Diver dies at Molokai on Maui dive boat

[Dan]

That's better. Thank you. Such a sad situation. That's is just an acknowledgment that PADI received the letter & a case is filed. We still need to wait the response from LD side. I guess it'll be a while before we see the response or it may never will.

I hope LD learns from this accident & make some changes on how they operate, including proper training for their DMs during an emergency, be clear in predive briefing in case of emergency the decision they have to make, the risk each diver would face & thumbing the dive when the weather becoming worse.

 

[Nianne]

Lahaina divers don't let you do this dive if you're not an experience diver and they explain clearly that it's a difficult dive and the conditions can be really rough.

It's sad that they had a deadly incident.

You'll never know how a crew will react to an incident if they don't train for it.
And even well trained people can freeze.

 

[Dan]

Lahaina divers don't let you do this dive if you're not an experience diver and they explain clearly that it's a difficult dive and the conditions can be really rough.

It's sad that they had a deadly incident.

You'll never know how a crew will react to an incident if they don't train for it.
And even well trained people can freeze.

Logging 25 dives as a prerequisite to dive in that dive site, as mentioned before, is not enough. 100 dives may be. Some operators in Raja Ampat & Komodo require 50 dives, which still seems too low to me.

 

[Nianne]

They asked 50 dives when I've done it last year.

And it depend on the dives you've done before. If you're used to rough exists and big seas dives it's not gonna be a big challenge.
But you can have hundreds of shore dives and find this one really difficult.

 

[Dan]

They asked 50 dives when I've done it last year.

And it depend on the dives you've done before. If you're used to rough exists and big seas dives it's not gonna be a big challenge.
But you can have hundreds of shore dives and find this one really difficult.

True. I've done a boat dive on 8' waves, 100 miles off shore. Something I'm not going to repeate. There are plenty of much better, safer diving elsewhere.

 

[Jack Hammer]

So why delete the incident report? Mods??

(Everything deleted while I was trying to open it, now it's all gone)

 

[boulderjohn]

I have access to the PADI incident report. Would providing that be acceptable? It would show that what was in the official report was the same as what was reported on Trip Advisor.

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

What was posted was NOT an "official" PADI incident report, and it does not confirm the accuracy of what was posted on Trip Adviser.

What was posted was PADI's response to a statement sent to them by the same person that posted the Trip Adviser report. That person essentially sent PADI the same report that was posted on Trip Adviser, and PADI responded, as it always does when people do this, by saying it will investigate the matter.

When an incident like this happens, the PADI organization involved is required to send an incident report, and that must have been done in this case. That is what is usually meant by the term "incident report," but that is not what was posted in this case. The incident report submitted by the operator is a legal document, and it cannot be disclosed publicly without permission. After investigating the case, PADI will make a decision as to appropriate actions, but the only response that will be made public will be any actions taken against the operation, which will be posted on the PADI web site. For example, in a number of occasions, PADI instructors were determined to be at fault in situations and were either suspended or expelled. You can still find a list of those cases on the web site.

---

 

[whysocold]

I posted the incident report that was sent to PADI. Without any media coverage, there is limited information available. I attempted to make what little information I had access to available for discussion.

 

[Bob DBF]

When an incident like this happens, the PADI organization involved is required to send an incident report, and that must have been done in this case. That is what is usually meant by the term "incident report," but that is not what was posted in this case.

I could understand you taking it down because I believe I saw the victim's name not blacked out on the second page, but other than that it seems to be a report to PADI of a fatal accident involving PADI dive professionals by a PADI dive professional.

From reading your reason for removing the post, I read that only a dive operator can submit an incident report. So if a PADI dive professional is involved or witnesses an incident, then sends a report to PADI, it is not considered an incident report and it is not considered a legal document and therefore not investigated.

I understand that an incident report is not a finding of fact by PADI, but one persons perspective, which at this point is the only documented information about the accident. PADI is not releasing the "report" without permission, and from my perspective, it is a legal document sent to the proper agency for their action.


Bob

 

[RainPilot]

@whysocold its a terminology thing. "PADI Incident Report" is one thing, "report sent to PADI about an incident" is a whole 'nutha kettle of fish. @boulderjohn is correct in that PADI does not release their reports to the broad public as there are definite legal consequences. I also have no problem with deleting the uploads, as the confusion regarding terminology can get very ugly when lawyers start looking around for deep pockets (remember someone died in the US, you KNOW there are lawyers earning off this already). There was no additional info in those emails and the potential for people thinking that it was an official PADI response is too high.

In incidents like this (I investigate aircraft accidents as part of my dry-job) there are 3 variations to the story. The old "your side, my side and the truth" cliché does hold true in some ways. We know what the OP stated that she saw. I have no doubt that some of the details will be subtly different from objective truth. This is not a criticism but simple truth. Human beings are creatures of narrative and we will, almost without exception, fill in the parts of the story we dont know in order to compile a narrative that fits our feelings / recollections / biases etc.

On the other hand we have no official statement from the dive op, no surprise (remember the lawyers) but a couple of personal response from crew who felt that they had a different version of events that didn't show them in as bad a light as the OP version.

I doubt we will ever have a full objective version of this event but thats fine, we arent here to assign culpability etc. We can work on hypotheticals and take things at face value, there is still value in discussing scenarios raised even if they don't turn out to reflect "reality", whatever that might be.

Edit: @Bob DBF you beat me to it... I thought everyone waited for me to finish before typing responses, sheesh....