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

[The Chairman]

But this thread had been about standards,

Actually, this thread has been about ethics. Ethics in attacking a competitor. Ethics in using the death of child to make malicious and fallacious allegations. Ethics in over weighting a student/child. Ethics in leaving an uncertified diver on the bottom. Ethics in blaming your agency for your own failings as an instructor. Ethics in using an out of hydro/not inspected tank.

You can try to hide behind standards, but this is all about ethics.

i don't think you can make the assumption that the instructor filled the tanks.

The out of hydro tanks, coupled with over weighting the student and leaving him on the bottom shows a pattern of neglect and utter disregard for the rules and standards of Scuba, no matter what agency he taught for. What more does a jury need?

If the steel tank had twenty year old air, you would be an idiot to dive it or give it to the student. Why? Steel+O₂= Rust. Steel tanks can rob their contents of oxygen over time. I won't dive a steel tank if the fill is more than a year out. Aluminum I'm not so worried about, but aged steel tanks give me the willies.

 

[Rich Keller]

1. Make sure your new tank has a visual inspection decal, or an enriched air inspection decal (if you plan to use it for enriched air diving).

This is just something the scuba industry made up and is not a DOT requirement. The only visual inspection the DOT requires is for tanks made from the 6351 alloy and that gets stamped into the tank, no decals are used. You can get tanks filled at any DOT inspection station without a VIP decal. PHMSA - Cylinders - Authorized DOT Cylinder Retesters: Domestic

 

[RJP]

The out of hydro tanks, coupled with over weighting the student and leaving him on the bottom shows a pattern of neglect and utter disregard for the rules and standards of Scuba, no matter what agency he taught for. What more does a jury need?

If the steel tank had twenty year old air, you would be an idiot to dive it or give it to the student. Why? Steel+O₂= Rust. Steel tanks can rob their contents of oxygen over time. I won't dive a steel tank if the fill is more than a year out. Aluminum I'm not so worried about, but aged steel tanks give me the willies.

Oh yeah, the guy was an idiot. Obvious from what seem to be the facts that are known. Just saying there's no reason to add unsubstantiated assumptions to the list.

 

[Wookie]

What dive boats do you use where the captain or crew inspects the tanks you bring aboard to verify they have current hydro and VIS? That is what should happen if your claim of "INDUSTRY NORMS" were true, isn't it.

I know you have a whole thread bemoaning this.

---------- Post added December 31st, 2014 at 09:39 AM ----------

Actually, this thread has been about ethics. Ethics in attacking a competitor. Ethics in using the death of child to make malicious and fallacious allegations. Ethics in over weighting a student/child. Ethics in leaving an uncertified diver on the bottom. Ethics in blaming your agency for your own failings as an instructor. Ethics in using an out of hydro/not inspected tank.

You can try to hide behind standards, but this is all about ethics.

The out of hydro tanks, coupled with over weighting the student and leaving him on the bottom shows a pattern of neglect and utter disregard for the rules and standards of Scuba, no matter what agency he taught for. What more does a jury need?

If the steel tank had twenty year old air, you would be an idiot to dive it or give it to the student. Why? Steel+O₂= Rust. Steel tanks can rob their contents of oxygen over time. I won't dive a steel tank if the fill is more than a year out. Aluminum I'm not so worried about, but aged steel tanks give me the willies.

If you make this about ethics, some of the more stringent PADI supporters will no longer be able to participate in this thread. Best keep it about standards.

 

[The Chairman]

If you make this about ethics, some of the more stringent PADI supporters will no longer be able to participate in this thread. Best keep it about standards.

It's always been my intent to talk about ethics in this thread. Like any discussion, it veers away from the original topic, but I keep bringing up the ethics of it all because that's the story that's being over looked. Greed is the great motivator for many people and it causes them to not only bend their ethics but to abandon them completely. Most of those many, don't even realize what they've done and they're completely in denial about it. Just before DEMA I had one "industry giant" (OK, at least in his own mind) rebuke me for the disservice to the industry I have done by questioning those ethics. Oh the irony. After all was explained, he finally realized that he was guilty of questioning my ethics for questioning Carney's ethics for questioning PADI's ethics.

I certainly don't have a problem with PADI's ethics being challenged, but not by a competitor using failed logic, unsubstantiated facts and outright deceptions. That causes me to question their ethics instead which was the original intent of this thread and my letter. To be clear, I certainly can't read minds, but actions seem to an indicator of what the mind must be thinking.

 

[redacted]

The instructor handed a child a tank that hadn't been hydroed in 20 years- are you seriously saying that was safe?

Several folks told me it was pointless to reason with you- I guess they were right....

I never said it was safe. I just said it was not a violation of CFR requirements for scuba tank re-qualification.

Perhaps it is a violation of one of those secret training agency standards. If not, maybe it should be, especially if it was material to this accident.

 

[Omisson]

I never said it was safe. I just said it was not a violation of CFR requirements for scuba tank re-qualification.

Perhaps it is a violation of one of those secret training agency standards. If not, maybe it should be, especially if it was material to this accident.

When I said:

"It's a safety issue- the reason you don't use a tank that is out of hydro is the danger it can pose - coupled with no visual inspection is a serious safety threat."



You INCREDIBLY SAID:



"Not according to the CFR. Do you have another authoritative source or any data to support that"

That was what you said .... Right?

---------- Post added December 31st, 2014 at 12:27 PM ----------

[/LIST]

This is just something the scuba industry made up and is not a DOT requirement. The only visual inspection the DOT requires is for tanks made from the 6351 alloy and that gets stamped into the tank, no decals are used. You can get tanks filled at any DOT inspection station without a VIP decal. PHMSA - Cylinders - Authorized DOT Cylinder Retesters: Domestic

Let's, for arguments sake say "the scuba industry just made up" the idea of visual inspections.

Let's also Discounting for the moment the obvious safety and quality control benefits it brings.

Hydro IS federally required in the US. And in this case the instructor supplying a student- a MINOR- with scuba equipment - in the US.... You do agree he should know the hydro requirement, no? And shouldn't provide a student with a tank 20 years out of hydro, right?

---------- Post added December 31st, 2014 at 12:29 PM ----------

i don't think you can make the assumption that the instructor filled the tanks.

All the shops I know of and/or have worked with have a fleet of student/rental tanks that are filled by any number of people at the shop - employees, instructors, DMs, etc. While I've filled plenty of them myself, I'm fairly certain I've never filled any that I then specifically used with students. They usually get filled when you bring them back or during the week. Then you just grab tanks from the "filled" bin as needed.

Fair enough- but at some point even using your scenario the instructor filled THAT tank- no?


Does that really change the math?

 

[redacted]

When I said:

"It's a safety issue- the reason you don't use a tank that is out of hydro is the danger it can pose - coupled with no visual inspection is a serious safety threat."



You INCREDIBLY SAID:



"Not according to the CFR. Do you have another authoritative source or any data to support that"

That was what you said .... Right?

---------- Post added December 31st, 2014 at 12:27 PM ----------



Let's, for arguments sake say "the scuba industry just made up" the idea of visual inspections.

Let's also Discounting for the moment the obvious safety and quality control benefits it brings.

Hydro IS federally required in the US. And in this case the instructor supplying a student- a MINOR- with scuba equipment - in the US.... You do agree he should know the hydro requirement, no? And shouldn't provide a student with a tank 20 years out of hydro, right?

Well, good, you can read.

I would not have used a steel tank that was 12 years out of hydro. But I don't always check the hydro dates of tanks I am provided. I probably check about half the tanks I am provided and have been pleasantly surprised to have never found one (other than my own) that was expired.

Vis is another interesting issue. Most of the tanks that I used this year had no VIS sticker. I suspect the vast majority of the participants on this thread used tanks in the past year with no VIS sticker. I had no safety concerns, never mind a "serious safety threat". Less drama and more facts.


I agree, the instructor needs to carry a good part of the blame for this tragic accident. I just see nothing to be gained by piling on BS accusations or in failing to recognize the responsibilities and deficiencies of others, including training agencies.

 

[RJP]

Fair enough- but at some point even using your scenario the instructor filled THAT tank- no?

There's really no way to know. There are instructors at the shop I've worked with the most that I don't think have ever filled a tank.

As I mentioned above the guy was/is clearly an idiot. That much is obvious from what seem to be the facts that are known. Just saying there's no reason to add unsubstantiated assumptions to the list of supporting points.

---------- Post added December 31st, 2014 at 03:38 PM ----------

I agree, the instructor needs to carry [-]a good part[/-] the vast majority of the blame for this tragic accident. I just see nothing to be gained by piling on BS accusations or in failing to recognize the responsibilities and deficiencies of others, including [-]training agencies[/-] those directly responsible for putting/leaving the victim in the water on the day of the incident.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Hawkwood]

... There are instructors at the shop I've worked with the most that I don't think have ever filled a tank...

True. I only fill the tanks used on the pool deck. I don't fill any tanks destined for open water, not the shop's, and certainly not clients'.