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

[boulderjohn]

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

I would hold the operation that ran the show at least as much at fault. I assume they owned the leaking BCD that had not been properly serviced. I assume they made the decision to hold to unsafe ratios and not follow standard procedures. The instructor could have stood up them courageously and been fired for not following instructions, but that is not likely in most cases. I have said that I teach OW classes in those conditions. My old shop made the decision that ratios needed to be reduced in those situations for safety reasons, and they staffed OW classes accordingly. My present shop originally had unsafe ratios, but it only took a small discussion to change that. As an instructor, I enter every OW dive situation knowing I will have sufficient support relative to the number of divers I will have. I don't have to make a decision. It is shop policy.

The manager of my present shop told me he was teaching a student in one of his first instructional settings when he was hired. He decided to add weight to the student who was struggling. The shop owner was watching and took him aside, telling him he should never add weight to a properly weighted diver to solve a problem. That's the kind of supervision a dive operation needs.

---------- Post added January 3rd, 2015 at 10:22 AM ----------

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....).

You seem to have access to information not available to the rest of us. Where are you getting it?

 

[Zippsy]

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.

PADI has a program with more fatalities per dive than any of their other programs??? Those buggers! No wonder they don't understand statistics. I am curious about the industry as a whole. Does the whole industry have a program level that has more fatalities than other programs?

 

[RJP]

Also, PADI had received a previous complaint about that particular DSD instructor with no apparent action. (May well be a response time thing, but....)

There was not actually a "previous complaint" about DSDs conducted by this instructor, although there was a complaint about a "previous program" conducted by this instructor.

That complaint was filed by the parents of scout who participated in a DSD conducted by this instructor THE DAY BEFORE the death of David Tuvell. Unless those parents left Bear Lake on July 12th 2013 and immediately flew directly to PADI headquarters to file that complaint... It's unlikely that complaint was received by PADI "previous" to the program conducted on July 13th 2013. In fact, it's pretty unlikely that complaint was submitted (or even considered) until AFTER the death of David Tuvell. (I'm sure someone will fault PADI's inability to circumvent the time-space continuum by travelling into past preventing the July 13th program from ever occurring.)

 

[redacted]

Where/when was this information posted?

It seem to have access to information not available to the rest of us. Where are you getting it?

PADI has a program with more fatalities per dive than any of their other programs??? Those buggers! No wonder they don't understand statistics. I am curious about the industry as a whole. Does the whole industry have a program level that has more fatalities than other programs?

The previous complaint was addressed either in Dr. S's statement or in Mr Hornsby's statement. It reported a previous complaint from a mother of a scout in an earlier class at Bear Lake who claim the instructor put an bunch of weights on her son and threw him in the water. The stats came from Mr. Hornsby's statement once you recognize the flaw in his data as presented using number of participants as the denominator and adjust that to number of participant dives (estimate).

Yes, I do expect that all agencies will end up making adjustments to there DSD programs and related standards. Other agencies are just lucky to be outside the blast radius of this bomb but will likely get caught up in the fallout. PADI just drew the short straw.

 

[RJP]

Where/when was this information posted?

Letter from parents of another Boy Scout who took the same program from the same instructor as Tuvell, one day before Tuvell’s accident.

“A few of the details that my son Jason gave me about his scuba experience give me grave concerns about the students' safety at the Boy Scout camp at Bear Lake Utah.

There was the dive master and one other adult and my son on that first dive on Monday July 11, 2011. The other adult was not a diver and not employed by the Bear Lake staff. The only name I can get from troop 34 is a first name of Corbett for the dive master. They watched a video and got into the gear.

My son had a physical from his lifetime pediatrician about 19 days prior to the summer camp. He is 4' 10" and 76 pounds. Blood pressure 110/70 and pulse 73.

My son said the dive master put a weight belt on him with 4 weights (Note added: 20lbs) on it over the suit and a single tank and a BC vest. My son was in about waist deep water and to see if the weight was correct, the dive master pushed him and he
stumbled and got back on his feet. Some test!

There was no attempt to see if he was negatively buoyant in shallow water or in water over their heads. My son was so overweighted that he spent most of the dive stomping around on the lake bottom kicking up silt. They passing a bowling ball from person to person.

They looked at a small sunken boat. He said he could swim a little in short bursts with a great deal of effort. They dove in a single file line. My son caught a fin in the face and remained in the third position for the rest of the dive. He never swam shoulder to shoulder with anyone. He never swam really.

He never was negatively (sic) buoyant. He never had a dive buddy. He was never within arm's reach of the dive master or the other tourist. My son estimated the visibility at around 10 feet by using our dining room dimensions. If the dive master is a 6 foot man with 18 inch fins on and my son is following in a single file line of three.

Who precisely could have saved him is he inhaled some lake water and coughed, dropped his regulator, or panicked? He could not have reached the surface by swimming because of how overweighted he was. Would a first time novice pull his BC to surface in a panic situation? Was the tourist expected to pull my son's BC? He would have been 8 feet away at best. The dive master would have been 16 feet or more away and certainly out of visual range.”

Based on the detail included in the letter (esp participant's medical information, which is completely irrelevant to the substance of the complaint) it's fairly obvious that this "previous complaint" was written and submitted AFTER the death of David Tuvell. Based on that plus the language/wording/information contained in the letter it's also fairly obvious that the parents who submitted the complaint...

1. Probably were not divers themselves
2. Probably had consideraly "help" writing the letter from someone familiar with submitting scuba incident reports/QA complaints

 

[scagrotto]

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.

If I was nearby I'd check it for you with some distilled water and my wife's food scale. The scale may not be 100% accurate but it's pretty consistent, so the vast majority of the difference in readings between a 2 liter bottle of distilled water and the same bottle filled from the lake should be due to any difference in specific gravity.

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

The jury will (or should) have as much time as necessary to consider all the factors that the lawyers consider relevant and are able to admit. Given that the plaintiffs will argue that he was overweighted it's inevitable that the defense will use whatever tools they have to argue that he wasn't, and density of the water is a factor that affects buoyancy. If we don't get an authoritative answer about density sooner, perhaps we'll get an idea if there's a trial instead of a settlement. If the SG really is significantly higher I presume the defense will introduce test results instead of just relying on the claims we've seen so far.

As for the larger issues, how would you prioritize the multitude of issues? Given that the incident happened despite the boy's presumed medical disqualification and any instructional deficiencies prior to the boy's ascent, I think the instructor's failure to be there to assist is clearly at the top of the list. Despite any previous errors, being there is the one thing that might have changed the outcome. Since making it to the surface and staying there probably would have eliminated drowning as a cause of death, buoyancy strikes me as one of the large issues that won't be much further down the list.

However you order the list, what do you think still needs to be discussed? I think we've covered most of the important points, and we're largely in agreement about them. We're just not sure about all of the facts and have some differences of opinion about the subjective claims that will be up to the jury to decide on.

 

[Zippsy]

Yes, I do expect that all agencies will end up making adjustments to there DSD programs and related standards. Other agencies are just lucky to be outside the blast radius of this bomb but will likely get caught up in the fallout. PADI just drew the short straw.

That was a reply to me? Awesome!!

RJP, thanks much for the clarification. Some of don't have the ability or time or resources to ferret out some of the BS. I do appreciate it (and this paragraph is written without any irony or rolling eyes at all).

 

[redacted]

As for the larger issues, how would you prioritize the multitude of issues? Given that the incident happened despite the boy's presumed medical disqualification and any instructional deficiencies prior to the boy's ascent, I think the instructor's failure to be there to assist is clearly at the top of the list. Despite any previous errors, being there is the one thing that might have changed the outcome. Since making it to the surface and staying there probably would have eliminated drowning as a cause of death, buoyancy strikes me as one of the large issues that won't be much further down the list.

However you order the list, what do you think still needs to be discussed? I think we've covered most of the important points, and we're largely in agreement about them. We're just not sure about all of the facts and have some differences of opinion about the subjective claims that will be up to the jury to decide on.

Just to cover a bit wider aspect, neither the instructor nor a qualified assistant were there to assist (maintain contact and control). Either case would have met standards and possibly saved a life.

---------- Post added January 3rd, 2015 at 12:42 PM ----------

However you order the list, what do you think still needs to be discussed? I think we've covered most of the important points, and we're largely in agreement about them. We're just not sure about all of the facts and have some differences of opinion about the subjective claims that will be up to the jury to decide on.

I thought it was a week and a day makes it even more challenging. Yet, depending on when the complaint was provided to PADI or a representative, a rapid response is not beyond modern capabilities.

 

[boulderjohn]

Whenever the "previous" complaint was written, if it is accurate, it tells us a lot.

1. The young man had 20 pounds of lead, and he was grossly overweighted with that. So much for Bear lake density radically affecting buoyancy.
2. No weight check was done.
3. The instructor failed to put himself even close to being in position to arrest an ascent, as is required by standards.

 

[The Chairman]

Yet, depending on when the complaint was provided to PADI or a representative, a rapid response is not beyond modern capabilities.

Wait. PADI was condemned for acting too swiftly and now you don't think they acted fast enough. Sometimes you just can't win.