A compassionate instructor

[dumpsterDiver]

I think instructors should adhere to all standards due to liablity concerns. If I were an instructor of that class, I would NOT have allowed the child to dive with his dad.

As far as danger to the kid; how the hell can people think the kid would be "safe" while under the care of the instructor who would be watching the kid along with 5 or 8 other students and "unsafe" when an experienced dad is watching him like a hawk?

2 seperate and independent issues: child safety; instructor liability

 

[Thalassamania]

I think instructors should adhere to all standards due to liablity concerns. If I were an instructor of that class, I would NOT have allowed the child to dive with his dad.

As far as danger to the kid; how the hell can people think the kid would be "safe" while under the care of the instructor who would be watching the kid along with 5 or 8 other students and "unsafe" when an experienced dad is watching him like a hawk?

2 seperate and independent issues: child safety; instructor liability

I have to agree, and I choose not to have my life run by liability concerns ... I go with my own best judgement, and I reserve to myself that right at all times. But in the final analysis, they are one and the same ... good judgement with respect to the safety of the child will mean that there will be no liability, since there will be no injury. Is passing a child off to an unknown instructor a "safe" thing to do ... I submit that it is not, all you done is assure that you can collect some bucks if that instructor injures or kills him ... frankly I'd rather have my son alive and well.

 

[Atom]

Sorry, not a hijack.

Sadly, not true. If you dive in Quebec (Canada) you must be certified by the Province irrespective of other certifications and/or experience except when being instructed by a provincially licensed instructor or you may (if caught) face fines. The FQAS inspectors have, to date, been in education rather than enforcement mode but......

That's bizarre ... fortunately there's not anything I know of that would cause me to want to dive in Quebec.

Slight hijack... tell me about it! This is useless, but it's the law, not just a standard, so most people here abide by it. There's also potential insurance issues, would you be covered while acting illegally? Visitors can get a temporary card valid for one month for 5$ by presenting their logbook and cert cards to a instructor at most LDS.

As for why you would like to dive here? Well, I'm the first to admit we won't top anybody's "to dive" list anytime soon. But if you like historical wrecks we've got the Empress and as far as I know Baie-Comeau is one of the only places to see Greenland sharks, and if you go as far as Baie-Comeau you might as well stop by Les Escoumins which might be the best diving we have to offer.

End of hijack.


I've been reading this thread and something's been on my mind... how exactly will the instructor prevent a young diver from suffering an AGE? Since 4 feet is all you need, it seems to me that if the kid bolts to the surface without opening its airway there's not much the instructor can do. Surely the instructor course includes techniques to help prevent those situations.

 

[james croft]

I dove for about 20 years with no certification. I read up on the topic and got my hands on as many books on diving as the library had. I had bought a used Voit double hose reg with a snugpack and steel 72 for the princely sum of 10 bucks. My first dive was in the Philippines at Corregidor. I went with my dad and a Navy Lt. who taught me the following-Don't hold your breath, always exhale when rising in the water and never come up faster than your smallest bubbles. I did what he told me and I am still here. I was 12 years old at the time.

 

[Coldwater_Canuck]

Canuck, perhaps you missed one little detail that I mentioned earlier. At the request of the shop's owner, I signed the Discover Scuba liability waiver authorizing my son's participation in the activities.

Well except it wasn't really a Discover Scuba class (and I assume you aren't certified to conduct such a class). Although I suppose it would still be helpful for the dive shop owner to brush off any liability to the instructor ("I thought he was conducting a discover scuba class, I had no idea he was going to leave the kid alone with his Dad").

Besides, unlike some states (except for specific cases involving gross child abuse or neglect) under our state law, parental authority trumps virtually everything else. I was in the water with him, therefore I held the ultimate authority and responsibility.

I don't think this is relevant, since no one is claiming the shop abused the child. The issue actually doesn't even have to do much with him being a child (I'm guessing, once again not a lawyer). A shop providing a pool and gear to an uncertified individual when there won't be professional supervision screams potential "lawsuit" to me

 

[Coldwater_Canuck]

I think instructors should adhere to all standards due to liablity concerns. If I were an instructor of that class, I would NOT have allowed the child to dive with his dad.

As far as danger to the kid; how the hell can people think the kid would be "safe" while under the care of the instructor who would be watching the kid along with 5 or 8 other students and "unsafe" when an experienced dad is watching him like a hawk?

2 seperate and independent issues: child safety; instructor liability

Exactly what I was saying. I don't see this as a reckless activity, but people really need to be careful in situations like this.

But in the final analysis, they are one and the same ... good judgement with respect to the safety of the child will mean that there will be no liability, since there will be no injury.

This just isn't true, even using good judgement there is some chance of injury (and therefore, liability). You can mitigate, but no eliminate this potential.

And unfortunately, sometimes just using good judgement doesn't mesh so well with the law. Otherwise we would eliminate the need for 3/4 of lawyers.

 

[Thalassamania]

Liability does not come from simply injury, it comes from neglegent practice with respect to a duty. I see no problem here, unless the equipment that was provided was defective in some fashion.

 

[Coldwater_Canuck]

Liability does not come from simply injury, it comes from neglegent practice with respect to a duty. I see no problem here, unless the equipment that was provided was defective in some fashion.

Giving potentially dangerous scuba gear to someone not qualified to use it (and without professional supervision), I could definitely see this being considered negligence. Civil court can be weird, it's amazing some of the "duties" people have.

Why do most if not all dive shops say you need to have drysuit training to rent a drysuit? Likely because they could be liable if someone not trained in that gear did something stupid.

 

[marinediva]

Paladin,
I feel this is a wonderful story as well, and I can certainly understand the instructor.
Not that long ago I did something similar myself, in that I took two ten year old twins for a dive in the swimming pool at home.
We spent a good couple of hours getting ready, with the main emphasis on remembering the No1 rule, don't hold your breath and why. Later one at a time we explored the pool together, all under the watchful eye of their mother a Medical Doctor.

From that experience one is now totally fixated on becoming a marine biologist.

I understand the arguments against such actions, for me what it all comes down to is this,
the instructor is a diving professional and thereby has the knowledge and hopefully common sense to make the judgement. In regards to standards, I used to dive in Qld, and the standards set by the Qld Govt are often judged as excessive compared with other States of Australia or even Padi for that matter, do they stop people being lost, injured or killed, sadly it seems not.

I am not advocating to ignore standards, but do feel sometimes circumstances warrant a flexibility in applying them.

 

[Thalassamania]

Giving potentially dangerous scuba gear to someone not qualified to use it (and without professional supervision), I could definitely see this being considered negligence. Civil court can be weird, it's amazing some of the "duties" people have.

Qualified and certified are not the same thing. There is (and unwarranted) assumption that certified is qualified, but there is no such assumption that not-certified is, by definition, not qualified.

Why do most if not all dive shops say you need to have drysuit training to rent a drysuit? Likely because they could be liable if someone not trained in that gear did something stupid.

The shops establish the test, the "standard of practice in the community." If all shops rented without training there would be no liability. Either the shops are greedy, stupid or just stuck ... take your choice.