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

[Omisson]

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.

1- you keep dodging the issue. The instructor had an OBLIGATION to make sure the student was safe. Giving him a tank out of hydro was NOT safe. The instructor had a duty to inspect the life support equipment he was handing his student.

Do you agree or not?

2- other than the instructors errors and parents lying- identify any other contributing factor to the death based on the facts at hand.

Name them?

3- what act, omission, or error was caused by the Agency in this case?

Identify it specifically - not with done vague ties of "standards need to be better".....

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Why is the inspection of the tank an issue? this is like saying the instructor is responsible for the student dieing from a peanut allergy because he exceeded the federal and state speed limits when driving the child to the dive site..

 

[tomfcrist]

Why is the inspection of the tank an issue? this is like saying the instructor is responsible for the student dieing from a peanut allergy because he exceeded the federal and state speed limits when driving the child to the dive site..

It is because the tank issue is just another symptom of this instructors lack of "give a damn". It re-enforces the notion that he was a careless instructor, whom likely could have changed the outcome of the entire situation if he had only been at least a little bit competent.

 

[scoobydrew]

Why is the inspection of the tank an issue? this is like saying the instructor is responsible for the student dieing from a peanut allergy because he exceeded the federal and state speed limits when driving the child to the dive site..

Bad analogy, in fact not even an analogy just a nonsense knee jerk response. The DSD participant should not know what to look for on the tank markings and like many things a DSD does not know what to look for it becomes the responsibility of the instructor to do so. In this case the instructor did not do so.

The tank being out of hydro was very unlikely to be related to the tragic outcome but it does for sure give an insight in to the situation. I wouldn't want to be around an op that has chosen not to keep up with such basic standards, be it industry, legal or agency. Having dived throughout developing countries that do not even have hydro facilities in that country I have seen many out of date hydros in use but in the States, how hard can it be to be on top of your business? 20 years out.........

As a certified diver I would not want to dive a tank that was way out of check. As an un-certified diver I would expect the person I am trusting to make such decisions for me. whether he knew the tank was out or not, in either it shows negligence and I believe that is why the point is relevant.

 

[redacted]

1- you keep dodging the issue. The instructor had an OBLIGATION to make sure the student was safe. Giving him a tank out of hydro was NOT safe. The instructor had a duty to inspect the life support equipment he was handing his student.

Do you agree or not?

2- other than the instructors errors and parents lying- identify any other contributing factor to the death based on the facts at hand.

Name them?

3- what act, omission, or error was caused by the Agency in this case?

Identify it specifically - not with done vague ties of "standards need to be better".....

I agree that the training providers have a responsibility to reasonably assure the safety of the students. In this particular case, a standard requirement for a 1 to 1 ration of students to qualified instructors and assistants could have completely avoided this tragedy. Of course, that would required the providers to adhere to and enforce such a standard.

I have seen no evidence of the parents errors on the medical release or the out of hydro tank having had any effect on this incident.

 

[The Chairman]

In this particular case, a standard requirement for a 1 to 1 ration of students to qualified instructors and assistants could have completely avoided this tragedy. Of course, that would required the providers to adhere to and enforce such a standard.

If they couldn't hold to the easier standard, then how do you expect them to hold to a more stringent one? You can't fix stupid, incompetence and negligence with standards. Moreover, a competent instructor would not have over weighted the student and simply taken them both up with him when the one student bailed.

 

[Zippsy]

Having a 1:1 ratio would probably have meant the boy would have survived but based on how poorly the instructor seemed to care about standards and safety, we may never know. If someone had properly completed the medical form and followed current recommendations for fitness for diving AND the instructor handled the firm properly, we know the child would have survived.

Another thing a mandatory 1:1 ratio would have done is piss off a lot of instructors or shops who are able to handle 2, 3 or 4 participants.

 

[Octopusprime]

From what I have seen most dive accidents are not caused by equipment failure because of redundancy and buddy. However almost ALL accidents and fatalities are caused by multiple bad choices. It is not that a reg failed but the decision to continue dive on octo instead of using octo to surface etc..

In this case their was MANY bad decisions, student lieing on health questioners, choice to use tanks with out proper inspection and more...

It takes multiple bad decisions to cause a dive fatality. I do not like to point fingers but we should all learn from this that the details matter. And when something goes wrong abort dive do not let the situation compound itself.

---------- Post added December 31st, 2014 at 08:21 PM ----------

If they couldn't hold to the easier standard, then how do you expect them to hold to a more stringent one? You can't fix stupid, incompetence and negligence with standards. Moreover, a competent instructor would not have over weighted the student and simply taken them both up with him when the one student bailed.

I think that any instructor that has an accident as part of the investigation IF the instructor did not follow the MIN standards they should lose their ability to certify divers... Maybe the risk of losing their livelyhood will force some to take responsibility.

 

[Omisson]

I agree that the training providers have a responsibility to reasonably assure the safety of the students. In this particular case, a standard requirement for a 1 to 1 ration of students to qualified instructors and assistants could have completely avoided this tragedy. Of course, that would required the providers to adhere to and enforce such a standard.

I have seen no evidence of the parents errors on the medical release or the out of hydro tank having had any effect on this incident.

Your myopia is so bad for your sake I hope it isn't fatal.

The decision to lie about underlying medical conditions that are contraindicative of scuba diving can be fatal. Not using currently required medical forms and reviewing them to ensure proper health of a diver can be fatal. Diving a tank that could explode, rupture at depth, or cause CO/CO2 hit because it is woefully out of date/contaminated can be fatal. Overweighting a new diver by 50% can be fatal, doing a confined water dive in open water can be fatal. Using a malfunctioning BCD can be fatal, failure to quiz students to confirm they know what to do BEFORE putting them in the water can be fatal. Leaving to students unsupervised under water can be fatal. Having too many students without a certified assistant in poor viz can be fatal.

Doing all these things as a "dive professional" is criminal negligence.

Being a moron can be fatal too btw.

Hey YOU, out of the (gene) pool!

Catching on yet?

 

[redacted]

If they couldn't hold to the easier standard, then how do you expect them to hold to a more stringent one? You can't fix stupid, incompetence and negligence with standards. Moreover, a competent instructor would not have over weighted the student and simply taken them both up with him when the one student bailed.

You can't cure stupid but you can make it harder for it to survive, spread, and cause accidents like this. Gathering 2 and taking them to the surface after one bolts is not safely controlling 3 students. There is still a break in contact and control plus the risk of injury as divers are forced to the surface. But it probably is be a better approach than the one chosen as long as the priority is given to the 2 divers being forced to the surface. Had there been a qualified assistant on that dive, this whole thing would probably have just been a aw-$hit moment.

Having a 1:1 ratio would probably have meant the boy would have survived but based on how poorly the instructor seemed to care about standards and safety, we may never know. If someone had properly completed the medical form and followed current recommendations for fitness for diving AND the instructor handled the firm properly, we know the child would have survived.

Had the child have been born a girl, she would have survived this accident. But that is a bigger and just as useless stretch of the but-if game. The fact is the instructor could have avoided this accident and the training standards could have better facilitated that.

Another thing a mandatory 1:1 ratio would have done is piss off a lot of instructors or shops who are able to handle 2, 3 or 4 participants.

Is pissing off instructors and shops something that can not be traded off for reasonable safety? One instructor trying to properly control multiple DSD participants, without competent help, is clearly asking for problems once a problem with one of the participants occurs. The limited visibility as in this case just makes it break down faster and with less situational awareness.