Lost diver in Puget Sound

[anakin]

I'm having a hard time understanding how an instructor can have written this ... doesn't your agency explain the concept of "duty of care" to its instructors?

This dive wasn't just a bunch of buddies out diving ... it was a class. The students would have had no way of knowing that the instructor was uninsured, and therefore ineligible to teach. They paid money for an AOW class, and as such there was a student/instructor relationship established for this dive.

When we are instructing a class, we ARE ... in fact ... the scuba police. I won't tolerate students doing anything in my class unless I specifically TELL THEM IT'S OK to do it. Because, as long as they are in my class, I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR SAFETY.

I may be misunderstanding what you typed ... but do you really believe that, during a class, you don't have the right to tell your students how deep they can or cannot go?

Or, more likely, you're misunderstanding what's already been established ... that these weren't Dave Graddon's dive buddies ... and they certainly weren't just some random divers who happened to be diving at the same dive site ... they were his students. Dave Graddon PLANNED this dive. OF COURSE he could have ... and should have ... done something to prevent it.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Thats what i was saying, I only have responsibilty over the students im teaching and anyone else that is outside of my class i cant say anything about, because i have no responsibilty over them. My post was a response to Peter Guys post.

 

[deepseaconvict]

Chad was a good friend, I will miss him. Alot have people have requested the name of the instructor who was there that night...It's not a big secret here in the northwest. I dont think that it is appropriate to give his name on this sight. I do feel however that it is nessesary for people to know so that they can decide for themselves if they would want him diving with one of their loved ones. The instructor was also a friend of mine and we worked together on several occasions. He is no longer of any relation to me. If you would like this information it is posted on another site. http://www.northwestdiver.com/forum.php look up Missing Diver? .
On the 2nd page you will find my post. (What their not saying) Along with alot of other information that you might like to read. You decide for yourself if you want to know.

I hope that this reply is not removed. Freedom of information Act.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

I'm not sure what the Freedom of Information Act has to do with the TOS for this (private) board, but AFAIC your post is relevant.

No Fear...

Doc

 

[deepseaconvict]

I only ment that if the goverment can see fit to release information that is not always in their best interest. That if possible we should so the same for the better of all.

 

[DandyDon]

Chad was a good friend, I will miss him. Alot have people have requested the name of the instructor who was there that night...It's not a big secret here in the northwest. I dont think that it is appropriate to give his name on this sight. I do feel however that it is nessesary for people to know so that they can decide for themselves if they would want him diving with one of their loved ones. The instructor was also a friend of mine and we worked together on several occasions. He is no longer of any relation to me. If you would like this information it is posted on another site. http://www.northwestdiver.com/forum.php look up Missing Diver? .
On the 2nd page you will find my post. (What their not saying) Along with alot of other information that you might like to read. You decide for yourself if you want to know.

I hope that this reply is not removed. Freedom of information Act.

I don't think that Act applies to this message board, but I doubt that your post will be removed.

Here's a shortcut to the Missing Diver thread mentioned HERE

 

[Meister481]

So, let me get this straight, this "commercial diver/operator" admits to doing this dive with the deceased and he suggests that it's still ok for him to do it? HOLD THE PHONE! The very fact that he was a part of this mess is enough for me to call him on it. It was dangerous and his involvement contributed to the younger people thinking that this type dive is OK. He says that he tells people not to do it but then says he's done this very dive with the deceased. Coming on a board and trying to justify actions such as these only shows how incredibly stupid he is. This type behavior will earn anyone the darwin award at any time, there is NO room for the slightest of errors.

My hope is that people will learn from this and no longer blindly trust a diver with a higher rating.

 

[UnderSeaBumbleBee]

After reading this whole thread and the Northwest forum links from above I have a couple of questions and wondered if someone could shed some light.

OK, there were 6 divers on this dive in 3 buddy teams of 2 each. Let me see if I have this straight.
BT 1 Both have problems and abort
BT 2 Chad dies, John does a chamber ride
BT 3 Steve new diver almost dies does a chamber ride, no word on how Dave is doing

Buddy team 1 stayed together to some degree and aborted the dive somewhere around 50 feet. Buddy team 2 with Chad and John? stayed together through the bounce to the bottom and part of the ascent until Chad waived his buddy up and he went back for Steve from Buddy team 3. Buddy team 3 with Steve and Instructor Dave Graddon fell apart and they were separated and thus the need for Chad to go back for Steve who was reportedly kneeling on the bottom. I haven't heard much is any discussion on when and how things went south with Buddy team 3 of Steve and Dave. Has there been any information about how and when this happened, how quickly Steve was left alone and how that buddy team broke down?? It would seem from what has been posted that Chad could see Steve from about 30+ feet away and went back for him. Anyway was just wondering what might have been said about how the dive went between Dave and Steve.

Second question about liability of the LDS. Let me give an analogy to make my question a bit clearer. If someone runs a day care and hires a known pedophile to work there and pays them under 1099 independent contractors rules and the day care owner does his best to sort of keep the bad behavior under control to some degree but knows of some inappropriate thing the mentor might be teaching. The day care owner represents his business as a quality business to his customers/parents and presents this person as a child mentor. The day care owner then fires the child mentor/pedophile from the day care after a time because he has his is stealing from the business not necessarily because of his other bad behavior. So then after the mentor is fired he contacts the parents who his relationship was established with through the day care and says he is now doing private mentoring and contracts with them to work directly for them. The parents know he was fired from the day care for some disagreement with the owner-- supposed stealing but do not know of the immoral character of the mentor which he was not fired for. So here lies my question since the day care established the relationship in the first place and did not reveal the immoral charter. Could they be held liable when the mentor does something bad with the children of families that the day established the relationships in the first place because the represented the mentor as a capable person worthy of trust and possessing the skills to help these children develop successfully and since they did not reveal the immoral behavior and even looked the other way while the mentor was in their employment? IE the dive shop knew this guy violated standards but represented him to the customers that came to the LDS as a capable instructor worthy to teach them how to dive safely if they gave money to the LDS. Then fired the instructor for stealing, not for violating safe diving protocol. Doesn't tell about the unsafe diving teaching and isn't the reason he was fired. Then the instructor or the shop says he was let go over some sort of disagreement. Then this dive happens. Because of the LDS establishing the relationship in the first place and how they represented Dave--what is their liability?

Third question. What liability does the agency have to monitor the quality of those who teach under their banner? And does this agency now have an obligation to contact those certified under their banner and the instruction of Dave Graddon to make sure they have safe and proper knowledge of diving? We force companies to recall unsafe products that can get people killed. Is there any obligation to recall or correct unsafe teaching that can get someone killed when they paid for good teaching in good faith?

Hope my questions make sense. I am still working on my first cup of coffee.

 

[Maule]

Leah, I'm sure there will be answers to your questions here but ultimately, the answers to your questions will probably be answered by a jury who will be presented all, or most, of the material facts. I have wondered also about the instructor and how he might have come to leave a new diver by himself on a 200 ft dive. I think I also read that the instructor had doubles? is this correct? While he let others do a 200 ft dive on a single 80. I will be interested to hear how this one all plays out in court.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Leah, I'm sure there will be answers to your questions here but ultimately, the answers to your questions will probably be answered by a jury who will be presented all, or most, of the material facts. I have wondered also about the instructor and how he might have come to leave a new diver by himself on a 200 ft dive. I think I also read that the instructor had doubles? is this correct? While he let others do a 200 ft dive on a single 80. I will be interested to hear how this one all plays out in court.

The answers to the questions Leah poses are still being sorted out ... in part due to the inevitable differences in perspective presented by the different participants to the police detectives working on the case.

This is the first I have heard that Dave had doubles ... and I suspect it was not the case. However, I am having lunch with one of the people who participated in this dive tomorrow ... I will ask him. To date, I think he is the best source of real information.

Some of the participants in the dive simply aren't talking about it ... perhaps justifiably so.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Craig Baumann]

I was diving in Tacoma, WA off Bandito Charters, www.banditocharters.com the week after this accident occurred. My friend Rick Myers, captain of the Sampan, had been notified when this diver was lost because officials wanted a reliable boat captain to help in the recovery effort. Rick was at DEMA in Florida at the time, so he could not partake in the search for this diver.

Lobster Shop wall is a difficult dive even during daylight hours, but from what I heard this dive was at night. There are only a few reasons to dive this spot and none of them have a thing to do with good visibility. Runoff from the rivers and even glacial runoff from Mt Rainier, make this a limited visibility dive most days. The three reasons I can think of to dive Lobster Shop are it's depth, in close proximity to the shore, California sea lions frequent the area and some divers look for Six Gill sharks there. No matter what the reason for diving there, the divers on the boat I chartered that day shuttered at the thought of losing a diver at Lobster Shop. One diver told me, "I'll dive the Tacoma Narrows on its worst day, rather than diver Lobster Shop on it's best!"

Despite what was said in the original article referenced in this thread, this is not a particularly popular dive. Much more popular is the site Les Davis Pier, just east of Lobster Shop by a quarter mile or so. I have taught student at Les Davis many times, but would not consider teaching students ever, at Lobster Shop Wall.

We as divers, can imagine things going to hell in a hurry out there, especially at depth and at night, so this kind of thing sends a shutter through our very souls. It's sickening to lose a "brother" or "sister" to any accident diving! This loss is very, very sad indeed.