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

[RJP]

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

I wrote several thoughts about his opinion... but they seem to be missing from my post. Will re-write and edit.

 

[TommyAHS]

Oh cool deal, I thought something must have not translated over.

 

[boulderjohn]

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

Another case of someone shooting his mouth off without full knowledge. He is complaining about PADI releasing documents to the plaintff that are supposed to be privileged. He is ripping PADI big time for doing that dishonorable thing.

Of course, he is ill informed. The documents were not turned over by PADI. They were turned over by local attorneys who did not know better. Those documents were "clawed back" when the error was discovered and are not part of the case.

 

[Wookie]

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

But the Tuvell case is not what this thread is about. The thread is not about a lawsuit, it isn't about the evidence provided, and it certainly isn't about PADI helping put the nail in the coffin of it's former instructor. This whole thread is about the ethics of one man, Brian Carney, having the fortitude and gumption to state his opinion in a letter, and a few folks standing up to defend PADI regardless of whether or not PADI is trying to help the folks they cozied up with when they settled.

PADI is in bed with the plaintiffs. They are in bed with the plaintiffs for a number of reasons, including that they don't want their standards questioned, because they don't want the instructor to be found to be an "agent" of the agency, and because another insurance company said "we're not going to settle frivolous lawsuits anymore", when PADI really doesn't want this going to court, especially as a defendant.

I have said many times, and I'll say it again, even though it isn't popular. PADIs standards are what will be on trial here. There are a number of lawsuits sitting in the wings filed, but not going anywhere that are waiting on the outcome of this case, and whether or not PADI standards are adequate. We can fight about whether or not they are, but when this goes to trial (and it will go to trial), a lot of other cases will hinge on the outcome.

PADI did not throw Douglas under the bus by expelling him, as Boulderjohn and Netdoc will scream from the heavens. PADI threw Douglas under the bus by helping the plaintiffs sue him. That is the betrayal that is so onerous.

 

[Ayisha]

Well, most of Mr. Moss' take on things is old news, and a lot happened and a lot of information became public in those few weeks since.

I found these parts, which Mr. Moss highlighted, though, to be interesting:

Even though PADI is settling, it maintains and believes that Claimants are correct that defendants Blue Water Scuba, Lowell Huber, and Corbett Douglas acted improperly and were the primary if not sole cause of this tragic event. PADI desires and intends to remain a party to this action to the extent the court will allow in order to defend the professional reputation of PADI and to defend and represent PADI employees and agents who may be witnesses in this action. [emphasize added] (PADI-Tuvell Settlement Agreement)

Plaintiffs and PADI have admitted that PADI insisted that it remain a party to the case, even after PADI and the Plaintiffs had reached a complete settlement of all claims, so PADI could assist the Plaintiffs in proving their claims against the Blue Water Defendants. [emphasis added]

 

[rdbradish]

I don't know Pete,

As as I read this, and then the bulk of your posts, it becomes clear to me that you are in breach of SDI/TDI Standards, so, I have to ask, would they be doing the correct thing in dropping you from their roles? As a competent instructor, aware that you are in breach of standards, why have you not removed yourself? Seems to me you are playing the game you accuse Brian of, that being talking outside of school and without real knowledge in an effort to take advantage of the situation for your own gain.



SDI Instructor manual, a Code of Ethics:

The SDI Professional, by virtue of their voluntary membership in SDI, recognizes a responsibility andobligation to promote SDI and support the official decisions and adopted by SDI. In fulfilling thisobligation to the organization, the SDI Divers and Instructors shall:
Publicly support SDI as an organization
Make every effort to bring about necessary changes in a professional manner by direct contact withthose fellow SDI Members and Divers who are in positions of authority and responsibility.
Every SDI Member has an obligation to report violations of SDI Standards and of the Code of Ethics.
Every SDI Member should strive to set an example of professional behavior and ethical conduct in allactivities including, public speaking, articles and books, and various forms of Internet style discourse.
Unwarranted critical comment and deliberate inflammatory statements of diving is inappropriate andundesirable.

 

[RJP]

PADI did not throw Douglas under the bus by expelling him, as Boulderjohn and Netdoc will scream from the heavens. PADI threw Douglas under the bus by helping the plaintiffs sue him. That is the betrayal that is so onerous.

Accuse me of being a PADI fan-boi if you like... but it seems to me that Douglas dove under the bus all by himself. The plaintiff sought to prove that PADI also belonged under the bus, but PADI managed to crawl back out.

 

[redacted]

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

Are you suggesting that you expect other agency's data, which does not exist, should be expected to be significantly different (in a statistical sense)? I am more concerned about actual sample sizes and admit that my conclusion is not without risk of error (all such statistically based conclusions are to one degree or another). But if Mr. Hornsby was willing to use that data to show how much safer their DSD program is compared to other non-DSD diver samples, I simply adjusted for the bias of data based on one (two including pool) dive versus data based on doing multiple dives and the results paint a very different picture.

---------- Post added January 3rd, 2015 at 05:01 PM ----------

Accuse me of being a PADI fan-boi if you like... but it seems to me that Douglas dove under the bus all by himself. The plaintiff sought to prove that PADI also belonged under the bus, but PADI managed to crawl back out.

It is not so much that they "managed to crawled back out" as they payed $800K for their "get out of liability free" card. Or do you think that they just felt so bad for the parents that they had to do something to ease their grief? And now they would like to see all the fault attributed to other parties.

Judges?

 

[Wookie]

Accuse me of being a PADI fan-boi if you like... but it seems to me that Douglas dove under the bus all by himself. The plaintiff sought to prove that PADI also belonged under the bus, but PADI managed to crawl back out.

It cost PADI $800k to get out, and then they crawled back in. Explain that, if you will.

 

[RJP]

It cost PADI $800k to get out, and then they crawled back in. Explain that, if you will.

Well, $800k to save your @ss vs the potential cost associated with losing it is potentially a pretty good spend.

As to explain why PADI (or any organization) does what they do... my guess is no more likely to be accurate than anyone elses.

---------- Post added January 3rd, 2015 at 07:39 PM ----------

Are you suggesting that you expect other agency's data, which does not exist, should be expected to be significantly different (in a statistical sense)?

I tend to not have ANY expectations of things that don't exist.