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

[demed]

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.

You are so wrong is so many ways that it is impossible to believe for a second you can be sincere.

Besides the lack of whatsoever ethics dispayed by mr Carney and his own agencies, PADI investigated an incident and found at least violation of several RSTC (or WRSTC) standards (here for your own education if you can read http://www.wrstc.com/downloads/01 - Introductory Scuba Experience.pdf) if not outright negligence in conducting the program - by the instructor and by the facility. These standards are formulated with the active help of the dishonest mr Carney and his own agencies.

PADI settled with the plaintiffs on the terms that PADI determined most advantageous (or least disadvantageous) for the company. PADI is not colluding with the plaintiff, and if it wanted to, it could have agreed to provide expert testimony against the instructor like the many paid expert witnesses do.

It's interesting that you talk about ethics and betrayal - all while advocating for PADI to defend an instructor (and a facility) who have displayed appalling disregard for safety, lack of conservatism and poor judgment.

What kind of ethics would displayan agency defending such behavior ? In one word the same displayed by the dishonorable mr Carney.

---------- Post added January 3rd, 2015 at 07:06 PM ----------

Well, PADI is settled out, and have no more liability in THIS CASE. They could take 100% of the blame and it wouldn't cost anyone anything. Had Willis settled out the instructor, Blue Water, and the rest of the plaintiffs, PADI would be happy, as nothing (read:Their standards) else would be called into question, but PADI doesn't control the rest of the defendant's insurance companies. And as I've repeatedly said, this whole thing is about insurance. Had Willis rolled over on this (and I bet they wish they had) none of these "personal perspectives", flawed and self serving as they are, would have been written, but the agent for Willis declared that he wouldn't settle any more frivolous cases. Now, the defendants lawyer, who happens to be my lawyer as well, has to use every trick in the book to win for his insurance company and client. I'd be willing to bet a fair sum that he has spent way more in hours (his associate costs me $400 an hour) than a settlement would cost. He has to win, so he's going to blame the parents, the doctor, the lake, PADI, and the good lord above if that helps him win his case. He has never lost or settled a scuba case, BTW. He's 8-0, usually involving rebreathers, but anyway. Se, since PADI is now fair game, as much blame he can shove their way is good for his client, but has long reaching ramifications for PADI. If their standards are found to be insufficient, there (I was told) are 20 lawsuits waiting for just such a ruling. So, while Blue Water and Douglas stand to take a beating, PADI stands to take a shellacking.

I'll say it again, then I'll quit posting until after the trial. This is not about a dead boy, may he rest in peace. This is about how the whole scuba business works.

You like to live in your own word, where you make all the rules and can change them at will without any regard for reality.

Your lawyer is more clueless than you are, probably a classic case of blind leading the blind.

 

[The Chairman]

I find Frank to be one of the most down to earth people in the industry. He doesn't have to agree with everything in order to retain that distinction for me. Franks is seeing this from a different perspective than most of us. I don't completely understand it, but I respect him for trying to clue us in on it.

 

[demed]

not worth arguing further

 

[tridacna]

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.

Not right? Looks to me that there are three types making money from the kid's death:

1. Lawyers on both sides.
2. "Experts" on both sides.
3. Scubaboard with the extensive ad traffic generated.

 

[Zippsy]

Not right? Looks to me that there are four types making money from the kid's death:

1. Lawyers on both sides.
2. "Experts" on both sides.
3. Scubaboard with the extensive ad traffic generated.
4. Mom & Dad

I fixed that for you.

I'm sorry for their loss but why is there a dollar value on it, particularly at this level?

What was the topic again?

 

[rdbradish]

Not quite sure where the insecure comment comes from. I am just dumbfounded that people don't understand the difference between a CEO calling out another organization, versus the membership for whom the guidelines are meant. In Mr. Carneys case, for example, he is the mouthpiece for that organization, and receives his marching orders from both the BoD and the members. While the message may have been presented as his own (likely for tactical reasons), I would bet a fair amount that the BoD of ITI Holdings was given both first review and ok. You and I, on the other hand, are not the mouthpiece for that organization and are held to a different level.

Understanding that Mr. Carneys message likely had BoD approval and support, it clearly becomes, not a personal message, but a statement from ITI as a whole. Thus, criticizing Mr. Carney is clearly criticizing both ITI and its subsidiaries.

Frankly, kind of amazes me how many are missing that.

I haven't criticized SDI or it's official stance. I have criticized Carney's "personal perspective" about this suit. In fact, I think he is guilty of "Unwarranted critical comment and deliberate inflammatory statements of diving is inappropriate and undesirable." It would be unethical for them to exclude me for the very thing their CEO has done, doncha think? Ironic too.

There have been a number of criticisms about me here on ScubaBoard. I won't censor them or kick the people off of ScubaBoard for those comments. I won't let my mods do that either. Why? Ethics. Criticisms are not only healthy, but they can be seminal moments for change. Any organization that inhibits open and critical dialog is doing itself and it's members a horrible injustice. Don't be so insecure: let the narrative guide you.

 

[Zippsy]

With all that review and approval of his letter going on, you would think that they would have changed the title from "An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry" to something that didn't mention "personal". Not that it matters but I guess I am missing that too. If they specifically didn't want to own it, it's kind of hard for me to believe or infer that they indeed owned it, IMHO.

 

[RJP]

So, since PADI is now fair game, as much blame he can shove their way is good for his client, but has long reaching ramifications for PADI. If their standards are found to be insufficient, there (I was told) are 20 lawsuits waiting for just such a ruling. So, while Blue Water and Douglas stand to take a beating, PADI stands to take a shellacking.

I'm still struggling to see how PADI standards have any bearing here... since Douglas didn't follow them anyway. It would be like filing a negligence suit against a motorist who was doing 100mph when he hit you… while claiming the state was also at fault because the posted 65mph speed limit was not stringent enough.

To me, this issue is essentially a product liability claim wherein the plaintiff (originally) and now the defendants are pointing the finger at a company whose product/service was never actually used by the injured party.

Some questions I'm sincerely wondering about… with a little late-night dancing on the head of a legal pin thrown in for effect:

How many things about a PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving program (note the registered trademark symbol) can be altered, changed, deleted, ignored or otherwise modified and have the program still actually be considered to be a PADI Discover Scuba^®Diving program? By definition a PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving program is one that adheres to PADI Standards, includes certain specific features/components, and utilizes certain specific PADI materials. If those standards are not observed, those features/components are not included, and those materials are not utilized or even present... the program does not meet the definition of a PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving program. How can a plaintiff assert a liability claim for damages arising from use of a product or service they never actually received or used? The fact that such a program was misrepresented as being a PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving program is irrelevant. Which leads to the next question…

Was the July 13, 2011 program titled, labelled, or otherwise specifically promoted or identified as being a PADI Discover Scuba^®Diving program? Or was it described in such a way that a reasonable person would have concluded that their child was participating in a BSA and/or Great Salt Lake Council of BSA program conducted at Bear Lake Boy Scout Aquatic Camp in conjunction with Corbett Douglas of Blue Water Divers? Seriously… has anyone seen any copies of newsletters, flyers, brochures, etc utilized by Bear Lake BSA, Corbett Douglas, or Blue Water describing the event? Other than the use of an ostensibly outdated DSD form... there's not much that a reasonable person can point to in order to identify the program Douglas/Blue Water Divers/Bear Lake BSA conducted as being a PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving program.

Is an instructor or a shop who conducts a “Try Scuba” type program that they know does not meet PADI standards guilty of fraud if they misrepresent (whether through an affirmative action or omission) or otherwise cause the public/participants to believe that such a program is a PADI Discover Scuba^®Diving program? Certainly seems reasonable to believe that a PADI instructor or shop would know what things comprise a PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving program. Therefore, it seems reasonable to believe that they could not claim a program that did NOT meet the proper criteria was actually such a program without misleading the public. A quick read suggests that doing so would meet the criteria for “communications fraud” in Utah. In fact, each misleading piece of communication (whether electronic, print, or verbal) would be a separate count of fraud. Which actually raises an interesting related question: If any of those communications were sent to, or received by, anyone in Nevada (where Tuvell and the rest of his troop resided) could they also be considered fraudulent misrepresentation in Nevada as well? In fact. it’s not unreasonable to think that some scouts travelled across state lines (from Nevada into Utah) specifically to participate in a program that they were falsely led to believe was a PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving… would that qualify for federal mail and wire fraud charges? (Even if the communication came from the Utah BSA Douglas and Blue Water actions would probably meet the criteria of “…or knowingly causes…” a fraudulent communication to be delivered as laid out in the

Irrespective of how such a program is described, is it actually reasonable to conclude that any and all "Try Scuba" type programs conducted by any person with a PADI OWSI rating - no matter how that program is actually structured - must be considered to be a PADI-sanctioned PADI Discover Scuba^®Diving program? Suppose I offer a program where I put dry cleaner bags over three participants heads, tie a man-hole cover to their ankle, push them into a local lake, and head over to Starbucks for coffee... is THAT a PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving program? It must be... since I'm a PADI OWSI. And if those three participants should die... obviously PADI is at fault because the standards for a PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving program are woefully deficient. If only PADI standards specified a 2:1 ratio… my three victims would all be alive today? Suppose in addition to being a PADI OWSI I was ALSO an SDI instructor? Would my cockamamie "Try Scuba" program magically become an SDI program as well? Would simply having an SDI instructor card in my wallet render SDI’s standards deficient and therefor somehow also responsible for the death of my student?

---------- Post added January 4th, 2015 at 03:34 AM ----------

Not quite sure where the insecure comment comes from. I am just dumbfounded that people don't understand the difference between a CEO calling out another organization, versus the membership for whom the guidelines are meant. In Mr. Carneys case, for example, he is the mouthpiece for that organization, and receives his marching orders from both the BoD and the members. While the message may have been presented as his own (likely for tactical reasons), I would bet a fair amount that the BoD of ITI Holdings was given both first review and ok. You and I, on the other hand, are not the mouthpiece for that organization and are held to a different level.

Understanding that Mr. Carneys message likely had BoD approval and support, it clearly becomes, not a personal message, but a statement from ITI as a whole. Thus, criticizing Mr. Carney is clearly criticizing both ITI and its subsidiaries.

Frankly, kind of amazes me how many are missing that.

So you're suggesting that Carney/SDI/ITI can have it both ways? That the letter can hide behind a facade of being Brian Carney's "personal perspective" just in case PADI goes after them. But it magically (and I'm assuming temporarily) becomes the "official, stated position" of ITI and its subsidiaries if an SDI professional member has anything to say about it?

 

[The Chairman]

3. Scubaboard with the extensive ad traffic generated.

Oh, dude. That made me laugh. If I had to put a value on this thread's impact on my finances, a dollar would be way over the top generous.

Thus, criticizing Mr. Carney is clearly criticizing both ITI and its subsidiaries.

Wow. That's quite the indictment. So, you're saying we can't even trust Carney when he says his thoughts are merely "personal"? I don't know that I would ever go that far. Do you think your portrayal of Carney as someone who can't tell the truth will get you kicked out too? I'm simply pointing out that the emperor has no clothes here. He's clearly made a mistake in posting this letter and using it as a marketing device. I'm hoping he's not as petty as you suggest. That would really add fuel to the fire here.

 

[PRO-FOUND]

Why do so many Americans including diving instructors have a problem using the words 'then' and 'than'?

Example
What's more astounding then the minutia of the law

It's not even a grammatical error nor a typo, it's simply using the wrong frigging word for Pete's sake.