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

[boulderjohn]

Then you would never begin to understand your ignorance. I have no problems with you questioning or making the most obtuse recommendations. You've done both and several have responded to them, indicating just why they won't work. You don't get it. It's OK to not get it. I'm telling you why you don't get it. Fortunately, most of the people, many of whom are not instructors, do get it. Some didn't and now they do. Here's hoping you do as well... someday.

Bear vs shark (vs prey or victim) is also a semantic difference. Doctor vs Surgeon is also a semantic difference. They fill entirely different LEO niches and as I pointed out, the difference can be felt in the community.

What's happening now: violators get reported (caught) and punished.
What you're recommending: Big Brother looking over my shoulder.

It's a huge, huge difference in my eyes.

Let's say you are OK with it philosophically. The second issue is whether it will do any good.

I mentioned this earlier, but it is hard to think of an occupation with more intense oversight built into the system than with public school teachers. When you count the totals for college preparation classes, student teaching, state exams, other certification requirements, continued observation, evaluations, continuing education, and recertification, the cost and the number of people involved is really a staggering portion of the total cost of education today. Yet, you don't hear a lot of people talking about how it has produced a teaching force uniformly filled with exemplary instructors.

 

[tomfcrist]

What I find interesting are the CESA questions.

Did your instructor hold on to you? Did he come all the way to the surface with you?

It's the same way with NAUI, but doesn't that basically mean you must perform this skill with a 1 to 1 student/instructor ratio(unless you have a certified assistant)? If you don't, you WILL be leaving a student unattended. Kind of a bummer that the standards are designed that way. Why don't they just blatantly say that an instructor shall not train more than 1 diver at a time unless accompanied by a CA?

 

[Zippsy]

Usually you need two CAs because you can't leave students alone underwater OR the surface. When I only have one, I have to get the student all the way into a boat before going for the next one. Frankly, I find the CESA too dangerous and too difficult to be worth teaching in the ocean but that's just my humble opinion.

 

[tomfcrist]

Some are obligated by standards to at least evaluate it in open water. No way around that really.

 

[Ayisha]

...

My point is, why are we assuming facts not in evidence? And why are we assigning blame to the victim or his family, especially since the source of that blame has not even been confirmed? Why are we assigning blame at all?

so falsifying and counterfeiting the medical questionnaire and physician's clearance bear no responsibility in your ethics?

I think the whole lot of you need to find better sources.

Why don't you show us the falsified or counterfeit document that you're so sure exists?

Why don't you show us on the medical that Asthma/Emphysema/Tubercolosis was not checked off?

Why don't you show us where it says that David was not cleared to dive?

If the form was not completed perfectly, that was the fault of the physician's office, not the child or the family.

 

[Zippsy]

Ayisha, I'll ask the judge to let me borrow the form for a few hours so that I can scan it for you. I might not be able to open the evidence locker on Christmas so bear with me, okay?

 

[Omisson]

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.

FROM the Motion to Dismiss, but the expert report of the Instructor's Expert witness:

.....Tuvell suffered from severe asthma. Tuvell’s pediatrician and physician’s assistant both attempted to dispute
the diagnosis of asthma in their depositions, but their testimony is inconsistent with numerous medical records, including those in their own handwriting on
these records and the forms submitted to the BSA and BLAB that say Tuvell suffered from asthma. In 2010 and early 2011, Tuvell also suffered from reactive
airway disease (RAD), respiratory infections, ear infections, bronchitis, and other respiratory illnesses. He was prescribed bronchodilators, corticosteroids and
antibiotics to treat these conditions.

Some of these predisposing conditions that would have disqualified him as a DSD student (or diver at any level) without specific medical examination and
approval by a physician for scuba diving were revealed on the medical forms provided to the Blue Water Defendants or Douglas. Asthma was noted without
further explanation as to currency or whether it was exercise-induced, but his frequent and recent respiratory illnesses were not revealed at all. It is undisputed
that Tuvell was never given a pulmonary function test (PFT). This was because Tuvell’s pediatrician did not believe in giving PFTs to children, even though her
physician’s assistant recommended that Tuvell be given a PFT in the summer of 2010. Further, Tuvell was never examined by anyone, including his pediatrician
or physician’s assistant, on the day he was he was cleared for diving in October 2010 (nine months before the accident).....

---------- Post added December 24th, 2014 at 10:06 PM ----------

Tuvell’s mother, a licensed respiratory therapist, was aware of his condition but
did not have her son cleared for diving by a physician or have him undergo
evaluation such as a PFT. However, a document was provided to Douglas signed
by a medical professional that specifically cleared Tuvell for diving activity and
made no mention of any other predisposing conditions including recent
manifestations of RAD. At face value, this document met the review criteria for
medical fitness to dive required by a PADI instructor and Douglas accepted it in
good faith with no knowledge that the full disclosure of Tuvell’s respiratory
conditions had not been made.
Tuvell suffered from chronic asthma, ear-nose-and-throat, respiratory and/or
bronchial problems prior to his death. From January 2007 through May 2011,
Tuvell visited Anthem Hill Pediatrics (“Anthem&#8221 on eight occasions, usually
presenting with coughs, sore throat, ear pain, and similar conditions. Anthem
personnel diagnosed Tuvell with bronchitis on at least two of these occasions…
the latter being in September 2010. Tuvell was sick with bronchial and/or
respiratory problems for almost half of 2010, from late March through late
September, for which he was prescribed increasing stronger antibiotics and
inhalants, including Albuterol. These problems seemed to subside over the
winter of 2010-2011, but they flared up again just two months before Tuvell
visited Bear Lake. Tuvell was in the pediatrician’s office again on May 9, 2011,
after a participating in a Boy Scout camping trip. Upon arriving at Anthem,
Tuvell told the staff: “ think I have bronchitis.” In fact, Tuvell was diagnosed
with acute pharyngitis, acute laryngitis and strep throat, for which he was
prescribed antibiotics once again.
Treatment continued by Anthem at least once a month from June through
September 20, 2010. For most of these visits – and all of the visits as his
conditioned steadily worsened in August and September – Tuvell was treated by
a Physician’s Assistant named Brian Shrawder. On October 1, 2010, just 11 days
after he prescribed antibiotics and daily doses of inhalants to treat Tuvell’s
ongoing respiratory problems, Shrawder completed the “Physical Examination”
page of the Annual BSA Health and Medical Record (“BSA form&#8221 on behalf of
Tuvell. Shrawder indicated on the form that Tuvell’s ears, nose, and throat were
“[n]ormal” despite the fact that Sherry Tuvell indicated on an earlier page of the
form that he had “[e]ar/sinus” problems and asthma—and her son was taking
medication to treat asthma.
The form explicitly states: “To Health Care Provider: Restricted approval
includes . . . [f]or scuba, use of medications to control . . . asthma.”

---------- Post added December 24th, 2014 at 10:07 PM ----------

Despite this warning, Shrawder certified that he had “reviewed the health
history, examined [Tuvell], and approve[d] [Tuvell] for participation in… cuba
diving” with no restrictions. There is no indication in the medical records that
Anthem provided to the Medical Examiner that Shrawder ever examined Tuvell
on October 1, 2010.
Given the professional training of Sherry Tuvell, she should have been fully
aware that her son was unfit to participate in scuba diving.
SPECIFIC NOTES ON EXECUTION OF MEDICAL FORM DOCUMENT: On
June 21, 2011, Tuvell’s father, Christopher, completed a Medical Questionnaire
accompanying the PADI Discover Scuba Diving Participant Statement (“short
PADI form&#8221. The short PADI form warns:
“Your respiratory and circulatory systems must be in good health… A
person with… asthma… should not dive. If taking medication, consult
your doctor before participating in this program.
The short form also states:
“A positive response to a question does not necessarily disqualify you from
diving. A positive response means that there is a preexisting condition
that may affect your safety while diving and you must seek the advice of a
physician.”
In the blank to the left of the “Do you have active asthma…?” question,
Christopher Tuvell wrote, “YES” in capital letters. In the blank to the left of the
“Do you have a history of respiratory problems…?” question, the word “NO” is
written in capital letters.
In the event of any “YES” answer, the short PADI form requests that the
participant consult with a physician prior to diving and to bring an instructorsupplied
PADI Medical Statement and Guidelines for Recreational Scuba Diver’s
Physical Examination (“long PADI form&#8221. The long PADI form is an extremely
comprehensive document that informs a physician of medical conditions that can
pose a risk to divers.
See reference:
http://www.padi.com/english/common/c...10063_MedStmt_
v201.pdf (obtained Nov. 1, 2011).
Because the BSA did not provide the PADI long form to scuba participants, the
long PADI form was never completed by the Tuvells or any physician. If
completed correctly by the Tuvells and a physician, the long PADI form may
have prevented Tuvell from scuba diving. This is especially true given that
Tuvell was taking daily medication for asthma and RAD, and he had been
treated for an acute throat infection and bronchitis after participating in Boy
Scout overnight camping just six weeks earlier.

---------- Post added December 24th, 2014 at 10:18 PM ----------

and from the medical expert:

The medical records from Anthem Hills Pediatrics provide an interesting history for David. He was seen on 22 January 2007 for ear and sinus pain for several days. He was seen again on 17 July 2007 with an infection of his left middle ear. The next summer on 17 July 2008 he was seen for another left ear ache that had resolved. That fall he returned with sore throat, cough, and fever for three days. The following summer he was seen on 10 June 2009 with right ear pain for 4 days. He was treated and when seen two weeks later appeared to have recovered.
Most interestingly, David was seen several times in the spring, summer and fall of 2010 with respiratory problems. On 26 March he presented with an allergic flare-up, congestion and cough for five days. He was treated with Singulair (montelukast, a pill used to treat allergies, asthma, reactive airways disease, and exercise induced bronchospasm) and Zyrtec (cetirizine, used for allergies). A month later on 28 June David was seen with complaints of coughing for two to three weeks. Coughing is frequently a symptom of asthma. He was still taking Zyrtec and Singulair and was diagnosed with acute bronchitis and reactive airways disease (RAD). Albuterol (Proventil, an inhaled bronchodilator used to treat asthma, RAD, and bronchospasm) was added to the Zyrtec and Singulair. On this visit, David was seen by the Physician Assistant Brian Shrawder, who suggested that pulmonary function testing be done. However, Shrawder’s suggestion was apparently refused by the pediatrician, Dr. Kim Lamotte-Malone, and David Tuvell was never given a pulmonary function test (PFT).
Reactive Airways Disease is a general term used to describe wheezing due to bronchial constriction. Children younger than five years often wheeze for many reasons and RAD is often used to describe them as many of them will not go on to develop asthma. However, in older children and adults, RAD is often used interchangeably with asthma (as it was here in the various medical records describing David’s condition).
Asthma is diagnosed in children after age five who present with episodic symptoms of airflow obstruction or reactive airways that is reversible with bronchodilators. David certainly appears to fit this description but it is impossible to know for sure if he had RAD/asthma and
Case 1:12-cv-00128-DB Document 200-1 Filed 12/15/14 Page 10 of 36
Expert report by Dr. David Sawatzky reference David Tuvell Page 10
how serious it was because the testing required to clarify the extent of his disease was never performed.
David was seen again on 7 July and had not improved even though he had been using Singulair, Albuterol and Zyrtec for the previous month. He had been coughing until he vomited for the previous week. David was treated with Flovent (fluticasone, an inhaled steroid used to treat and reduce the risk of recurrence in moderately severe asthma) as well as continuing the Albuterol and Singulair. An x-ray done the same day for “wheezing” was clear (the expected finding with RAD/asthma), ruling out pneumonia.
He was evaluated again on 10 August and seemed to be doing fairly well. The Singulair and both inhaled medications for RAD/asthma were continued. On this visit David was noted to be 55 inches tall (25-50%) and he weighed 111 pounds (90-95%) indicating that he was definitely overweight if not clearly obese.
David was seen again on 20 September for a sore throat, congestion, runny/stuffy nose. He was treated with antibiotics and at lease the Albuterol for his RAD/asthma was continued. At this point David appears to have been on multiple, continuous medications to control his respiratory symptoms since at least March.
The next spring, David presented on 9 May 2011 with a throat infection was well as cough. He commented: “I think I have bronchitis”. David was treated with antibiotics and weighed 117 pounds and 8 ounces on this visit.
Several additional pieces of evidence provide further information on David’s health. The Annual BSA Health and Medical record filled in on David by his mother (Sherry Tuvell, a licensed Respiratory Therapist) on 27 September 2010 says that he had asthma as well as ear and sinus problems. It also lists his current medications as Albuterol as required for asthma/wheezing and Singulair daily for allergies. As mentioned above, Singulair is also used to prevent asthma attacks. Asthma is frequently triggered by allergies. The form also lists Michael Perry as the Scout unit leader.
On 1 October 2010, the rest of this form was completed by Brian Shrawder, the Physician’s Assistant who worked at Anthem Hills Pediatrics, indicating that David was medically fit to participate in every Scouting activity including Scuba diving. The form indicates that examination of David’s lungs was normal. This is hard to believe given the severe and extensive history of wheezing/RAD/asthma for the precious several months requiring several medications to get under control. In addition, the form clearly indicates, right beside Brian Shrawder’s signature block, that restricted approval should be given for uncontrolled asthma, and for scuba diving, the use of medications to control asthma.
It appears that Brian Shrawder did not read the form, chose to ignore it, or did not understand the significance of respiratory problems and scuba diving. Indeed, Shrawder admitted in his deposition testimony that he did not examine David on the day he signed the form, he had no knowledge of scuba diving or hyperbaric medicine, and his experience with aquatics did not extend beyond taking swimming lessons in college. A typical physician’s assistant would not necessarily have understood implications of respiratory problems and diving – Brian Shrawder clearly did not understand these implications, and he did nothing to educate himself before he cleared David for participation in scuba diving.
It is very surprising that David’s mother, a Respiratory Therapist, also chose to ignore the warning about scuba diving and lung problems. Certainly her training would have made her well aware of the potential problems with pressure changes and lung disease. Case 1:12-cv-00128-DB Document 200-1 Filed 12/15/14 Page 11 of 36
Expert report by Dr. David Sawatzky reference David Tuvell Page 11
It is also of note that this form, clearing David as medically fit to scuba dive, was completed 9.5 months before the dive actually took place. During this entire period, the Tuvells apparently did no research into the implications of respiratory problems on scuba diving, they never had their son’s fitness for diving evaluated by a physician who was familiar with scuba diving, and they even failed to consult or comply with the Boy Scout’s own protocols for determining whether David could safely perform scuba diving.
In summary, David clearly had allergies, RAD and most likely asthma. Pulmonary function studies were suggested but never performed. David clearly had moderately severe pulmonary disease as he required inhaled steroids to control his symptoms and needed to use a number of potent medications for several months.
From a diving medical perspective, it does not matter whether David’s respiratory problems were RAD or asthma. The significance of RAD and asthma for scuba diving are the same. They both greatly increase the risk of a diver suffering from pulmonary barotrauma and arterial gas embolism, even with a slow and controlled ascent. David Tuvell should not have been scuba diving on 13 July 2011, and his parents and medical care providers should have known this before they allowed him to do so.

 

[Omisson]

I think the whole lot of you need to find better sources.

Why don't you show us the falsified or counterfeit document that you're so sure exists?

Why don't you show us on the medical that Asthma/Emphysema/Tubercolosis was not checked off?

Why don't you show us where it says that David was not cleared to dive?

If the form was not completed perfectly, that was the fault of the physician's office, not the child or the family.

OK here it is:
SPECIFIC NOTES ON EXECUTION OF MEDICAL FORM DOCUMENT: On
June 21, 2011, Tuvell’s father, Christopher, completed a Medical Questionnaire
accompanying the PADI Discover Scuba Diving Participant Statement (“short
PADI form&#8221. The short PADI form warns:
“Your respiratory and circulatory systems must be in good health… A
person with… asthma… should not dive. If taking medication, consult
your doctor before participating in this program.
The short form also states:
“A positive response to a question does not necessarily disqualify you from
diving. A positive response means that there is a preexisting condition
that may affect your safety while diving and you must seek the advice of a
physician.”
In the blank to the left of the “Do you have active asthma…?” question,
Christopher Tuvell wrote, “YES” in capital letters. In the blank to the left of the
“Do you have a history of respiratory problems…?” question, the word “NO” is
written in capital letters.
In the event of any “YES” answer, the short PADI form requests that the
participant consult with a physician prior to diving and to bring an instructorsupplied
PADI Medical Statement and Guidelines for Recreational Scuba Diver’s
Physical Examination (“long PADI form&#8221. The long PADI form is an extremely
comprehensive document that informs a physician of medical conditions that can
pose a risk to divers.
See reference:
http://www.padi.com/english/common/courses/forms/pdf/10063_MedStmt_
v201.pdf (obtained Nov. 1, 2011).
Because the BSA did not provide the PADI long form to scuba participants, the
long PADI form was never completed by the Tuvells or any physician. If
completed correctly by the Tuvells and a physician, the long PADI form may
have prevented Tuvell from scuba diving. This is especially true given that
Tuvell was taking daily medication for asthma and RAD, and he had been
treated for an acute throat infection and bronchitis after participating in Boy
Scout overnight camping just six weeks earlier.
Case 1:12-cv-00128-DB Document 200-2 Filed 12/15/14 Page 12 of 41
12
The long PADI form includes another list of questions to which a participant
must answer, “YES” or “NO.” If the Tuvells had accurately completed this form,
they would have answered “YES” to at least two questions:
1. “Are you presently taking prescription medications?”
and
2. “Have you ever had or do you currently have… [a]sthma, or wheezing with
breathing, or wheezing with exercise?”
In addition, the Tuvells sould have answered “YES” to the questions:
3. “Have you ever had or do you currently have . . . [f]requent colds, sinusitis or
bronchitis?”
and/or
4. “Have you ever had or do you currently have… [r]ecurrent ear problems?”
Any “YES” answer requires the participant to get a physician to certify their
fitness for diving. The physician is referred to four pages of attached medical
guidelines and is then required to choose one of two “impressions”:
1. “I find no medical conditions that I consider incompatible with diving”
or
2. “I am unable to recommend this individual for diving.”
Nowhere does the long PADI form permit a physician’s assistant or any medical
professional other than a physician to certify the participant for diving—unlike
the BSA form completed by David Tuvell. The long PADI form provides
extensive warnings about diving with asthma. First, the form warns the
participant: “If you have asthma… or you are taking medications on a regular
basis, you should consult your doctor and the instructor before participating in
this program.” Then the form advises the physician about the risks of diving
with asthma and how an asthmatic participant should be screened.
See direct citations from this form:
Any process or lesion that impedes airflow from the lungs places
the diver at risk for pulmonary over inflation with alveolar rupture
and the possibility of cerebral air embolization. Many interstitial
diseases predispose to spontaneous pneumothorax: Asthma
(reactive airway disease), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
(COPD), cystic or cavitating lung diseases may all cause air
Case 1:12-cv-00128-DB Document 200-2 Filed 12/15/14 Page 13 of 41
13
trapping. The 1996 Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society
(UHMS) consensus on diving and asthma indicates that for the risk
of pulmonary barotrauma and decompression illness to be
acceptably low, the asthmatic diver should be asymptomatic and
have normal spirometry before and after an exercise test.
Inhalation challenge tests (e.g.: using histamine, hypertonic saline
or methacholine) are not sufficiently standardized to be interpreted
in the context of scuba diving.
A pneumothorax that occurs or reoccurs while diving may be
catastrophic. As the diver ascends, air trapped in the cavity
expands and could produce a tension pneumothorax.
Relative Risk Conditions
• History of Asthma or Reactive Airway Disease (RAD)
* Spirometry should be normal before and after exercise
*Active Reactive Airway Disease, Active Asthma, Exercise Induced
Bronchospasm, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease or history
of same with abnormal PFTs or a positive exercise challenge are
concerns for diving.
The long PADI form defines “Relative Risk” as follows:
Relative Risk refers to a moderate increase in risk, which in some
instances may be acceptable. To make a decision as to whether
diving is contraindicated for this category of medical problems,
physicians must base their judgment on an assessment of the
individual patient.
The long PADI form states that it is endorsed by an extensive litany of
physicians, scientists, and organizations.
Douglas reports that the long PADI form was not used. Instead, protocol was to
accept the BSA medical form and the short PADI form. If this was the protocol, it
is not written anywhere. In fact, Blue Water Scuba of Logan’s own web site
indicates that the Tuvells should have been required to complete the long PADI
form.
See reference:
bluewaterscubaoflogan.com - Home
7f5943b2 (obtained Nov. 2, 2011).

Good enough for you to admit you were wrong and stop the nonsense?

---------- Post added December 24th, 2014 at 10:52 PM ----------

By the way- the Utah Dept of Public Safety says the boy was 4'8 and 123 lbs - yet he had 30 pounds of lead on in a 5mm wetsuit (the instructors expert claims its a 7mm- but Ill trust the police report made AT THE SCENE over the self serving paid expert's claim) he was using steel 50 tanks (more weight and negative buoyancy)- had over 500 psi of air left after he accident and the reg was breatheable.

The Utah DPS says the BCD did not hold air due to a leak- the Instructor's expert claims that it was damaged in transport- but the Sheriff's office denies this claim. There was no VIP and the last hydro was 1996 on the tank- AHEM. Even the tanks supplied by the instructor were violative of standards and safety violations..... The instructor used an outdated DSD form, allowed the boy's parents to omit information on it and DID NOT complete the long form PADI Medical- all as would be required by standards...

1. Douglas failed to verify Tuvell was medically screened by a physician.

2. Douglas failed to have Tuvell complete proper DSD paperwork.

3. Douglas failed to verify Tuvell properly completed the DSD training.

4. Douglas failed to have Tuvell or the other participants complete the Discover Scuba Diving Knowledge and Safety Review quiz.
5. Douglas failed to have Tuvell or the other participants sign a proper DSD Participant Statement acknowledging their understanding safety practices presented in the DSD instructional materials.
6. Douglas failed to select an appropriate dive site and or reduce the number participants for Tuvell 's introductory scuba experience.
7. Douglas issued Tuvell a defective BC to be used on the fatal dive.
8. Douglas issued Tuvell 30 pounds of lead to be used on the fatal dive to a 4'8" 123 lb 5mm wetsuit wearing child in a freshwater lake.

9. Douglas failed to conduct a proper buoyancy evaluation of Tuvell.
I 0. Tuvell was grossly over weighted during the fatal dive.
1 1 . Douglas failed to provide direct supervision to the dive team.

12. Douglas failed to provide direct supervision to Perry.

13. Douglas failed to maintain control of Perry as he separated from the dive team.

14. Douglas failed to provide direct supervision of Tuvel
15. Douglas failed to maintain awareness of Tuvell's location while on the surface with Perry.
16. Douglas failed to maintain control of Tuvell.

17 Douglas failed to provide appropriate emergency response to the dive team.

18. Douglas failed to provide appropriate emergency response to Tuvell.

---------- Post added December 24th, 2014 at 11:13 PM ----------

perhaps you are correct, I only have the heresay from 2 folks who were there. I will go back to letting y'all think what you want. You will anyway.

I hope THIS isnt what you mean to support the allegation that SDI has been trying to change the standards:

In 2001, ITI (SDI/TDI) through its former owner, Mr. Bret Gilliam (who has been mentioned as a potential expert witness for Blue Water against PADI in this litigation), SDI attempted to join the RSTC. Among other issues debated, SDI’s introductory scuba ratio at that time was 6:1 while the RSTC standard allowed a maximum of 4:1, as had been adopted by PADI and the other RSTC members. SDI disagreed with the necessity of lowering its intro ratio to 4:1 but ultimately did so in order to be allowed to join.


2. Despite SDI’s approx. 13 years of utilization of the RSTC’s 4:1 introductory ratio, once the SDI sponsored Willis insurance program announced its coverage reduction to require a maximum of 2:1 effective 1 January 2013, SDI quickly began an attempt to convince the other RSTC members to immediately reduce the RSTC ratio to 2:1. This effort has continued until current times,
despite the lack of interest of ANY other RSTC members, including a letter sent to the RSTC by SDI’s training manager on December 9, 2014.

3. ITI's claims the DSD is more dangerous are also suspect. it is interesting to note that they have completely ignored the DSD fatalities per 100,000 participants data mentioned above. Had they presented that data, I suppose their point might have been that if the ratios for the entire 1989‐2008 period of time measured by the study are used, the fatality rate for Open Water/Scuba Diver is 1.517 fatalities per 100,000 participants, compared to the lower 1.369 rate for DSD. Further, if the most recent 10‐year measured period of 1999‐2008 is used, Open Water/Scuba Diver shows a rate of 1.619 fatalities per 100,000 participants vs DSD’s significantly lower rate of 1.140 fatalities per 100,000 participants.

4. Remember, this allegation is only even made possible by two facts: (1) Because PADI, unlike any other dive organization, requires registration of DSD (introductory scuba) participants along with all other educational program students, as well as the reporting of all dive incidents involving or witnessed by PADI members, PADI has the singular ability in the dive industry to be able to track the safety performance for its educational programs; and (2) in 2010, PADI presented a 20‐year study of its major educational programs’ accident rates at the DAN (Divers Alert Network) Underwater Fatality Conference, which published the results in “Recreational Diving Fatalities” (April 8‐10, 2010). PADI went to the significant effort required to carry out this particular study and to present it, for the sole purpose of increasing diver education knowledge and safety. The straight‐forward counts of dives, participants and fatalities claimed no complex interpretations, and there certainly was no attempt or means to have the data derive and/or explain the complex, potential relationships between different courses with different levels of training and numbers of dives, as do the claims put forth by the Blue Water parties. The study provided an extensive presentation of global data that had never existed before in the industry, in the attempt to begin to establish useful baselines and to encourage other organizations to add their own data as time went on. No other US dive training organization has ever done anything like his, and as regards introductory scuba programs, nor could they, because they do not require participant registrations.

5.Based upon examination of instructional materials, the following minimum ages for introductory scuba existed at the time of the accident: WRSTC: no minimum age specified;ISO, no minimum age specified; National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI), minimum age12 ( historical, not a change); PADI, minimum age 10; Scuba Schools
International (SSI), minimum age 10; Scuba Diving International (SDI), minimum age 10.(SDI recently announced reduced ratios if younger than 14, revision as of 10‐1 2014 standards.) It
is also interesting to note that the current industry practices involving training children as young as the age of 10 years old were first widely promoted in the US by SDI. This seems somewhat hypocritical objectively in light of this issue.

I believe Brian was given BAD info, the rumor mill spurred it on, the anti-PADI crowd took up the charge and then legal parasites needed to create a narrative that shifted the blame to the deep pockets- and here we are.

I can see SDI not being able to comment because they got legal counsel- PADI has been smart and silent throughout ongoing litigation, and the post-a-maniacs in places like SB have decided they are one man know-it-alls and legal armchair quarterbacks...

But really this boils down to a lousy instructor who broke all the rules, and a family which bares some of the responsibility for not being forthright about a medical condition and a group of doctors who committed malpractice but were shielded from their liability by living in a different state from the place the lawsuit was brought and have been dismissed from the case.

 

[Zippsy]

I think the whole lot of you need to find better sources.

Why don't you show us the falsified or counterfeit document that you're so sure exists?

Why don't you show us on the medical that Asthma/Emphysema/Tubercolosis was not checked off?

Why don't you show us where it says that David was not cleared to dive?

If the form was not completed perfectly, that was the fault of the physician's office, not the child or the family.

Dan, seriously?!? If you can only allegedly quote some alleged documents and you can't even produce the originals for us to inspect, why should we believe you? You are a lawyer and you don't even know the rules of forum evidence???

 

[demed]

i like that idea even better. Are the agencies listening?

the reasoable condensation IS the manual and student literature - what exactly would you like to see?

---------- Post added December 24th, 2014 at 09:18 PM ----------

Perhaps you should have placed your original post in the instructor only forum so ignorant divers would not have the opportunity to get involved. Or did you intend for us to just listen and believe?

Sheriff vs police (vs peer or victim) enforcement is a semantic difference. Why are you so resistant to enforcing standards?

you might have 13k posts but remain a blissful ignorant of educational theory and of the US court system, who likes to talk about stuff you don't know and you don't care to educate yourself about.

You are basically asking for the STASI (secret political police of east germany) of scuba diving - when you will eventually realize how dumb your idea is from ALL possible perspectives (educational, enforceable, ethics) is still going to be too late

---------- Post added December 24th, 2014 at 09:22 PM ----------

I have never said that all deaths can be prevented or all standards violations can be stopped. But it does seem to be a common accusation from the dive professionals who seem to simply want to write this incident off as an instructor who violated standards and the only response from the industry should be the expulsion of that instructor. What I have said is if the industry is serious about safety, then any time an accident like this happens, the industry should go through a risk assessment analysis to identify what it could do differently to reduce risk. The opinion of many professions in this discussion seems to be NOTHING more than the expulsion should be considered. You act like you really believe that an instructor violating standards is an rare aberration that deserves no further attention.

The industry, and by that i mean the professionals, the manufactures, the retailers, the agencies, constantly ask themselves about how to imporve safety, and they actually ACT on it - an agency like PADI release updates to its standards every 3 months, not decades.

So your continous attempt to state otherwise is insulting and derogatory.

---------- Post added December 24th, 2014 at 09:28 PM ----------

I think the whole lot of you need to find better sources.

Why don't you show us the falsified or counterfeit document that you're so sure exists?

Why don't you show us on the medical that Asthma/Emphysema/Tubercolosis was not checked off?

Why don't you show us where it says that David was not cleared to dive?

If the form was not completed perfectly, that was the fault of the physician's office, not the child or the family.

Go trolling somewhere else if you don't want to read the documents available - the medical celarance was signed by an assistant not a physician and the questionnaire was reticent as to the extent of the medical condition