Did you mean "can't" instead of "can"?
Negligent homicide: Swiss diving instructor convicted over student's death
- Thread starter leadduck
- 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
Did you mean "can't" instead of "can"?
To add to the puzzlement....
The victim was an instructor, so he must have finished AOW, which further means he had completed the deep dive requirement of the AOW certification. That dive is also the first dive of the deep diver specialty. Now, that dive is shallower than 100 feet, but we are told that the victim had accomplished several 100 foot dives on his own, although not in fresh water.
I cannot begin to estimate how many AOW divers have taken the deep dive specialty world-wide, which is essentially what the victim, who was an instructor rather than an AOW diver, was doing.
The victim was an instructor, so he must have finished AOW, which further means he had completed the deep dive requirement of the AOW certification. That dive is also the first dive of the deep diver specialty. Now, that dive is shallower than 100 feet, but we are told that the victim had accomplished several 100 foot dives on his own, although not in fresh water.
I cannot begin to estimate how many AOW divers have taken the deep dive specialty world-wide, which is essentially what the victim, who was an instructor rather than an AOW diver, was doing.
In addition he must also have completed Divemaster which requires an additional deep dive scenario or PADI Deep Diver certification. Both require a slow controlled ascent monitoring the ascent rate.
Although PADI just specifies “deep” for this I think it is generally taken to be “deeper than 30m/100ft”
I wonder if the victim also was in a drysuit and had very little experience it? Or even a much thicker wetsuit than he had experience in and was not used to the amount of buoyancy change with depth?
An "instructor"?? Something just doesn't add up here.
Alekseolsen
Contributor
No, I mean, if court decided that the PADI standard requirements are not sufficient for bringing a student to the depth described in the course, how do the court expect an instructor to know better than PADI?
It should be the agencies responsible to create safe boundaries - not something every single instructor should have to "develop" individually, because then there would be no more standards.
fred32176
Contributor
This is the Swiss legal system in action. There was only a fine which was suspended.
I thought I would provide a Google translation of the full article.
..........................................................................................................................
A diving student dies during a course in Lake Thun. The Bern Higher Court finds the diving instructor guilty of serious negligence and imposes a suspended fine.
A diving instructor was found guilty of negligent homicide by the Bern Higher Court on Thursday. He had dived with a young man, his student, in Lake Thun in 2018. The student, then 29 years old, died during the dive from a pulmonary pressure injury caused by ascending too quickly.
The Higher Regional Court sentenced the diving instructor to a suspended fine of 100 daily rates of CHF 210 each, totaling CHF 21,000. Since the sentence was suspended, he will only have to pay it if he reoffends within the next two years.
In addition, the defendant must pay procedural costs and compensation and party damages to the bereaved family. Another defendant, who performed organizational duties, was acquitted of the charge of negligent homicide.
“Meeting the minimum requirements is not enough”
Although the deceased had met the minimum diving experience required for the course conducted by the defendant according to the international PADI standard for divers, the court found that this alone was not sufficient: "Meeting the minimum PADI standards is not enough. Both defendants failed to fulfill their obligations," the Higher Court judge stated in her reasoning for the verdict. Even according to PADI rules, the diving instructor should have conducted an individual risk assessment before the dive.
The Higher Court found it particularly serious that the convicted diving instructor failed to live up to his responsibility as a course leader. He had failed to adequately inquire about his participants' diving experience, even though this was one of his core duties.
"Diving instructor failed to react adequately"
During the dive itself, several critical situations arose which, according to the court, were either not recognized or misjudged. The victim showed signs of disorientation early on and made hand signals – but the diving instructor failed to react adequately.
After the diving instructor and student had already ascended a few meters, the instructor felt the student touch, but then looked at his compass. After that, he could no longer see the student. Without knowing what was going on, the diving instructor looked back at the dive computer and thus failed to notice what had happened. "That was the latest moment at which you should have communicated with the student," the judge stated in her reasons for the verdict.
The verdict is not yet final. It can be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
..........................................................................................................................
A diving student dies during a course in Lake Thun. The Bern Higher Court finds the diving instructor guilty of serious negligence and imposes a suspended fine.
A diving instructor was found guilty of negligent homicide by the Bern Higher Court on Thursday. He had dived with a young man, his student, in Lake Thun in 2018. The student, then 29 years old, died during the dive from a pulmonary pressure injury caused by ascending too quickly.
The Higher Regional Court sentenced the diving instructor to a suspended fine of 100 daily rates of CHF 210 each, totaling CHF 21,000. Since the sentence was suspended, he will only have to pay it if he reoffends within the next two years.
In addition, the defendant must pay procedural costs and compensation and party damages to the bereaved family. Another defendant, who performed organizational duties, was acquitted of the charge of negligent homicide.
“Meeting the minimum requirements is not enough”
Although the deceased had met the minimum diving experience required for the course conducted by the defendant according to the international PADI standard for divers, the court found that this alone was not sufficient: "Meeting the minimum PADI standards is not enough. Both defendants failed to fulfill their obligations," the Higher Court judge stated in her reasoning for the verdict. Even according to PADI rules, the diving instructor should have conducted an individual risk assessment before the dive.
The Higher Court found it particularly serious that the convicted diving instructor failed to live up to his responsibility as a course leader. He had failed to adequately inquire about his participants' diving experience, even though this was one of his core duties.
"Diving instructor failed to react adequately"
During the dive itself, several critical situations arose which, according to the court, were either not recognized or misjudged. The victim showed signs of disorientation early on and made hand signals – but the diving instructor failed to react adequately.
After the diving instructor and student had already ascended a few meters, the instructor felt the student touch, but then looked at his compass. After that, he could no longer see the student. Without knowing what was going on, the diving instructor looked back at the dive computer and thus failed to notice what had happened. "That was the latest moment at which you should have communicated with the student," the judge stated in her reasons for the verdict.
The verdict is not yet final. It can be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
The second sentence was not made by the court, as can be seen in the full translation. The statement that PADI's requirements are "so weak" was made by leadduck, not the court. The court did say that PADI's requirements call for an assessment of the student's ability before the dive, which was what they said was not done.
Similar threads
