Facts would be good however when things like this happen you never get them.
The instructor does need to file an incedent report with his agency and the insurance company. These reports are confidential and to my knowledge are never released. The purpose of the report is to give the agency and the insurance company the information they need to defend the instructor and the agency against legal action. If the supervisor was a DM he may not even be insured. Not all agencies require DM's to have insurance and PADI is one that doesn't. I know more DM's without insurance than I do with it. Also while all instructors probably have experience with filing incedent reports I have never personally known of a DM that has (it might be different on charters or something). To put the incedent report in perspective we are required to file one within a certain amount of time following any incedent which interupts diving activities. If some one drops a weight on their foot at their car and decides not to dive a report is required. I had a diver that was just tagging along with our class (we don't do that anymore) who got sick after his first dive and skipped the second. I called the insurance company and they wanted an incedent report.
With PADI the instructor is automatically put in non-teaching status until the matter is investigated when there is a fatality in training. I don't know if that holds true for supervised non-training dives.
In fact I don't really even know how the training standards apply here. If it was a dry suit class there is no doubt that taking a diver into OW without recieving the entire confined water training as outlined is a blatant standards violation. However, I don't know how the standards apply if it isn't a class. If the supervisor by chance isn't a drysuit instructor then I would think it would really be sticky. DM's for instance aren't usually permitted to teach dry suit diving.
Like I said the agency and insurance company will do whatever they can to protect the instructor. Accident analysis for the betterment of diving do not enter into it at all and they will only share what they are forced to. PADI as an example has always (so they told me) had a policy of NEVER settling. Everything goes to trial. The reason I was given is to discourage suits.
DUI's insurance will work to protect them. The only entities concerned directly with public or consumer interests here are going to be the public agencies like the police and coroner and they don't know anything about diving.
Since there a relatively few diving fatalities nobody really cares. Nobody will take steps to prevent the one. It's a numbers thing.
When I was asked to help with demos no one could reconcile my concerns with the standards and I skipped it. In fact we recieved a not so nice phone call a couple of weeks ago about the most recent one I skipped.
"buyer beware"
The instructor does need to file an incedent report with his agency and the insurance company. These reports are confidential and to my knowledge are never released. The purpose of the report is to give the agency and the insurance company the information they need to defend the instructor and the agency against legal action. If the supervisor was a DM he may not even be insured. Not all agencies require DM's to have insurance and PADI is one that doesn't. I know more DM's without insurance than I do with it. Also while all instructors probably have experience with filing incedent reports I have never personally known of a DM that has (it might be different on charters or something). To put the incedent report in perspective we are required to file one within a certain amount of time following any incedent which interupts diving activities. If some one drops a weight on their foot at their car and decides not to dive a report is required. I had a diver that was just tagging along with our class (we don't do that anymore) who got sick after his first dive and skipped the second. I called the insurance company and they wanted an incedent report.
With PADI the instructor is automatically put in non-teaching status until the matter is investigated when there is a fatality in training. I don't know if that holds true for supervised non-training dives.
In fact I don't really even know how the training standards apply here. If it was a dry suit class there is no doubt that taking a diver into OW without recieving the entire confined water training as outlined is a blatant standards violation. However, I don't know how the standards apply if it isn't a class. If the supervisor by chance isn't a drysuit instructor then I would think it would really be sticky. DM's for instance aren't usually permitted to teach dry suit diving.
Like I said the agency and insurance company will do whatever they can to protect the instructor. Accident analysis for the betterment of diving do not enter into it at all and they will only share what they are forced to. PADI as an example has always (so they told me) had a policy of NEVER settling. Everything goes to trial. The reason I was given is to discourage suits.
DUI's insurance will work to protect them. The only entities concerned directly with public or consumer interests here are going to be the public agencies like the police and coroner and they don't know anything about diving.
Since there a relatively few diving fatalities nobody really cares. Nobody will take steps to prevent the one. It's a numbers thing.
When I was asked to help with demos no one could reconcile my concerns with the standards and I skipped it. In fact we recieved a not so nice phone call a couple of weeks ago about the most recent one I skipped.
"buyer beware"
