Helper in trouble-involuntary manslaughter

[boulderjohn]

Did he shut off your primary and secondary regulators at the same time?

Just the primary. You knew when you were suddenly OOA that it was a drill and you had to go to your buddy, not your alternate.

Now, there was a time he shut off my alternate. Of course, I could not tell he had done that. Then he put my buddy OOA. I donated, picked up my alternate, and had nothing. He was simulating a left post roll off, which can happen in a cave or wreck. In that case, I just reached back and turned it back on.

 

[ktomlinson]

Just the primary. You knew when you were suddenly OOA that it was a drill and you had to go to your buddy, not your alternate.

Now, there was a time he shut off my alternate. Of course, I could not tell he had done that. Then he put my buddy OOA. I donated, picked up my alternate, and had nothing. He was simulating a left post roll off, which can happen in a cave or wreck. In that case, I just reached back and turned it back on.

Sounds like good practice! And sounds like you chose a great instructor.

 

[leemcnulty]

A fine of 2,700 CHF about the same in USD at the moment. Note that the Swiss legal system is not like the USA.

Der entscheidende Fehler war für das Gericht jedoch, dass der Angeklagte dem Opfer mehrfach den Reserve-Atemregler in den Mund geschoben hat, ohne die Luftdusche zu drücken. «Die Reaktion des Opfers, das Ausspucken des Mundstückes, zeigt, dass ihm während diesem kritischen Zeitraum vom Angeklagten faktisch Wasser statt Luft zugeführt wurde», schreibt das Gericht in seiner Begründung. Das stelle eine eindeutige Fehlleistung dar.

What I find interesting is the that the court stated the determining fault was the repeated placement of the auxiliary into the victims mouth without purging. Stating that the "reaction of the victim by spitting out the mouthpiece during this critical period showed that the victim was getting water and not air in the mouth."

The Court would have relied upon expert testimony since it is a technical subject dealing with accepted practices. The expert testimony (both sides) is what I would be interested in - other than the observation that we don't know what definitions of negligence the German / Swiss courts applied to the facts.

 

[kaerius]

I'm not an instructor and never wanted to be. In my open water training we had rescue instruction and I offered to be the victim for the instructor to demonstrate rescuing. We had on wetsuits and fins, no weights etc. I was able to grab him from behind, pin his arms with my legs and climb up him until I had my head out of the water with him held vertically three feet down. He tried taking me under but couldn't really go down without the use of his arms.

We reversed roles several times and concluded that if you were rescuing someone your size you couldn't get too close to them. If you are a scuba instructor you don't have a choice.

mike

Rescue course teaches proper procedure. Never go in with less gear than the victim, if you're not in scuba gear, bring a floation device to put between you and the victim and be ready to rapidly move away from the victim(if you and the victim are in scuba gear, you approach from behind at all cost, even if it means submerging to come up behind from underneath, and clamp your legs to his tank so he can't turn and get you).