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

[cerich]

You mean like THIS ?

I am a PADI instructor..and a few other agencies. (actually was... I have not renewed in 2015, nor have I renewed with ITI either). I am an active status NAUI Instructor however

I posted that asking a question when this issue first started to come to light. In truth since then more has come to light obviously. Can you explain why you find that is a "my agency right or wrong" type post?

 

[RJP]

You mean like THIS ?

I think Chris's thread clearly falls into the "Person A" group (looking...evaluating...forming their own opinion) I mentioned in my first scenario.

---------- Post added January 4th, 2015 at 02:50 PM ----------

Can you explain why you find that is a "my agency right or wrong" type post?

C'mon Chris, someone has to be the "Person B" in the above referenced scenario.

:cool2:

 

[Hawkwood]

Hello All,

I have read several threads regarding this issue since I received Brian Carney's open letter. I have now read Al Hornsby's rebuttal letter.

...

Just to be clear. Al Hornsby's document was not a "rebuttal letter" to Brian Carney's open letter.

Al Hornsby provided his opinion to a legal firm on documents provided by that legal firm. It is an "Exhibit" in the legal case. To some extent, that is a theme running through some of the Posts in this Thread. Looks like I am just as guilty as a number of others.


_____________

EDIT:

Markmud, my apologies if you were referring to the Al Hornsby's letter that was sent to PADI members that tursiops referenced in his post below. I immediately made the assumption you were referring to the court document.

As a learning point, sometimes it is way to easy to make a comment on a Post and not understand the full context of that Post.

 

[tursiops]

Just to be clear. Al Hornsby's document was not a "rebuttal letter" to Brian Carney's open letter.

Al Hornsby provided his opinion to a legal firm on documents provided by that legal firm. It is an "Exhibit" in the legal case.

There were two Hornsby documents; you mention the one in the legal proceedings. Here is the other, which is indeed a direct rebuttal to Brian.
PADI Responds to an Open Letter to the Dive Industry, dated 12 November 2014

 

[rdbradish]

This is ironic. Did you actually read the letter? It never suggested anything but that PADI threw the instructor under the bus. No standards were discussed. No additional safety measures suggested. Nothing but PADI's behavior in the law suit was brought out. He even states "My reason for writing this open letter to the industry is to shed some light on why PADI engaged in such bizarre behavior in the Utah case." That his accusations were based on flawed logic and outright deceptions are beside the point. The letter was never meant to spark a discussion about safety in our industry.

Now you're drawing your own 'wild ass conclusions' based on what? A feeling? Do you know where the discussion about standards and safety are happening? Right here. ScubaBoarders have made this tragedy a discussion about standards and ethics. We aren't in competition with either PADI or SDI/TDI so it's not a ploy to garner more market share. Rather than harp on the sensationalism and bash agencies, we are having a vibrant and candid discussion about standards and safety even when those discussions are off topic. We took an unfair agency bashing and are actually getting some great discussion in spite of its intent.

Sheesh, come down off the Cross there, Pete. You run an electronic Tabloid.

It is clear that we didn't read the same letter. Allow me to simplify for you, once again.

Mr Carney-"I feel it is my duty to bring to light some of the things that have recently occurred in this industry. They remain closeted and buried in confidentiality protocols that are detrimental to our collective business models and to the overall growth of diving."
-Yep, pretty much calling out that there are some things wrong with the industry

Mr Carney- "There is currently a lawsuit underway in federal court in Utah (Tuvell v. Boy Scouts of America, et al., Case 1:12-cv-00128-DB), where a boy lost his life in a PADI Discover Scuba Diving program. "
- Yep, a kid died

Mr. Carney- "After much thought and reflection, I decided that, regardless of which agency I belong to, I have a greater responsibility to the industry as a whole to focus a spotlight on this tactic"
-Yep, Mr. Carney believed he needed to say something

Mr Carneys message, in my view, touched upon someone being thrown under the bus as an example of the greater concern, a view that PADI, was shirking their responsibility to the industry and to its members. Do I agree with his conclusions? Not at present, but I am still waiting for all the details to fall out. Ahh well, your conclusion are drawn, mine are waiting on review. Frankly, there is little more to be said

 

[redacted]

C'mon Chris, someone has to be the "Person B" in the above referenced scenario.

:cool2:

Perhaps "Person B" was omitted?

 

[RJP]

Perhaps "Person B" was omitted?

They usually can't help chiming in...

:d

 

[boulderjohn]

I asked a question earlier in this thread, and no one has attempted to answer it. I will repeat the question, but first I will quote from the PADI response letter:

3. The Carney letter also claims that PADI did something that has never been done before in the industry, namely, sacrificing an instructor (“throwing him under the bus”) for its own interests.

*This is not true. Instead, it was the SDI/Willis attorney who broke the traditional dive industry approach to litigation defense and created the ensuing conflict. In the history of dive litigation, this is the first time (that I am aware of) that a dive organization allowed its insurance program or attorney to cross-complain or officially blame another organization when both had interests in a dive accident lawsuit.
*Destroying this dive industry unity gives the plaintiffs a major advantage in a case. Once the "dive experts" begin accusing each other, the plaintiff's attorneys can sit back and take notes.
*PADI Americas, the instructor and the dive store were sued by the parents of the deceased 12 year old boy, and were co-defendants. The claim against PADI Americas was that the program was defective and the instructor was PADI Americas' agent.
*Once the SDI/Willis attorney and insurance broker told the store and instructor to blame the DSD program, it put them in legal opposition with PADI. PADI then had to defend against attacks from two directions – from the plaintiffs and from the other defendants.
*In an already difficult case, this left PADI with only two options: 1) Accept the full blame and liability, which it would not do considering the circumstances, or 2) settle the case out of court (the option chosen).​

So, SDI and the instructor were making an unprecedented claim that it was PADI, not the instructor, who was at fault for the accident. Look at the last bullet above. PADI had to defend itself against the claim. In doing so, they had no choice but to be on the same side as the plaintiffs. This is what Wookie keeps saying is "throwing the instructor under the bus." So, to repeat my question:

What should PADI have done differently?

 

[The Chairman]

Sheesh, come down off the Cross there, Pete. You run an electronic Tabloid.

'Come down off the Cross'? I take exception to that. I'm not a victim here and don't plan on being one. You might have a poor opinion of SB and yet here you are. Voicing your opinion along with the rest of us. Something you don't see in any tabloid. This is a forum. Discussion either way is allowed with only two exceptions. We don't allow people to promote learning how to dive without an instructor or to promote learning how to dive overhead without an instructor. We not only allow dissent: we encourage it.

It is clear that we didn't read the same letter.

I find the rest of this disingenuous. I pointed out that the letter never addressed safety and that it never addressed standards, after you suggested that it did both. You still haven't pointed to one sentence in that letter that addressed either. Why can't you do that? Are you unable to admit that you're wrong about that? You claim to have an open mind, but your continued harangue indicates otherwise. Please quote one sentence that directly addresses safety and or standards and I will cede this point. If you can't, then please cede yours.

I get that some have agenda in this thread. My agenda is to understand why the letter was written and to discuss it's relative merits and demerits. I feel I am giving Carney a benefit of the doubt here, but I'm not about to try to make it read something that just isn't there. I did a lot of research before I started this thread. I talked to a number of people on both sides, both verbally and electronically. `I'm trying as hard as I can to be completely neutral in regards to friendships and relationships. I certainly have nothing to gain by starting this letter. I will not improve my market share. No one is paying me $250/hour to give my opinion. I just want the discussion to be fair and balanced. The PADI fans will probably continue to be PADI fans. The same can be said about the SDI/TDI fans. The PADI detractors will probably continue to be PADI detractors and again, the same can be said about the SDI/TDI fans. It doesn't have to be this way. Neither of these agencies is evil. Neither of them is perfect either. Rather than mindlessly bash either side, let's really look and see who does what and why. As an instructor, I feel it's important for me to find the right agency for me. I'm happy being an SDI/TDI as well as a NASE instructor. That doesn't mean I will defend the actions of either at the cost of my intellectual honesty.

 

[clint@uniquescuba.com]

Why? I can't write a lie

Fact: This kid was given 30 pounds of weight for a five mil farmer john suit and a steel tank. Most cold water instructors I have talked to believe this to be at least 10 pounds over weighted. For a participant without adequate training to inflate a BCD, this was an obvious contributing factor. It's why we don't abandon DSD students in Open Water.

Is it still a fact the child was wearing a five mil suit?.... or just a lie?