Criminally negligent homicide?/Scuba Instructor Faces Charges (merged threads)

[Pearldiver07]

As an instructor, supervising the drill, how do you know if the student is exhaling and the bubbles you see coming from the reg aren't from gas expanding in the reg? If you don't see bubbles on the ascent, are they holding their breath or are they inhaling?

The best way to prepare students for the drill is by having them conduct multiple simulated CESA with MSF only. Deep breath on the surface, dive to the bottom, spit out the snorkel and slowly ascend while blowing bubbles. They get a good feel for rate of exhalation and gain confidence in knowing they can make the ascent while exhaling.

When I don't see bubbles, it doesn't matter why. I stop their ascent, correct the issue, and return them to restart the skill demonstration. I also insist on their making a "ZZZZ" sound while exhaling to make sure that they are in fact letting air out. PADI suggests an "aaahhh" sound, but I find that the "ZZZ" doesn't cause them to exhaust their air so quickly, and it makes a vibrating feeling in the reg (which i have my fingertips on).

I do see the advantages to your suggestion of taking a breath on the surface and practicing the ascent, as starting with 1 ATM of air in the lungs can't result in overpressure injuries. But I still would suggest that they practice with the mouthpiece in.

This keeping the mouthpiece in is still in alignment with my belief that in actual situations there is no advantage in removing the reg. And I try to eliminate changes from actual process during training - can inspire bad habits when the "time comes."

But to repeat - I like the snorkel drill, and will incorporate it in the future.

 

[Pearldiver07]

True. But I can make a sound that would pass for "Ahhh" underwater by inhaling


My main issue with "ahh" is that it teaches exhaling rather than simply leaving an air passage open.

You'd think that is a way around it. But after even a few students, you notice the "hitch" in the tone when they reverse breathing direcations.

I've called a few divers out for it, and they admit it.

 

[Thalassamania]

Thalassamania,

You are correct. Doing anything that exposes one to any risk of injury is dangerous by the strictest definition. Walking down the street is dangerous. You could be hit by a car.

You may not care about my belief system, but ther are those who do. Some of them read this board. I really don't care about your belief system either. It seams a little out dated. Tell me do you still dive with a J-valve? After all presure guages are for wimps.

Dive safe,
Jay

I did not dive J-valves back then, they can't be trusted. We made our own pressure gauges and I thought the SPG was a great addition ... but the basic approach to minimizing risk was (and in my mind still is) the ability to reach the surface without having relying on any equipment.

If you believe that pressure gauges are for wimps, great ... start a thread in the Pub.

 

[fisherdvm]

I am not sure if this was mentioned in the post, based on the discussion group at the school I posted earlier, it seems like what happened did not meet SSI standards for instruction. Apparently her husband, the instructor was not present. It sounded like it was a practice sessions, and some students were practicing their ditch and surface skill independently in 18 ft of water, while she was not observing. Apparently she was working with some other students when it happened:

Scuba instructor charged in death of UA student - Topic Powered by eve community

""Originally posted by Aquaholic:
After talking to an instructor buddy of mine about this incident, I was under the impression that a few students were practicing a gear dump unsupervised in the deep end (18ft) of the UA pool while Allison was working with other students. Fist and foremost their are very strict guidelines for instructors concerning student/instructor ratios; I think like 8:1 max. If ther were 20 people in her class and her husband was not in attendance she in way beyound her ratio plus allowing students to dive unserpervised may have led to the negligence charges. ""

 

[String]

In which case the blame goes to the person that knowingly appointed an unqualified person to teach.

 

[divrdrew]

These two statements contradict each other. If these instructors "should not have been there", but got "rubber stamped anyway", then that is an agency issue, since they created, sanctioned, and supported the process by which it was allowed to happen. Good agencies turn out good instructors, period. Not-so-good agencies can turn out good instructors too, but it is usually not directly the result of anything the agency did. It is more due to the individual instructor taking enough pride in what they do to want to do it better than what the minimum standard calls for.

All certifying agencies have approved instructors that shouldn't be instructors. To think it is restricted to a single agency is naive. Most of us I'm sure have witnessed this firsthand out on dives. Personally I don't think that any agency is stringent enough on qualifications to be an instructor. 100dives simply isn't enough experience for most. To say that one agency is worse than another in that regard is not true...they all have qc issues and all have bad instructors.

That said, let me clarify my remarks about "should not have been there."

First, during our skill circuit, three of 21 passed on the first attempt (yes, I was one of the three). Normally that means you fail, but the examiner allowed the rest of them practice time while he finished up with the 3 of us in confined water. They passed on the re-test.

Second, during the open water portion of the exam, the examiner was very explicit...a good instructor not only needs to be able to perform skills correctly, but also perform the incorrectly. Me and one other candidate had to be the problem children during our entire ow part of the exam because many of the other candidates couldn't perform the skills inadequately. It was a very long day for the two of us (who were 2 of the three that passed the confined skills on the first go around).

Those incidents were the basis of my remarks. May have been a bit harsh, but those are my feelings.

 

[bfw]

I do not think this is a safe drill. I do not understand why it was being done in an open water class. You should never breath compressed air then leave your scuba regulator at the bottom. This goes againt what a reasonably prudent scuba instructor would allow. I am afraid they may have a case.

Let me guess, never had any exposure to any agency but PADI, right? There are other major agencies that use this drill, and it's been in use in OW training for decades.

 

[bfw]

Todays training standards require that the scuba regulator remain in place during controlled emergency swiming assents (CESA).

Current standards of YOUR agency. It's a great big world out there, and you should see more of it.

 

[Thalassamania]

Let me guess, never had any exposure to any agency but PADI, right? There are other major agencies that use this drill, and it's been in use in OW training for decades.

That's a pretty safe bet. The real point here is that no agency standards really have anything to do with the case, even if you can't see beyond the PADI filters that should be evident. More likely one should look the supervision that is required when students operate dangerous machinery or other equipment as part of their studies.

 

[bfw]

I don't think that it changes the picture at all, the question is not her "credentials" but her abilities. If the university knew what she was doing and chose to have her do it, what PADI or NAUI or SSI says is just irrelevant noise, they wouldn't know how to conduct a university program if it bit them in the rear, it not their thing.

They may or may not, but they DO know how to obtain a long chain of legal precedents recognizing them and their credentials as the legal standard of reasonably prudent dive training. Sometimes, it's not how good you are, but how good your lawyers are.