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

[The Chairman]

Is this board being run strictly as a labor of love? Why not do this for free too? (Yeah, it probably feels like it).

I'm not against people making money, even lots of money. When SB took over my life, I had to make it able to buy groceries etc. However, I maintained my ethics in doing so. I have not sold out, not even a little bit. I get sent gear all the time that I tell the manufacturer that they do not want me to write about. Why? I can't write a lie just to garner their allegiance or to sell a bit more advertising. It's just not right.

Again, not quite. The 1:1 is only applicable in the case of no confined water being available, in which case you can do 1:1 skills on a line, in deep water but at less than 6 ft down on the line. There is NO situation in a which you can skip the required skills.

Now, you're making sense. Thanks for the clarification.

Not being able to find the specific gravity of the water doesn't mean there's not a lot of other information that may reconcile the claimed facts with the experience of others who are familiar with the lake.

The lake holds brown trout. It can't be far off of perfect to be able to do that.

You can also bend the truth through the choice of words. The instructor clearly made mistakes, but I'm seeing a lot of words that may not be fair descriptions of his actions, or at least his intent.

I'm sorry, but those words describe my opinion of his actions. The absence of a weighting test, the omission of any skill instruction and not even giving a short exam indicate an instructor that simply doesn't care on many levels. As for the use of the word abandoned, it's exactly what happened. Those kids were abandoned by their instructor: left alone without supervision and their safety was neglected.

It's definitely hard to reconcile slightly negative at 1.3 ATA with anything close to neutral at .8ATA, particularly since the other boy indicates that he appeared to be unconscious (or at least unresponsive).

The reg was out of his mouth. The normally air filled lungs may have been filled with water instead. That's not a given, but a possibility and could account for a distinct buoyancy swing. However, that the gear had to be removed to make moving the body possible seems to indicate otherwise. We may never know.

Still, I call BS on the report that says the water is more dense than seawater, let alone the density of the water in the Great Salt Lake, in fact I call that a flat out lie.

That's my feeling as well. It's a statement designed to obfuscate the truth in hopes of bamboozling a jury.

I guess that depends on how one defines "best".

We don't have an "I'm being facetious" smiley, but I thought most would get the humor in my statement.

 

[Storker]

We don't have an "I'm being facetious" smiley, but I thought most would get the humor in my statement.

Apparently, there isn't a "deadpan" smiley here either :angel2:

It's a [-]statement[/-] report designed to obfuscate the truth in hopes of bamboozling a jury.

FTFY

If I were asked to review something like this for a proper journal, the manuscript would get a "major revision needed" verdict. At the best. If I were in a good mood and did a sloppy job on the review.


EDIT: However, to be fair about the density, Bear Lake apparently contains quite a bit of suspended calcium carbonate particles, and that mineral has a density of almost 3 g/cc. A 1% suspension of CaCO3 particles in freshwater should, if I did my back of the envelope calculations correct, have a density similar to seawater. But the claim that the water in Bear Lake should be denser than seawater ought to be rather simple to either confirm or debunk: just measure its density.

 

[The Chairman]

There's got to be someone in the area that can take a simple SG test. I even have a refractometer... but it's not in the proper range. It's for testing antifreeze and batteries.

 

[dmoore19]

Anybody make beer or wine? You could use a hydrometer. If I still lived close to Bear Lake I would drive up there and do it, but alas it is about a 7 or 8 hour drive from here.

I might be able to believe that it is heavier than seawater if the water was heavily silted, but that is a lot of undissolved solids to suspend, probably close to 3% by volume. The silt would probably be clay with an SG of 2.4 and the SG of Calcium Carbonate being 2.7.

 

[RJP]

I think those of you focusing on the salinity question are falling for the approach that attorneys take with juries: "If you can't inform... confuse!"

Every second we (or a jury) spend discussing refractometers, specific gravity, etc is one LESS second spent discussing the larger issues.

 

[dmoore19]

OK, I'll take my place at the back of the bus. Sorry for the intrusion.

 

[redacted]

I think those of you focusing on the salinity question are falling for the approach that attorneys take with juries: "If you can't inform... confuse!"

Every second we (or a jury) spend discussing refractometers, specific gravity, etc is one LESS second spent discussing the larger issues.

The more I see of this, the more I understand why PADI chose to pay $800k to limit its financial liabilities.

I think it is necessary (or at least useful) to work your way through the chaff and fodder to understand the issues.

 

[The Chairman]

Every second we (or a jury) spend discussing refractometers, specific gravity, etc is one LESS second spent discussing the larger issues.

I disagree. The largest issue for me is simple ethics. Who can we really trust? We've been told to not trust PADI because they "throw instructors under the bus". It's become apparent to me that our trust is being thrown under the bus instead.

It's a horrible, horrible tragedy that a Scout is dead. I don't want to diminish that in any way. To my understanding and with the facts that I have, the parents and the instructor seem to be at fault for this tragedy. Standards are as much a red herring as the salinity of Bear Lake, Utah. No, we're not the jury, and I imagine that the defense has made certain that no divers or instructors are a part of the jury. If the instructor had really been judged by a jury of his peers, those 12 fellow instructors would take merely an instant to follow PADI's lead and hold him accountable. Of that I am certain.

To paraphrase an old election phrase: "It's the trust, stupid."

 

[redacted]

I disagree. The largest issue for me is simple ethics. Who can we really trust? We've been told to not trust PADI because they "throw instructors under the bus". It's become apparent to me that our trust is being thrown under the bus instead.

It's a horrible, horrible tragedy that a Scout is dead. I don't want to diminish that in any way. To my understanding and with the facts that I have, the parents and the instructor seem to be at fault for this tragedy. Standards are as much a red herring as the salinity of Bear Lake, Utah. No, we're not the jury, and I imagine that the defense has made certain that no divers or instructors are a part of the jury. If the instructor had really been judged by a jury of his peers, those 12 fellow instructors would take merely an instant to follow PADI's lead and hold him accountable. Of that I am certain.

To paraphrase an old election phrase: "It's the trust, stupid."

I agree to an extent on the instructor. I do not see the parents as a major fault holder but do see the Dr (his office) who cleared the child. That does get a bit complex as it really was not the Dr but the PA. I also see fault on PADI's part. By their own statistics, DSD is proven to cause more deaths per participant DIVE than other groups (programs). It is my impression that PADI management did not understand their own statistics. Also, PADI had received a previous complaint about that particular DSD instructor with no apparent action. (May well be a response time thing, but....).

I think I pretty much know who not to trust, training agencies included.

But I doubt if we have heard the end of this yet.

 

[tursiops]

Also, PADI had received a previous complaint about that particular DSD instructor with no apparent action.

Where/when was this information posted?