, based on the media report - e.g. what may or may not have happened, under what circumstances, and what should or should not be done as a consequence.

It is uncommon for comments from the involved dive professional(s) to be available to participants in A&I threads. I found the ones that were posted in the other thread to be exceptionally thought-provoking.

 

[BlueTrin]

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.

I agree with you in principle, however laws are necessary because not everyone is sensible.

Also I do not know if we need a law for this particular incident because there wasn’t a proper analysis of the cost/benefit of introducing a low

 

[Colliam7]

Also I do not know if we need a law for this particular incident because there wasn’t a proper analysis of the cost/benefit of introducing a low

That was actually my point.

In fact, there is almost NEVER any 'proper analysis of the cost/benefit' performed - the majority of statutes and regulations are implemented on the basis of a somewhat visceral reaction, to something. 'Someone died, we need to fix the problem!', and away we go (even if we are not entirely sure what the root problem is, or that we can even 'fix' it with regulation). And, as often as not, the 'fix' ends up creating an entirely new set of problems, which create a need for more regulation, etc.

This is not a political statement of any kind. Rather, I have watched this approach pursued over the years - in health professional practice, in financial regulation, in recreational activities such as aviation - with mostly unfortunate results. It is both frustrating and disheartening.

So, to reiterate - in the case of the accident that prompted this thread: the ratios in the agency standards themselves are actually rather meaningless. They are upper limits at most, and are absolutely and entirely subordinate to professional judgement, and that is clearly stated in various instructor manuals. If there was a numerical problem with supervision that led to the tragedy (and, at least based on the media report, at this point we don't necessarily even know that was the case), the real problem was more likely to be related to professional judgement. And, lamentably, poor professional judgement is seldom corrected by regulation. We may feel that we are somehow 'protecting the public' from poor professional judgement - a noble cause, or at least an apparently noble basis for restricting behavior. But, I am a bit skeptical of the benefit.

You are absolutely right, however, that 'not everyone is sensible'. (Ideally, at least for dive professionals, that problem should be lessened by professional training, which is what scuba instructors presumably go through.) As an example of lack of sensible behavior:

In FL, there are marvelous cave systems, that attract many certified, cave-trained divers each year. Unfortunately, notwithstanding numerous, often blunt warning signs (the 'you will die' type), untrained / unqualified divers periodically go into caves and die. And, when that happens, there are calls for the Florida authorities to enact laws, or implement regulations, to close those caves to diving. So, EVERYONE would pay the price for the stupidity of a very few. And, there would probably still be deaths because the very few will still find a way to violate the laws / regulations. There is no attempt at a 'proper analysis of the cost/benefit', there is simply an emotional reaction to a family member dying.

It was not sensible for the untrained diver to go into the cave (ignoring a plethora of warnings). It was not sensible for the family to vigorously promote closure of the caves.

 

[KevinNM]

• The judgment of the owner of the dive operation as to whether or not the instructor will continue to be employed if his or her judgments cost the operation too much income.

Three actually. The judgement of the jury as to criminal and civil liability of the owner and his instructors.

 

[boulderjohn]

Three actually. The judgement of the jury as to criminal and civil liability of the owner and his instructors.

You are right, but here is where the owner, once again, has the upper hand.

There will be nothing in writing saying that the instructor must not use judgment to reduce ratios or call the dive. The instructor just knows the expectations darn well. In the lawsuit, the owner will say it is all up to the instructor to use good judgment, and he was shocked! Shocked I tell you! when the instructor used such poor judgment in this case.

 

[dmaziuk]

In the lawsuit, the owner will say it is all up to the instructor to use good judgment, and he was shocked! Shocked I tell you! when the instructor used such poor judgment in this case.

Well, the instructors could have their union rep explain to the owner what a nice shop he has and what a pity it would be if something were to happen to it, the owner's kneecaps, and their entire extended family. Or there could be a law telling the owner where to stick his expectations. Choose wisely.