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

[Omisson]

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.

Except for that pesky medical doctor who said the pulmonary conditions in the child likely induced an episode...

Wouldn't want to confuse you with facts or anything.....

 

[Zippsy]

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.

For the 64th time on these threads, PLEASE stop repeating that goofy response. After the instructor broke standards of being able to give immediate assistance to the diver before he bolted, and after he bolted, the correct response would have been to take the other two boys SAFELY to the surface. You may not know this but "safely" means at a safe speed.

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.

I was pointing out that your "but if" is just as silly and useless as any other but-if. It sounds like you think your but-if is somehow more important. I guess that it looks like that to you because it fits your chosen solution.

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.

As noted 78 other times in these threads, one of the standards that the instructor broke was not reducing the ratio to a number that he could deal with and was appropriate for the conditions. I do that. Other instructors do that. If this instructor had done it, maybe it would have been 1:1. The standards didn't need to be different, just followed.

 

[nadwidny]

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.
.

Try and stay focused. The tank had an expired hydro. That doesn't mean it wasn't safe. If it wasn't safe it would have blown up, probably at the fill station.

 

[Rich Keller]

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?

You are reading something into the DOT regs that is not there. There are no DOT regs about how divers use scuba tanks only that the tanks pass DOT inspection so they are safe to transport. The scuba industry says a tank one day past hydro is no good while the DOT gives them a six month leeway. Something else the scuba industry just made up. The law was not broken by the instructor, it was broken by the boat captain who brought the tank out to the dive site. That being said it was one of many bad choices made that day but it did not cause the accident.

 

[The Chairman]

You are reading something into the DOT regs that is not there. //snip// That being said it was one of many bad choices made that day but it did not cause the accident.

You're missing his point. The law is in the eyes of the jury. If it can be demonstrated that this was "one of many bad choices made that day", you can be sure it will be brought up. Lawyers by trade, deal in inferences, conjectures, character assassinations, misleading the jury and semantics. If no good will be left unpunished by these lawyers, you can be sure that any and every misstep on the part of the accused will be used to condemn them. Of course, the defense will counter with their own inferences, conjectures, character assassinations, misleading the jury and semantics and will often throw others "under the bus" in order to exonerate their client. That they were duped or connived with others to win in the public court of approval is what this thread was all about.

Who was really thrown under the bus? The phrase means to sacrifice a friend or ally in order to ameliorate some negative aspect that relationship will bring you. PADI did indeed expel the instructor for the ultra selfish motive of saving additional lives and upholding their standards. The nerve! How could they put safety and competence above an instructor's livelihood and sense of self worth? On the other hand, the instructor, having broken several of the standards set by PADI, has selflessly defended himself by sacrificing PADI on the alter of his abject denial of doing anything wrong. That's what Carney's letter is leading us to believe, is it not? Of course he's leaving out the salient facts of the case and replacing them with wild conjecture and misleading statements. This is why I think he might have been duped. That's lawyerese and it appears he fell for it. I just wish he would clarify just where he got his ideas from.

 

[Zippsy]

The law was not broken by the instructor, it was broken by the boat captain who brought the tank out to the dive site.

What boat? What captain?

That being said it was one of many bad choices made that day but it did not cause the accident.

EVERYONE agrees that it didn't cause the accident. It's just additional evidence that the guy made lots of bad decisions.

 

[Hawkwood]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

Okay folks, lets tone it down a bit and keep this civil.

I have deleted a number of Posts that included name calling and insults. Some off-topic posts were also removed. To quote one deleted Post (deleted only because it referenced deleted stuff) this is starting to resemble a "bar room brawl".

In particular, some Users need to step away from the computer and take a break from their back and forth sniping. If you can't control yourself, we will do it for you.

This bickering has just about derailed the thread.

---

 

[clint@uniquescuba.com]

Hmmm, I seem to have had a post of mine deleted as well. I don't believe it contained anything inappropriate at all.

Could you please review it again?

I'm glad I took a screen shot though.

 

[KenGordon]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

Okay folks, lets tone it down a bit and keep this civil.

I have deleted a number of Posts that included name calling and insults. Some off-topic posts were also removed. To quote one deleted Post (deleted only because it referenced deleted stuff) this is starting to resemble a "bar room brawl".

In particular, some Users need to step away from the computer and take a break from their back and forth sniping. If you can't control yourself, we will do it for you.

This bickering has just about derailed the thread.

---

I would rather see who the people bickering and throwing out personal insults are than you protect them by deleting their posts.

Ken

 

[clint@uniquescuba.com]

Pete, who did I attack?