NACD Instructor standards violation

[Wookie]

Wookie:

Risk management is the real issue here. Risk management is managing risk for the student (duh) the legal and perhaps moral test is: "What would the reasonably prudent cave instructor do"? Would the reasonably prudent cave instructor take a partially cave trained student into a cave that is deeper than 130 feet with a restriction and the likelihood of silting out and causing zero visibility, thereby losing control? Would that prudent cave instructor choose a cave with this configuration to train someone in?

My thinking is that a jury of our peers, who will certainly not be composed of cave instructors, nor most likely even a diver will say it is not prudent .

The plaintiffs' attorney might ask his expert witness "Was there a better place to conduct this training?" Is there a better place where the instructor could exercise more control over the students, and make the dive safer? Any half-decent attorney could identify and qualify an expert witness who would say "yes" there are better, safer places. At this point it becomes a no-brainer.

I have no argument with your train of thought. In fact, I probably err on the side of my insurance company/plaintiff's attorney more than I do to the satisfaction of my clients, and to the detriment of my business. But as I stated earlier, it is very hard to regulate prudence, common sense, and as Omission pointed out in many threads, it's all good until the Challenger blows up.

But it doesn't seem that we are talking about risk management or prudence or what a reasonable instructor would do, we are discussing a standards violation and suspension of an instructor for that violation, and an investigation that has been ongoing for 2 weeks.

There are a number of folks on the Spree "Boat's Full" list, because I felt that they did not exercise good judgement while on the boat, from drinking and diving, to taking spidge from protected wrecks, etc. Many of these folks are or were instructors from one agency or another. I do not request that they get suspended from their agency because what they did didn't violate standards, I just tell them the boat's full when they call. Because I don't want their or the governments attorney or the Administrative Law Judge asking me why I let them back on the boat after they fooled me once.

Yes, I understand that what one instructor does reflects on the whole cave community.

 

[bamafan]

Jim you have a valid opinion and argument and from what you have been through I can see why you feel this way. But as far as I know no agency dictates where the training should occur if I am correct?

 

[boulderjohn]

In fact, I probably err on the side of my insurance company/plaintiff's attorney more than I do to the satisfaction of my clients, and to the detriment of my business.

As I am sure Frank knows, standards do not just come out of nowhere, and standards and insurance companies have a connection. When I was working as a student for a brand new diving agency named UTD, I heard they had a real problem getting insurance for a while because their OW training standards did not include the CESA. They had to convince the insurer that their policies and training related to always diving with a buddy made training in emergency ascents like that unnecessary. When you violate standards and the caca finds its way to the fan, you have a problem.

 

[kafkaland]

As a new, still in-training cave diver (intro certified) I have been following this thread with some puzzlement. At the level of training discussed here (trimix in cave) I would assume that there are so many variables in play, like experience of the student and instructor, configuration and condition of the cave, risk tolerance and goals of the parties involved, and enough experience to make informed decisions, that the standards should allow for some discretion. Discretion as in fully informed decisions, not laziness. Nor should this excuse poorly written standards. But I don't think it's realistic to expect detailed standards at that level to propriately cover every conceivable situation. I don't know where to draw the line between standards that provide an umbrella for safe training, and being overly restrictive and detrimental to effective training in the inevitable non-standard situation. Or, how exceptions voucher or should be handled. Maybe if the need arises, the student and instructor could submit a brief training plan to the agency that adresses any non-standard compliant elements, reasons for the, the risks and means to mitigate them, and the agency would approve this quickly (one business day) unless it is deemed patently unsafe?

 

[PfcAJ]

That is a restriction?

nothing I see here looks bad. That cave looked huge.

I don't have a lot of dives down that way but I did do Rock Bluff. Is this a small cave to the GUE guys?

I keep getting told that the dives I do are advanced sidemount dives and don't tell anyone how to get there because they will die

Ok ok, we get it dude. You're a hard core sidemounter and nothing is a small as what you dive. We're all on the same page, you can give it a rest now.

 

[ucfdiver]

rock bluff is a minor restriction according to these guys As it doesn't require gear removal, so I guess it's a good site to train intro divers at.

 

[GDI]

So after posting this in a public forum you are now saying you don't have any proof? .................

I am saying no such thing and was not speaking specifically to this situation.

"Speaking Generally here and not to any specific person"

..................................... Am I wrong in this assumption?

Correct you are wrong

 

[Scubadude_LA]

As a new, still in-training cave diver (intro certified) I have been following this thread with some puzzlement. At the level of training discussed here (trimix in cave) I would assume that there are so many variables in play, like experience of the student and instructor, configuration and condition of the cave, risk tolerance and goals of the parties involved, and enough experience to make informed decisions, that the standards should allow for some discretion. Discretion as in fully informed decisions, not laziness. Nor should this excuse poorly written standards. But I don't think it's realistic to expect detailed standards at that level to propriately cover every conceivable situation. I don't know where to draw the line between standards that provide an umbrella for safe training, and being overly restrictive and detrimental to effective training in the inevitable non-standard situation. Or, how exceptions voucher or should be handled. Maybe if the need arises, the student and instructor could submit a brief training plan to the agency that adresses any non-standard compliant elements, reasons for the, the risks and means to mitigate them, and the agency would approve this quickly (one business day) unless it is deemed patently unsafe?

Amen. As a newbie cave diver still in training you are already thinking like a smart conservative diver and not a political zealot.

This could all be a made up story, we may never know.
But just for giggles; Everyone assumes that an intro diver is a dumbass coming from 60' reef dives with sub 100 in the log book. Perhaps in this real/or not scenario the students had many years of wreck diving on deep air in the overhead, in the muck, current, and heavy seas many miles from shore. Proficient in self sufficient skills, reel skills, hot dropping wrecks, shooting dsmb, long hose ooa, and maybe was restricted in silt a time or two, etc and then decided to start caving then along the way said "Trimix sound intresting and very uselful, let me give that a shot". One could even go out into far space and conceive that perhaps the students did their intro cave training with the same instructor, hence there was a higher degree of confidence due to past observation of the student or maybe not.
I've done a lot of training over the years and I have seen many many indications of instructor discretion in the prerequisites provided by the agencies. I have personally made dives in LOG and familiar with the ominous restriction, and mind blowing navigational decisions involved, all the while with a shallow END thanks to He.

Anyway, just giving my thoughts, like US politics, it really becomes a turnoff at some point and all seem hopelessly unproductive...

 

[karstdvr]

. But as far as I know no agency dictates where the training should occur if I am correct?

The agencies do make recommendations on where some skills should be performed based on the site, for example at Peacock air sharing, lights out drills in the Peanut tunnel, and this is for protection of the cave. Because the cave agencies and instructors do this the state doesn't regulate this, otherwise I don't doubt that we would have no cave instruction allowed in the system if other areas became beat up due to drills. There are places where instruction isn't supposed to occur, and as far as I know lower orange grove and P3 are not allowed. I understand how there is a need for deep training sites that are close,but is it prudent to take a student into a site that is not appropriate for them. This scenario played January 5,2005 when an instructor took a student into Hendley's castle for a deep dive,but the student was only cavern certified. The student got off on another line, and the rest is history. Lower orange grove is another site that may not be appropriate for deep training, but the instructor has to make the decision, and take the liability. Can the student safely enter and exit an area that is inherently unstable,as well as air share out if need be. We may not think it is too difficult,but one must remember our fate is frequently determined by our noncave diving peers who think this activity is crazy.

 

[victorzamora]

The agencies do make recommendations on where some skills should be performed based on the site, for example at Peacock air sharing, lights out drills in the Peanut tunnel, and this is for protection of the cave. Because the cave agencies and instructors do this the state doesn't regulate this, otherwise I don't doubt that we would have no cave instruction allowed in the system if other areas became beat up due to drills. There are places where instruction isn't supposed to occur, and as far as I know lower orange grove and P3 are not allowed. I understand how there is a need for deep training sites that are close,but is it prudent to take a student into a site that is not appropriate for them. This scenario played January 5,2005 when an instructor took a student into Hendley's castle for a deep dive,but the student was only cavern certified. The student got off on another line, and the rest is history. Lower orange grove is another site that may not be appropriate for deep training, but the instructor has to make the decision, and take the liability. Can the student safely enter and exit an area that is inherently unstable,as well as air share out if need be. We may not think it is too difficult,but one must remember our fate is frequently determined by our noncave diving peers who think this activity is crazy.

I was actually going to say Hendley's Castle seems like a very good place for Trimix training, to me...especially in sidemount. You can get deeper than 130ft pretty easily, it's not that far from the entrance, and has a nice vertical chimney for "blue water ascent" type practice. I guess I'm more talking the path TO Hendley's Castle, because Hendley's Castle is after that bedding-plane-type thing at ~130ft, right? Certainly not for a Cavern diver, but for a Full Cave and AN/DP diver....that would be a pretty good place, I'd think. I'm okay with the de facto ban on training there, but it seems like as good a place as any (besides 40fathom, and maybe Eagle's Nest but I haven't been there).