Error A Story of Poor Judgment

[cerich]

I’m quite alright with diving returning to a more exclusive activity.

Same, for a variety of reasons, not just the aspects discussed here

 

[sharkhugger]

You better believe I want an instructor who lies to his own organization about risk to go find a new vocation.

Your postulated conclusion - "so we can keep telling ourselves it is safe" - is a strange perspective to me. I'll admit that my perspective on risk assessment and mitigation and leaders/instructors having a very real responsibility in accident prevention is borne from nearly three decades of training it, doing it, leading it, and conducting investigations when we got it wrong.

Just a reminder, too - this is the leisure and recreational industry we're talking about here. This isn't the case of a major mutual fund manager who finds out a close family member spent time in prison for money laundering and now he has deep questions about his own legitimacy in the financial world and has to contemplate a career change from the financial industry to something else. We're talking about a Florida dive instructor who probably has hot chicks, bragging rights and Instagram on his mind rather than a career progression plan to someday land in the senior IT role at RAID Headquarters.

We're talking about a Florida *Technical* dive instructor, and we're talking about the technical diving industry, where proper decompression, safety, etc etc is far more mission critical than open water diving in <40ft of water while looking at the reef fish.

Tech diving is dangerous, complicated and can have awful circumstances if done incorrectly. Not to say recreational OW diving isn't also dangerous, but when you remove the ability to make a slow, safe ascent to the surface your bailout options get far more limited. I.e. when a medical event occurs and the bodies tissues aren't ready for the atmospheric pressure at the surface, the odds ain't good.

Or is tech/rebreather diving easy and 'everyone can do it if you just take the class and kinda pay attention'

 

[sharkhugger]

If "bent twice" is a scarlet letter for someone with as many dives as a "Technical Instructor" surely has, then the lesson is now clear to me: Never ever tell anyone you've been bent, there is no upside.

Well the issue being debated isn't whether or not you've been bent... twice

Its the honesty and liability of disclosing, or not disclosing, prior incidents, medical history etc etc and the trust that goes into an agency trusting an instructor to do the right thing, act in a safe manner and not put their students in unnecessary danger.

In this case, not to mention the ethics of "if an instructor hides/covers up important information here... can they be ever fully trusted in the future?"

Personally I wouldn't trust that instructor with my life. Or my friends lives. Or really anyones life because if that instructor makes another bad judgement call and a students death is the result, not only is that a horrible thing to happen, but all divers are affected. From agencies, to insurance, to every diver who tries to dive the 'right' way. It sets us all back from the progress the diving community has done to try to make a dangerous sport slightly less dangerous. And we're set back from just one bad apple.

I vote to collectively remove the bad apple(s) from further teaching and maintain the high level of safety we've worked so hard to achieve. Who's with me.

 

[sharkhugger]

And dive instructors tend to be young and not teach that long anyway.

Seems like another one has 'aged out' then

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Seems like another one has 'aged out' then

LOL. I aged out when I became an instructor at 45! I lasted far longer than the average instructor (1.5 years).

 

[NothingClever]

If certifying organizations want to tighten up standards, it’s not hard to do. They have the option to publicly post incident reports (with names redacted) and the organization’s adjudication of matters. That will put the sick, lame and lazy on notice and screen out the weak from applying.

 

[sharkhugger]

If certifying organizations want to tighten up standards, it’s not hard to do. They have the option to publicly post incident reports (with names redacted) and the organization’s adjudication of matters. That will put the sick, lame and lazy on notice and screen out the weak from applying.

Seems like RAID is 'hypothetically' setting a standard that the rest of the agencies should follow. RAID posted a 'hypothetical near accident' report such that others could learn especially if they aren't so lucky in the future. Kudos to RAID for doing the right thing.

Accident Analysis: a story of poor judgement and broken promises – Dive RAID International

diveraid.com

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Seems like RAID is 'hypothetically' setting a standard that the rest of the agencies should follow.

They already do that with having objective performance standards and despite taking market share away from other agencies, no one has followed suit.

No one will unless there is a financial benefit (which includes avoiding financial losses, like lawsuits).

 

[sharkhugger]

They already do that with having objective performance standards and despite taking market share away from other agencies, no one has followed suit.

No one will unless there is a financial benefit (which includes avoiding financial losses, like lawsuits).

So risk mitigation wouldn't be a proper cause? Agencies wouldn't cherish the chance to avoid lawsuits by removing such an obvious risk/problem before it costs them in court?

.... yikes.

Isn't that the entire spirit behind dive instruction? Essentially it all boils down to proper technique and risk mitigation? I'm struggling to see how this situation is any different...

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

So risk mitigation wouldn't be a proper cause? Agencies wouldn't cherish the chance to avoid lawsuits by removing such an obvious risk/problem before it costs them in court?

.... yikes.

Isn't that the entire spirit behind dive instruction? Essentially it all boils down to proper technique and risk mitigation? I'm struggling to see how this situation is any different...

It SHOULD be the entire spirit of dive instruction: to introduce and guide people to safely enjoy the underwater world. But should is a dangerous word. There are many shoulds/should nots in this world.

I think the industry could do a heck of a lot more for dive safety. In my area, there was a dive center that had 4 training deaths! The agency didn't do anything Fortunately it is now closed here, but unfortunatley the owner/course director relocated to Mexico. For another agency, a friend of mine reported the repeated dangerous violations at the dive center he worked. I've heard shite stories about pretty much all agencies from friends "living the dream" in different parts of the world Nothing happens most of the time.

As a business owner, I sometimes see egregious lack of ethics. Fortunately no one dies in my field. Just I see companies and employees getting screwed over. The only recourse are lawsuits, but as litigious as the United States is, a lot of people are hesitant to take that path. Scuba diving isn't any different. People are people. If they can make a buck, they will. When it comes to lawsuits, an agency will try to exhaust the family. I've seen that happen recently.

Word of warning. This comment may trigger some of my "fans."

EDIT: DAN in their 2016 report cited in their ten changes they'd like to see improvements in buoyancy control and weighting. Now just imagine every single instructor to maintain teaching status had to prove they could perform ALL skills neutrally buoyant and trimmed. The objective requirements would be 15 degrees or better and within a 1.5 foot /0.5 meter depth window, and that all agencies would require skills to be performed at a depth window depending on the level of the course (more lax for open water, more stringent for advanced ones).

What do you think that would do to the number of instructors teaching (who pay annual dues and generate revenue from certification) as well as the number of divers getting certified? Risk mitigation has a financial cost. As I only have two hands, I decided when I stopped teaching for shops that I would have 2 students max for entry level courses. And I would do student evaluations to ensure they had the basic open water skills in my opinion to continue to advanced education. That REALLY cuts down on your customer base.