northen diver
Contributor
SparticleBrane:
How much?
Instructors - Agencies Split from overweight
- Thread starter MikeFerrara
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
How much?
Better than what? Do you KNOW her level of training? Do you KNOW who even trained her? No... it's the ego insinuating that your training must somehow be superior. That's pretty normal I guess. "Everyone else is crap compared to my (insert dive instructor, agency, affiliation here)!!!" is a statement I have had enough of.SparticleBrane:
It's sad that some would use this tragedy as a stepping stone to further their agenda.
Why would you? You both have the same view of the agencies and it comes out in your posts. You are so inured to it that you simply can not see your bias.Walter:
Missdirected
Contributor
SparticleBrane:
I'm sorry, I did not know you were privy to her training and to what extent she had taken it to.
Seems this thread has gone horribly astray.
This event was a tragedy. I see much of the discussion, and even the speculation, as a sincere attempt to learn something from this unfortunate situation, which may prevent something like this from happening again, or from happening with any frequency. But, I continue to be challenged by the limited amount that we actually know, how much we either do not know at all or know only from speculation, and therefore what we can learn.
What we actually know?
1. A relatively young woman dived while diving.
2. Two of her children and a companion were in the water near her at the time of the incident.
What do we have a reasonable basis to presume?
1. The charter operator was Ocean Divers
2. The dive was on Molasses Reef
What has been reported, and not disputed (yet)?
1. She told her companion, after she entered the water, that she was over-weighted.
2. She appeared to panic while in the water, according to her companion.
3. The depth of the dive according to her computer, or at least that of her companion, was minimal – the computer may not have registered any depth at all, suggesting the events all occurred on the surface.
4. She was apparently diving with a steel tank. (As the standard steel tank used by Ocean Divers is a LP 80, presumably that was the type of tank she was using.)
5. That there was some current on the reef at the time of the dive.
6. The oxygen kit on the boat was not functioning properly
7. There were (at least) two physicians (including her companion) among the passengers on the dive boat.
8. Preliminary autopsy results indicate that the cause of death was salt water drowning.
What has been mentioned but not verified, or has been mentioned and disputed?
1. She was bumped, or pushed into the water by dive boat crew.
2. Her children were ages 10 and 13, or 14 and 17.
3. Her companion attempted to drop some of her weights, or was successful in dropping some of her weights
4. There were thunderstorms in the area at the time of the incident.
5. The diver was relatively inexperienced, or was a tech diver
What do we know nothing about?
1. Her training, her certification (level, agency, etc.), her experience.
2. Her gear configuration.
3. How much weight she was wearing, and whether or not she was actually over-weighted.
4. Whether or not her low pressure inflator hose was connected
5. Whether her air was turned on.
6. What kind of pre-dive safety check she performed.
7. Whether her regulator was in her mouth when she entered the water, or after she was in the water.
8. Whether she had any medical history or conditions that may have contributed to her ability to deal with her situation in the water, or her death.
9. Whether attempts are cardiopulmonary resuscitation were competent. (I do not mean successful, which they were not, rather whether they were procedurally competent and correct)
Actually, this particular list could easily be made substantially longer. But, it appears that the list of what we do not know is certainly much longer than what we know. Unfortunately, while I agree with several comments suggesting we wait for the results of the ‘investigation’, I do not know whether to be confident that the more important elements will be included in an 'investigation' report.
What valuable discussion points have been raised so far?
1. Proper training for certain accident / incident scenarios may reduce the level of stress a diver experiences in those scenarios. The reduction of stress may reduce the probability of panic. (I think Walter made a valuable point about this – training to avoid panic - which may have been unfortunately misunderstood as a statement about training to manage panic.)
2. The proper procedures for BC inflation (inflate vs do not inflate) immediately prior to entering the water are not universally agreed .
3. The appropriateness / desirability of diving with your children is not universally agreed
4. Several potentially valuable references have been cited on the web.
I would welcome more information regarding what we do not know, or regarding what is unverified or in dispute.
What we actually know?
1. A relatively young woman dived while diving.
2. Two of her children and a companion were in the water near her at the time of the incident.
What do we have a reasonable basis to presume?
1. The charter operator was Ocean Divers
2. The dive was on Molasses Reef
What has been reported, and not disputed (yet)?
1. She told her companion, after she entered the water, that she was over-weighted.
2. She appeared to panic while in the water, according to her companion.
3. The depth of the dive according to her computer, or at least that of her companion, was minimal – the computer may not have registered any depth at all, suggesting the events all occurred on the surface.
4. She was apparently diving with a steel tank. (As the standard steel tank used by Ocean Divers is a LP 80, presumably that was the type of tank she was using.)
5. That there was some current on the reef at the time of the dive.
6. The oxygen kit on the boat was not functioning properly
7. There were (at least) two physicians (including her companion) among the passengers on the dive boat.
8. Preliminary autopsy results indicate that the cause of death was salt water drowning.
What has been mentioned but not verified, or has been mentioned and disputed?
1. She was bumped, or pushed into the water by dive boat crew.
2. Her children were ages 10 and 13, or 14 and 17.
3. Her companion attempted to drop some of her weights, or was successful in dropping some of her weights
4. There were thunderstorms in the area at the time of the incident.
5. The diver was relatively inexperienced, or was a tech diver
What do we know nothing about?
1. Her training, her certification (level, agency, etc.), her experience.
2. Her gear configuration.
3. How much weight she was wearing, and whether or not she was actually over-weighted.
4. Whether or not her low pressure inflator hose was connected
5. Whether her air was turned on.
6. What kind of pre-dive safety check she performed.
7. Whether her regulator was in her mouth when she entered the water, or after she was in the water.
8. Whether she had any medical history or conditions that may have contributed to her ability to deal with her situation in the water, or her death.
9. Whether attempts are cardiopulmonary resuscitation were competent. (I do not mean successful, which they were not, rather whether they were procedurally competent and correct)
Actually, this particular list could easily be made substantially longer. But, it appears that the list of what we do not know is certainly much longer than what we know. Unfortunately, while I agree with several comments suggesting we wait for the results of the ‘investigation’, I do not know whether to be confident that the more important elements will be included in an 'investigation' report.
What valuable discussion points have been raised so far?
1. Proper training for certain accident / incident scenarios may reduce the level of stress a diver experiences in those scenarios. The reduction of stress may reduce the probability of panic. (I think Walter made a valuable point about this – training to avoid panic - which may have been unfortunately misunderstood as a statement about training to manage panic.)
2. The proper procedures for BC inflation (inflate vs do not inflate) immediately prior to entering the water are not universally agreed .
3. The appropriateness / desirability of diving with your children is not universally agreed
4. Several potentially valuable references have been cited on the web.
I would welcome more information regarding what we do not know, or regarding what is unverified or in dispute.
- Messages
- 1,372
- Reaction score
- 4
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
I have been reading this thread. There is much rehashing of other threads here (standards or the lack thereof and poor instructon), but it does need to be reinforced.RiverRat:
I suggest that a fundamental aspect of being a SCUBA instructor is being overlooked. That aspect is that I don't see a requirement for an instructor to learn how to teach. I have taken courses through a number of agencies (PADI, TDI, ACUC, DAN) and none of the instructors had much idea regarding instructional techniques. I did ask a few of them what they studied during their IDC (or equivalent) and none of them indicated that there was any theory about instructional techniques.
Heck, it does not really matter what the standards say if an instructor does not have an understanding of how to properly, or adequately teach the material.
So, for those of you who instruct, what did you study about teaching techniques?
Also, there is much opinion and speculation here and really not much in the way of analysis of what were the causes. How many of you who offer your opinion on the causes of this tragedy have any training or even an introduction into accident investigation?
This is a great place to read people disagreeing with each other and vehemently defending their positions. Unfortunately there is little to be learned here IMO.
Sticky at the head of this forum:
CU
Take a NAUI ITC. You will NEVER teach the same. My whole ITC was keyed into HOW people learn and HOW to facilitate that. My suggestion is to get into one with MB in it and eat your wheaties every single day!tedtim:
Other than that, I have no idea how other agencies operate their ITCs. MB turned me to the dark side ( You can thank Walter for that) and since then I have hooked up with SDI as well.
I lost my server for a week or so, but it's back.Steve R:Hey Pete, did you recently lose your job, or your dog lately..........lol.
Or both.....lol.
You need a vacationto get your own biases sorted out cause you ain't makin' much sense no-mo.
As for dogs? kids and dogs are good for only two things: kids and dogs. But it appears that some would paint instructors (and their agencies) as being as crooked as a mechanic, as stupid as a plumber and as lazy as a lawyer. After all, those three professions are the most maligned that I know. Having been a mechanic (ASE Master Certified), I know just how UNFAIR these over generalizations are.
You mention that I am biased... against what? Non sequiturs? Gross over generalizations? Fallacious assumptions? Why yes, I am biased against all of those. But I refuse to play this finger pointing game at the agencies or the instructors. I find it incredibly sad that some do.
Similar threads
