Catalina Diver died today w/ Instructor

[merxlin]

No, we do not. It is possible that the instructor held a pool session to review all of the basic OW skills prior to commencing AOW dives. My post addressed stedel's anecdote and how modifications in training could help mitigate the risks of a student bolting during a mask-clearing exercise. I then extended the argument by stating that raising standards in training can be used to mitigate risks inherent in AOW dives, in particular to decrease the chances that a student bolts for the surface (which it appears occurred in this case). Do you disagree with this?

I agree. I interpret your phrase "training flaw" to include both the design of the curriculum and the implementation by the instructor. I didn't say that the lower training standards caused the incident in question. I only proposed that AOW training could be improved by adding a required pool session (for basic skills review) prior to commencing OW dives and that this would decrease the chances of a diver having an inappropriate response (bolting for surface) on a training dive.

I agree. Please re-read my previous post. I make this point explicitly.

If there was a standards violation then this discussion would be appropriate here, but there is not. If there was any factual information about why this diver did what they did, we could discuss that specifically, and how to avoid that by better training. My point is that all these training ideas do not directly have to do with this specific incident. They have to do with training standards and practices. None of these ideas, as good as they might be, are currently standards.

Might I ask what would be the impetus for such a discussion? Should we wait until an accident presents itself that shows an undeniable causative link between inadequate training and death?
In light of what's happened, at the very least, we should consider implementing measures to decrease the chances of something like this happening again. Isn't that the point of the A&I forum?

Yes, as it applies to a specific incident. Unlike some other accidents where we have specific details about improper actions by a dive professional, there are no such facts here.Theoretically, all fatalities not caused by a medical condition could be considered to occur because of inadequate training depending on how far you want to take that. There is nothing factual in this thread that points to any flaws in the way the incident was handled by the instructor.

Do I think we should discuss the current level of diver training? Absolutely. Do I think it should be done here? Absolutely not here. The implication is that this particular incident occurred because of low standards or practices by the instructor, and that is not fair to them. Do not make this instructor a scapegoat for what is, in some people's opinion a poor system.

 

[merxlin]

............. If the victim panicked as a result of some otherwise trivial stimulus, everything.

Can you explain "trivial"? I know large manly men scared to death of small garden spiders. I can assure you their fear is not trivial to them. For some people, they are very OK with a situation right up until they are not OK with it!. This diver could have been perfectly fine with the concepts and been very comfortable with her training, and been the a pillar of confidence right up until she saw her depth gauge and realized she was 60 freekin feet under water. Suddenly it gets harder to breathe, so she must be out of air, and the panic train is rolling.

Lets not confuse standards and levels of training, with an illogical opinion that such training will eliminate any possible negative events. You cannot eliminate risk, you can only mitigate it.

 

[Thalassamania]

Normally being of little importance, a skill that is simple to execute, a skill or maneuver that the diver could be expected to have actually mastered.

 

[merxlin]

Actually, the first report we got on this incident said it began at 65 fsw. That's a hair beyond standard for an OW diver. Part of the issue I have had with this particular discussion is the defensiveness and slight tweaking of things over time. You expect a correction or two to come in, but these seem to be protective of the instructor. I wonder about the accuracy of the facts reported now. 65fsw became 60fsw, so one might say that the diver never was beyond her prior training level. The difference between 60 and 65 is trivial in practice, but an attorney might spin higher responsibility onto the instructor once into the AOW depth range. Addditionally, what was initially reported as an OOA signal followed by an examination of the pressure gauge became an OOA signal followed by an instantaneous burst of speed. The former suggests that the instructor had an opportunity to take action, the latter that there was no chance.

To be clear, I wasn't there and wouldn't say that the instructor did anything wrong with either version of the events. The sudden crusade against any speculation and spawning of so many additional threads to generalize and distance discussion of potentially related issues, combined with these subtle corrections give the appearance of butt-covering whether it is intended or not. In particular, the spawning of a new thread for every single theory stifles the ability to connect the various speculations with each other in a way that would aid in proving or disproving them.

Which is better, correcting bad information and removing specific topics to be discussed on their own merit, or a bunch of truths, half-truths and outright guesses that convolute the topic so much that no one knows what the situation really was?

 

[Leejnd]

Merxlin, I just want to say thanks to your last three posts - and an additional thanks for saying almost exactly what I was thinking, thereby saving me the time of having to come up with the words to say it!

In particular, I want to call out this passage:

Lets not confuse standards and levels of training, with an illogical opinion that such training will eliminate any possible negative events. You cannot eliminate risk, you can only mitigate it.

Exactly. I can't help but get the impression from so many of these posts that if the instructor did his/her job "right" (whatever that means), then nothing bad should happen, and all risk of something bad happening is eliminated, so if something bad does happen, it means the instructor didn't do his/her job. That is simply not the case.

 

[Leejnd]

To be clear, I wasn't there and wouldn't say that the instructor did anything wrong with either version of the events. The sudden crusade against any speculation and spawning of so many additional threads to generalize and distance discussion of potentially related issues, combined with these subtle corrections give the appearance of butt-covering whether it is intended or not. In particular, the spawning of a new thread for every single theory stifles the ability to connect the various speculations with each other in a way that would aid in proving or disproving them.

I just wanted to touch on this. Personally, while I do understand the Mods' reasons for doing all those thread split-offs, I am not in favor of them. These discussions and debates were generated by this incident, and in my humble opinion, should remain in the thread. But I understand what they are trying to accomplish, and I respect that.

But I wanted to mention that I do NOT agree that there has been any "butt-covering" going on whatsoever. What I believe I have seen have been efforts to stop the blamestorming...to stop the insinuations, implications, and outright statements that this incident must have been the result of instructor failure. I have read this thread and followed this incident from start to finish, and I have seen nothing to lead anyone to that conclusion. All I have seen have been generalizations that essentially say that, by virtue of the fact that an instructor was involved at all, the incident must have been caused by an instrucTOR, or instrucTION failure -- instruction being the material, instructor being the person delivering it.

I do not agree with that assessment of this incident, and I do not agree that anyone has been doing any butt-covering.

 

[bsee65]

I just wanted to touch on this. Personally, while I do understand the Mods' reasons for doing all those thread split-offs, I am not in favor of them. These discussions and debates were generated by this incident, and in my humble opinion, should remain in the thread. But I understand what they are trying to accomplish, and I respect that.

But I wanted to mention that I do NOT agree that there has been any "butt-covering" going on whatsoever. What I believe I have seen have been efforts to stop the blamestorming...to stop the insinuations, implications, and outright statements that this incident must have been the result of instructor failure. I have read this thread and followed this incident from start to finish, and I have seen nothing to lead anyone to that conclusion. All I have seen have been generalizations that essentially say that, by virtue of the fact that an instructor was involved at all, the incident must have been caused by an instrucTOR, or instrucTION failure -- instruction being the material, instructor being the person delivering it.

I do not agree with that assessment of this incident, and I do not agree that anyone has been doing any butt-covering.

If you read the entirety of my post, you will see that I didn't say anyone was butt-covering, only that the updates and moving of conversations gives that appearance. You can recognize that something looks bad even though you don't believe that it actually is.

 

[bsee65]

Actually, the first report we got on this incident said it began at 65 fsw. That's a hair beyond standard for an OW diver. Part of the issue I have had with this particular discussion is the defensiveness and slight tweaking of things over time. You expect a correction or two to come in, but these seem to be protective of the instructor. I wonder about the accuracy of the facts reported now. 65fsw became 60fsw, so one might say that the diver never was beyond her prior training level.

This was indeed part of the initial confusion, since some people mistakenly believed this was an OW class. It was not. It was an AOW class, and the dive the students was doing requires depths below 60 feet.

The depth comment was in reference to the following:

Looking at it another way: this was a certified diver and could have gone to the depth at which the incident took place without any supervision, and been within standards.

That statement is true for the victim, a certified OW diver, if you say that the incident occurred at 60fsw. It is false if the incident occurred at 65fsw as originally reported. It has nothing to do with the course she was taking at the time of her accident. Of course she had to go below 60' in order to complete an AOW course, and it has nothing to do with the confusion at the start of the thread regarding which course she was actually taking at the time.

 

[bsee65]

But I wanted to mention that I do NOT agree that there has been any "butt-covering" going on whatsoever. What I believe I have seen have been efforts to stop the blamestorming...to stop the insinuations, implications, and outright statements that this incident must have been the result of instructor failure. I have read this thread and followed this incident from start to finish, and I have seen nothing to lead anyone to that conclusion. All I have seen have been generalizations that essentially say that, by virtue of the fact that an instructor was involved at all, the incident must have been caused by an instrucTOR, or instrucTION failure -- instruction being the material, instructor being the person delivering it.

I do not agree with that assessment of this incident, and I do not agree that anyone has been doing any butt-covering.

To follow up on your comment regarding the thread as a whole, one issue is that we have almost no information about the instructor's actions during this incident. It would be extremely hard for anyone to criticize her when all we have is a vague statement that she observed the victim begin to ascend, took some unspecified action(s) to slow the ascent while ascending with the victim, and then lost contact after the victim gave an OOA signal somewhere in the vicinity of 20fsw +/- 5. What is there to comment on in that?

Other than the general comments that an instructor is likely to be responsible for any accident during a training session (which I don't particularly agree with), I don't recall much in the way of actual criticism for the unspecified actions taken by the instructor. Maybe there was a comment or two about getting a fresh source of gas to the victim before checking the pressure gauge after the OOA signal during the time between drbill's initial description of events and his correction. That remains a valid point and lesson even if it proves not to be the way events unfolded.

Admittedly, this is likely to be under investigation at some level, so great care must be used on the part of the instructor in describing her actions. It wouldn't be in her best interest to publicly document everything that she did along the way lest some attorney find a way to spin it against her. We have no other eye-witness account here, so, absent speculation, there really is nothing to discuss. Might as well make this a bulletin board with reports submitted to the moderators for vetting prior to posting.

 

[drbill]

The past few posts seem to focus on whether or not the instructor did the right thing. However, it is also encumbent on a certified diver in an higher level class to be able to perform to the standards of their certification. We are all responsible for ourselves.

In no way am I implying that the deceased student in this incident failed to perform to her level of certification. I do not have all the facts. However I am saying we need to look at personal responsibility of the diver as well as professional responsibility of the instructor.

I have been informed by a course director that the initial inquiry into this incident apparently found no fault on the part of the instructor.