Concerns raised about agency response to student fatality

[Superlyte27]

never mind.

 

[Diver0001]

I can only answer from the perspective of a PADI instructor, as I was one the longest.

If a QA is filed against an instructor, by another instructor, the other instructor must see the standards violation. That likely did not happen here.

The agency, IANTD in this case, probably considers this to be a dogpile on the other instructor. None of us were there, none of us saw what may be extenuating circumstances, therefore, dogpiling is frowned on, as it is here on ScubaBoard.

No one knows what happened except the instructor, and he may not know. To all appearances he lost student control, which just isn't cricket. But no one else knows the story, except presumably IANTD, who cleared the instructor. They know something we don't. Maybe it was something trying to prevent future litigation. Think of the Rob Stewart case happening right here. There is a ton of information that has not come out in that case.

Bring disrepute on an agency is cause for counseling and/or expulsion. Sounds like the folks who dogpiled on were expelled, which is just what IANTD said would happen.

I don't think any agency is beyond overlooking epic idiocy. I was directly involved (and made a first-hand accident report) in an accident that even got to the point of a criminal court case where a DM, after having been told by a student more than once that he was about to run out of air, botched the air share to the point where the student "drowned" (we saved his life a few minutes later, which was somewhat of a minor miracle, even though we were not part of their dive team) and then panicked and fled the scene, leaving the student AND his buddy (a second student) behind.

The DM was let off in the criminal case because in Dutch law it is not required by law to endanger ones own life in order to save the life of another and the DM claimed onder oath that the diver appeared to "attack him without warning" -- denying the claim, contrary to evidence presented by the buddy, that he had been warned about the low-on-air issue -- and he was fully convinced that his life was in danger. Of course this is utter rubbish but how do you prove it when it was all happening in his head? He could have said ANYTHING and the court would have to accept it because it was all happening in his head! Obviously, he was well coached by his lawyer and was not held criminally responsible. In a subsequent civil suit he was found guilty and liable.

However, this post is not about the law suit.... The interesting thing is that the agency involved took NO action against the DM because (as far as I understood it) it is apparently not a standards violation to botch an air-share or to leave a drowning victim behind without attempting a rescue even if you are the one who caused them to drown. I guess the logic was that there is no standard stipulating behaviour in this situation and therefore no standards violation was committed.

Think about that. A DM can botch an air-share after being warned that the diver was low on air, let a student drown, panic and flee, leave one student behind for dead and another (there were two) to figure out what to do next while her buddy (and husband!) was laying apparently dead next to her on a platform in 18m of water, allow ANOTHER group to rescue his a$$ after the STUDENT bolted to the surface and raised the alarm. And he gets off Scott free in a criminal suit AND by the agency because there was no standards violation involved.

Sorry but I cannot for the life of me understand the logic behind NOT banning him for this.

What I understood is that when the case was done the DM involved was still able to teach/assist even though every student he gets in the water with is clearly at risk. I heard that the DM himself took the decision not to "work" anymore but clearly he should have been banned by the agency for being a brain-dead drooling idiot. It's not like the agency has a shortage of people who want to work for them so HOW did they reach the conclusion that THIS DM, despite his monumental incompetence, was SO important to them that they had to keep him out of the wind?

Honestly, years later it still completely blows my mind to think about this.

Now the point of this thread: Apparently in the technical arena something similar is able to happen too. We would all like to believe that technical training is "better" and that technical agencies hold themselves to a "higher standard" of professionalism and/or discipline than what I was just talking about but in reality.... probably not.

I've also been hearing disturbing stories about IANTD management. A close friend of mine who is a PADI CD, an IANTD instructor trainer (lapsed) and a TDI instructor trainer and has a CV with an entire page or so of scuba related abbreviations allowed his IANTD membership to lapse because of several such incidents (1/2 of which never reached the internet). He became so uncomfortable about instructors not being held accountable for mistakes that he turned his back to the agency.

To me that tells me that something is clearly amiss. What it is, I don't know. I hold a few IANTD cards but I have no association at all with them other than knowing a number of their instructors. I can only imagine that it is something similar to what I was describing above.

R..

 

[EricTheDood]

Funny how some folks are talking about double jeopardy in Italy, as that was a central theme (in addition to police incompetence and extradition laws) in the Amanda Knox case.

 

[EricTheDood]

4. The students were to navigate the first part of the entry alone and with no guideline to the surface. They were to continue unguided until they found the beginning of the guideline, at which point they would begin to follow that line (which can be seen in the video).

I didn't read through the whole thread so sorry if it's already been asked, but could each student lay their own line?

Not that it excuses the instructors in any way.

 

[The Chairman]

Well maybe I was told wrong.

Oh snap... now it's hearsay cubed or even higher.

After all is said and done, there's a lot more said than done.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Stating that we gave someone a DPV or any other type instructor card as a bribe is totally ridiculous and false.

That would be one cheap ass bribe if it were attempted (I don't believe it happened. The only possibility is a clerical error).

 

[TracyN]

never mind.

Omg! A ghost from the past! This isn't a typical response from you! Lmao!

 

[LiteHedded]

I mean it's no secret that dpv cards can be acquired...right?
It is known.