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

[Scubagolf]

The expert depositions will be taken in March or April and the case is set for a 9 day jury commencing October 15, 2015. The odds are high that the case will settle between now and the trial date.

 

[boulderjohn]

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

You have to understand, Pete, that there are two distinct possibilities.

1. PADI learned of the death of the diver, read the instructor's incident report, did enough of an investigation to determine that gross standards violations were involved, and expelled the instructor to make sure he would not instruct again. That took a week. A year later there was a lawsuit. If that is the case, then PADI acted much too quickly and threw the poor instructor under the bus. They should have stuck by him for that intervening year and throughout the trial. They should have waited until the full legal process had run its course before deciding whether or not to expel him.

2. There was an incident of standards violations with no fatality the day before the fatal incident. That complaint should have reached PADI's QA team within 24 hours. The investigation should have been completed and the instructor expelled prior to the fatal dive. If PADI had acted promptly, the student would have lived. Their failure to expel the diver in the hours before the incident puts them at fault.

It doesn't matter which of those incidents is what happened. In fact, both could be true. Either way, PADI is at fault and needs to be castigated, as always.

 

[Ayisha]

Where/when was this information posted?

Tursiops, you posted a link to that information which was part of PADI's Response to an Open Letter to the Dive Industry way back:
PADI Responds to an Open Letter to the Dive Industry, dated 12 November 2014

Al Hornsby linked to lots of interesting information in his open letter including that complaint and various statements.

The incident occurred the day before the Tuvell accident and it was filed after the Tuvell accident.

 

[redacted]

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

Or stupid can go in many directions.

You got to know when to hold them, you got to know when to fold them.... or you can't win.

I would not have expected PADI to be able to react in a week, never mind a day. They are probably not just not set up to handle such things with any urgency. After all, how long did it take them to expel this instructor?

 

[Ayisha]

You have to understand, Pete, that there are two distinct possibilities.

1. PADI learned of the death of the diver, read the instructor's incident report, did enough of an investigation to determine that gross standards violations were involved, and expelled the instructor to make sure he would not instruct again. That took a week. A year later there was a lawsuit. If that is the case, then PADI acted much too quickly and threw the poor instructor under the bus. They should have stuck by him for that intervening year and throughout the trial. They should have waited until the full legal process had run its course before deciding whether or not to expel him.

2. There was an incident of standards violations with no fatality the day before the fatal incident. That complaint should have reached PADI's QA team within 24 hours. The investigation should have been completed and the instructor expelled prior to the fatal dive. If PADI had acted promptly, the student would have lived. Their failure to expel the diver in the hours before the incident puts them at fault.

It doesn't matter which of those incidents is what happened. In fact, both could be true. Either way, PADI is at fault and needs to be castigated, as always.

I know you're being facetious, but it definitely wasn't #2. The complaint was not filed until after the fatal accident which occurred the next day.

That is certainly reasonable. If my child were to relay information about what happened on a discovery dive on a Monday in the afternoon or evening when we regrouped, by the time I discuss it with my partner and write a report and file it with PADI, it would likely not have happened in time to prevent an accident the next day, Tuesday. It would be perfectly reasonable to have written and/or filed the complaint the next day, even without a fatal accident the next day.

 

[boulderjohn]

I would not have expected PADI to be able to react in a week, never mind a day. They are probably not just not set up to handle such things with any urgency. After all, how long did it take them to expel this instructor?

One week.

It was called "throwing him under the bus."

 

[RJP]

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

 

[TommyAHS]

Here's an interesting take on the whole thing from an outside party. Any thoughts?

When a training agency decides it is more important than its instructor members or, worse, the training agency helps the plaintiff sue its own members | Recreation Law

 

[RJP]

DSD is proven to cause more deaths per participant DIVE than other groups (programs).

How have you determined that... given that no other agency actually RECORDS participation in DSD programs?

---------- Post added January 3rd, 2015 at 04:32 PM ----------

Here's an interesting take on the whole thing from an outside party. Any thoughts?

Thoughts? I think there is a significant difference between "an outside party" (which Mr Moss IS since he is not involved in this specific case) and "an impartial party" (which Mr Moss is NOT since he makes his living as a corporate defense attorney/speaker/writer.) The tenor of his article makes his bias quite clear.

The point that Mr Moss - and a great many others - seems to be missing is that far from "abandoning its membership" by taking swift action to expel instructors who violate standards... by doing so they are actually PROTECTING their membership. (Those who don't violate standards, anyway.)

What is not fully considered here is the concept that "STANDARDS" are only recognized as being standard if they are enforced. If PADI did not expel Douglas and others who violate "STANDARDS" they would actually put the rest of their membership at considerable risk by weakening "adherence to recognized standards" as a viable defense against liability claims.

Further, Mr Moss doesn't know - or like others, is choosing to ignore the fact - that PADI never released confidential and protected information. That information was mistakenly turned over to the plaintiff by retained local counsel who had not previously worked with PADI or defended a dive liability case. PADI quickly reaffirmed the privileged "work product" nature of PADI Incident Reports and PADI Quality Management Summary reports and these documents were successfully "clawed back" by PADI pursuant to Rule 26(b)(5)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Details available here: http://www.padi.com/newsletter/02491878/default.html) But as the old saying goes... you can't unring a bell.

Mr Moss suggests that PADI members disregard the requirement to submit incident reports to PADI. Every PADI member is free to take that approach. But before following Mr Moss free legal advice they should keep in mind that they freely agreed previously to file incident reports within 24hrs as a condition of being a PADI member. Douglas could have disregarded the requirement for submitting an incident report... but he could/would have been expelled for THAT in addition to the other reasons.

I'm not giving anyone specific advice to blindly follow PADI's direction at all times. Anyone with half a brain would consult with their own lawyer before submitting an incident report when a serious injury or fatality has occurred. (I barely have half a brain and that's what I've done.) Frankly, if I were Douglas I probably would have passed on the chance to submit an incident report to PADI if it meant memorializing the range of standards violations that occurred during an incident that resulted in the death of a child. I would think that being booted for not filing paperwork in a timely fashion would be the least of my worries at that point.

 

[TommyAHS]

Ok, so no real thought on his opinion, just a comment about what he does?