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

[redacted]

yawn... diving standards ISO 24801-X, ISO 24802-X and ISO 24803, and snorkeling standards ISO 13289 and ISO 13970 - go fetch them and read me during the xmas holiday downtimel

Not very helpful at all. Looks to be about $200 worth of international standards that are voluntary in the USA.

---------- Post added December 19th, 2014 at 03:41 PM ----------

By having the questions be about whether specific standards were followed; for example, "Were there at least X instructors for every Y students?"

I guess we will know for sure when one of the PADI instructors posts the questionnaire. Or not.

 

[cerich]

PADI also is making the process of registering Discover Students easier.

PADI Pros Blog | NEWS FOR PADI® PROS IN NORTH AMERICA & CARIBBEAN

 

[tursiops]

I guess we will know for sure when one of the PADI instructors posts the questionnaire. Or not.

I've never seen the questionaire. It does not come to the instructors, it goes to the students.
Anything else you need for free that is not either copyrighted (the PADI Instructor Manual) or must be paid for (the ISO standards)?

(added)
Here is the WRSTC/RSTC standards for an introductory experience (not class).
http://www.wrstc.com/downloads/01 - Introductory Scuba Experience.pdf
PADI conforms to this as a minimum for DSD, and actually demands more.
You will pretty quickly be able to find the violations in this incident, for example 4.4, 5.3, 6.5.

 

[boulderjohn]

Was Brian misinformed? If so, he has had plenty of opportunity to become informed. Last week I got my renewal documents in the mail. The letter was included.

 

[Zippsy]

Awap, I think you are a little confused about what standards are being discussed and the participant questionnaires. The standards are what instructors are supposed to know and follow when teaching students. The students are not advised of the standards just as car purchasers are not given some manual on how their car was manufactured.

The he questionaire is sent to students after the course. Rather than asking "Did the instructor follow standards?" it would likely ask something like "Did you do a CESA in the ocean / lake and, if so, which dive was this done?" or "how many students were in your class?" and "how many instructors or dive masters were there?". Then again, I'm guessing at the questions based on common sense rather than experience because they send the questionaires to the students rather than instructors.

 

[redacted]

Awap, I think you are a little confused about what standards are being discussed and the participant questionnaires. The standards are what instructors are supposed to know and follow when teaching students. The students are not advised of the standards just as car purchasers are not given some manual on how their car was manufactured.

The he questionaire is sent to students after the course. Rather than asking "Did the instructor follow standards?" it would likely ask something like "Did you do a CESA in the ocean / lake and, if so, which dive was this done?" or "how many students were in your class?" and "how many instructors or dive masters were there?". Then again, I'm guessing at the questions based on common sense rather than experience because they send the questionaires to the students rather than instructors.

The only reason I am interested in the "standards" is that it seems the primary criticism of the instructor is that he somehow violated them. But most of us don't know what "them" are. While most seem to accept that overweighting a student by 10 pounds is a problem, overweighting students seems to be a widely accepted norm that is practiced in many OW classes today. For some of the diving I do (working on the bottom) I normally overweight myself. I'm curious where and how the line is drawn, and by whom.

Similarly with instructor student ratios, I'm curious how the "standards" adjust for age and water conditions. I'm wondering how the "standards" ever go over a 1 to 1 ratio.

 

[Omisson]

Perhaps you could post the post # of one of those quoted standards. I have read the entire thread and found no such standards quoted. Just statements of the instructor actions that are claimed to be standards violations.

I'm getting the impression that instructors do not want their students to be aware of the standards they are supposed to follow.

Makes me wonder how trainee questionnaires could be used as a tool to enforce standards if the respondents are not permitted to know the standards!!! I'm not surprised that nobody wants to post the questionnaire.

If established standards were violated, why are there no criminal proceedings against the instructor for wrongful death?

I am seeing one player in this who seemed to recognize that a soft spot in his underbelly was exposed so he bought his way out of more trouble. Sure, he could be completely innocent but made the business decision that this was the best way out. Or not.

I think I'll join Wookie and wait to see where this goes.

Post #23 in a related thread:

First, this was a DSD in Bear Lake, Utah- conditions described as low viz that day.

Two youth were left alone under water at 15 feet of water rather than surfacing them and knowing where they were.
But in summary:


In the DSD There was no prior pool session first (violation one).



The DSD was done in open water in conditions that were not pool-like (violation 2).

There were three students and he left TWO under water unsupervised (youth) to follow an adult to the surface (violation 3).

He lost sight of the two underwater youth (violation 4).

He chose not to have an assistant instructor or divemaster (not a per se violation but violates the exercise reasonable judgment obligation).

And on the general liability side the parents who are suing lied on medical forms to both PADI and the Boy Scouts about a serious asthmatic condition which was ultimately a major contributing factor.

The youth who died was in a BCD that did not function properly (given to him by the instructor) and was overweighted (35lbs) by the instructor.


The TDI letter doesn't address any of these inconvenient truths and I would hope they as an Agency would not have stood by an instructor with so many serious standards violations that ended up causing the death of a young boy.<font color="Silver">

 

[Britt]

Could he mean intellectually dishonest?

That is, advocating a position that Brian should already know is not likely to be factually correct, but pushing it anyway because it gets good headlines/big retweets? If we ignore our experience, avoid doing research, don't solicit the advice of our friends & colleagues, or gloss over inconvenient details that don't fit our theories or agendas, that is (at least) intellectually lazy.

Was Brian misinformed? If so, he has had plenty of opportunity to become informed. Last week I got my renewal documents in the mail. The letter was included.

Yeah, I don't think Al was trying to be nice in his characterization of Brian's diatribe. I doubt the two will be exchanging Christmas cards this year. This looks more like a war of rhetoric, which was completely avoidable on Brian's part.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel Brian owes PADI and the rest of us an apology for his ill conceived and public tirade. As Brian pointed out in his letter: it's all about ethics. Is he man enough to admit he was wrong? Well, I'm going to invoke the first rule of Scuba Diving here and not hold my breath, but I would still like to read that apology.

Based on my experience with him, and this is only a personal observation, once he is on a path, he wont leave it no matter what the end result is. As I stated previously, he seen a chance to take a shot and took it just like he did concerning the use of dive computers while training years ago. Once on that path, he doesnt veer off of it. There have been other things happen that have proven to me that stubborn is a normal trait for him in my observations. Issuing QA's because the completed course paperwork for a student that didnt finish an IDC as well as the IEC didnt exist, QA's for not registering another instructors students, refusal to return money on an instructors account because he writes the checks, issuing QA's months after an instructor has left the agency and has refused to renew with the agency... Thats enough for now but

I wouldnt expect an apology concerning the letter he sent out. If it happens, I will be surprised if it does, but I am not holding my breath either.

 

[Zippsy]

The only reason I am interested in the "standards" is that it seems the primary criticism of the instructor is that he somehow violated them. But most of us don't know what "them" are. While most seem to accept that overweighting a student by 10 pounds is a problem, overweighting students seems to be a widely accepted norm that is practiced in many OW classes today. For some of the diving I do (working on the bottom) I normally overweight myself. I'm curious where and how the line is drawn, and by whom.

Similarly with instructor student ratios, I'm curious how the "standards" adjust for age and water conditions. I'm wondering how the "standards" ever go over a 1 to 1 ratio.

Here are some of the standards, related to ratios and supervision. Remember not to scroll down and say "4:1, he was withing that so he was okay". He was also required by the standards below to reduce that ratio so that he could immediately make contact with any diver needing assistance. For me, the only way I would know how to accomplish all those things is to take usually two participants and either hold them or their gear.

Ratios
You must apply continuous and sound judgment before, during and after the dive. It&#8217;s your professional responsibility to conduct a risk assessment by evaluating variables such as water conditions, temperature, visibility, water movement, entries and exits, ability of participants, certified assistants available, your and your assistant&#8217;s personal limitations, etc., to determine what ratio will fit the situation &#8212; reducing the ratio from the maximum if needed. Take into account changing variables and your ability to directly supervise and observe particpants. Reassess during the dive.

Participant-to-Instructor
Pool 8:1
Confined Open Water 4:1*
Open Water 4:1*
Additional OW Dive 4:1*

* May add a maximum of two participants with certified assistant.
** After participants have completed an initial open water dive with an instructor. If certified divers join Discover Scuba Diving participants, count the certified divers in the ratio and stay within the Discover Scuba Diving participant-to-instructor ratio.

Supervision
Do not leave participants unattended, either at the surface or underwater.
&#8226; Position yourself so that you or a certified assistant can make immediate physical contact with, adjust buoyancy for, and render assistance to, participants.
&#8226; Continually observe participants with only the brief, periodic interruptions needed to lead the dive and to provide assistance to individual divers.
&#8226; Do not engage in any other activities, such as taking photographs or video, while supervising participants.

 

[Ayisha]

And on the general liability side the parents who are suing lied on medical forms to both PADI and the Boy Scouts about a serious asthmatic condition which was ultimately a major contributing factor.

bold added

Dan, you keep saying that the child's asthmatic condition contributed to his death, but I honestly haven't seen anything stating that he had an asthma attack during the dive or anything remotely linking his asthma to the incident. And I have read all of the posts. I believe the other child stated that the victim almost made it to the surface with him, and then sunk without the reg in his mouth.

So I'm asking again, can you please point us to the evidence that the child's serious asthmatic condition was a major contributing factor to his death? Thank you.