Catalina Diver died today w/ Instructor

[bsee65]

All these blanket assertions are, of course, wrong, but this case borders on the absurd. There were standard violations galore in the Tancredi case. A professional has the responsibility to provide care within reasonable standards, and when those reasonable standards are violated, then the professional is indeed at risk of being held accountable when something goes wrong. This dive was far outside of standards.

This is stressed in instructor training. If you do not stay within accepted standards, you are at risk and may have to demonstrate why the non-standard practice you followed was acceptable. If you stay within standards, then you do not have to do that.

I therefore so not see why the Tancredi case is relevant, unless you can show that this instructor was similarly in violation of standards.

Tancredi is as far exaggerated to one extreme as the idea of an instructor being responsible for a diver struck by a meteorite in the water is to the other. I think we can all accept that there are situations where a reasonable person would find an instructor to be liable for a divers injuries just as there are situations where one would find the instructor free of responsibility. Let's not argue the Tancredi case here...

 

[drbill]

Certainly the instructor has a measure of responsibility for the safety of a diver in their class, certified or not. However, the instructor does not have the responsibility to risk THEIR life in responding to an action by the student such as bolting. In THIS incident, the instructor DID respond to the initial rapid ascent and did assume some risk in doing so, but IMHO wisely chose NOT to ascend with the student through the highest pressure gradient at an even more rapid rate.

 

[openmindOW]

I was doing nothing more that refuting the blanket claim that if the diver is certified they have the total burden for their own safety. It often takes an extreme example to clarify an issue. Since we now seem to have put that foolishness to rest and reached what seems to be a reasonable consensus that there is a responsibility and a duty; we can, if we wish, attempt to place the Catalina case on that continuum and each may reach his or her own conclusions as to any breach of duty or lack of breach of duty with respect to the case at hand.

Thank you. The diver's OW c-card is not a Duty Release card for the instructor.

 

[openmindOW]

Certainly the instructor has a measure of responsibility for the safety of a diver in their class, certified or not. However, the instructor does not have the responsibility to risk THEIR life in responding to an action by the student such as bolting.

I make no assertion about the Catalina case.

Drbill, I see your point. However, I would not say that an Instructor does not have a duty to take physical risk for students under his supervision.

I'm an Instructor and I feel I have a duty. That duty might possibly put me at risk. I accept that responsibility.

It's hard to discuss in generalities, of course.

 

[Ayisha]

I was doing nothing more that refuting the blanket claim that if the diver is certified they have the total burden for their own safety.

Thalassamania, when I read statements like what you have described above (and I also tell new divers and have written on SB that divers should strive to be proficient and self-reliant), I don't see it as new divers being obligated to accept the total burden for their own safety or as a lifting of any part of the burden for dive professionals. I see it as a wake-up call and a wish to convey to newer or less experienced divers to take responsibility for themselves for their own safety AND a demand on instructors to convey the real and inherent risks of diving and to produce proficient, well-skilled, self-reliant divers to mitigate that risk - rather than the "anyone can do it" laissez-faire attitude and mass certification of poorly skilled divers. That is of course, just MHO, and others may vary.

 

[Ayisha]

Who here did not go deeper than 60 fsw before doing AOW?

I did not go deeper than 60 feet before my AOW, but there was only 2 months between my OW and AOW/Deep Diver. I also did not get to 100 feet until a full year after my AOW and a bunch of other certifications. However, going beyond 60 feet in our darker, low viz, extremely cold Great Lakes water inspires a lot more apprehension and respect for the deep than many warmer, clearer locations. Since many people even do their OW and AOW one weekend apart, it may be more common for people these days to not have the opportunity for exceeding their qualifications before AOW.

Now, have I exceeded my depth limitation or qualifications after that period? Yes, a little bit. :blush:

 

[MaxBottomtime]

Who here did not go deeper than 60 fsw before doing AOW?

I didn't go below sixty feet until dive #225. My OW instructor drilled the 60 foot rule into our heads.

 

[Thalassamania]

Thalassamania, when I read statements like what you have described above (and I also tell new divers and have written on SB that divers should strive to be proficient and self-reliant), I don't see it as new divers being obligated to accept the total burden for their own safety or as a lifting of any part of the burden for dive professionals. I see it as a wake-up call and a wish to convey to newer or less experienced divers to take responsibility for themselves for their own safety AND a demand on instructors to convey the real and inherent risks of diving and to produce proficient, well-skilled, self-reliant divers to mitigate that risk - rather than the "anyone can do it" laissez-faire attitude and mass certification of poorly skilled divers. That is of course, just MHO, and others may vary.

I could not agree more, it's kinda like the idea that a child can never have too many people who love him (or her).

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Certainly the instructor has a measure of responsibility for the safety of a diver in their class, certified or not. However, the instructor does not have the responsibility to risk THEIR life in responding to an action by the student such as bolting. In THIS incident, the instructor DID respond to the initial rapid ascent and did assume some risk in doing so, but IMHO wisely chose NOT to ascend with the student through the highest pressure gradient at an even more rapid rate.

I make no assertion about the Catalina case.

Drbill, I see your point. However, I would not say that an Instructor does not have a duty to take physical risk for students under his supervision.

I'm an Instructor and I feel I have a duty. That duty might possibly put me at risk. I accept that responsibility.

It's hard to discuss in generalities, of course.

I absolutely agree with Dr Bill here. An instructor can only be expected to do so much.

Yes the instructor assumes a duty of care HOWEVER the instructor has a greater duty of care to their family! Your family has a right to expect that you will put their emotional, physical and financial needs ahead of the random student who winds up in your class.

You have no control over the issues that student brings as a result of their life experiences and choices. You have a responsibility to do your job to the highest legal and moral standard possible short of sacrificing your life and health. Just my .02

 

[openmindOW]

I didn't go below sixty feet until dive #225. My OW instructor drilled the 60 foot rule into our heads.

It sounds like you had a good Instructor. Recreational divers need to be leery about deep diving. As an Instructor, I also drill that into my students.