New level of insta-buddy trouble

[OE2X]

Perhaps what the focus of this discussion is not so much about responsibility of the dive op/ DM, the buddy or the diver. What should really be examined is the responsibility of the training organization.

Many of us would never descend to 145' and do a deco dive without a well thoughtout plan. This comes from certain basic understanding of gas management, gas planning, buddy communication and inherent risks. For those of us who do have these skills to plan a dive such as this, how did we attain it? Classes, discussion and practice. In my case if someone were to say - why don't you come diving with us in some deep caves. With my skill set, I would tactfully decline. I have enough knowledge to recognize that which I don't know. That which I don't know could get me or my buddy killed.

So what I advocate is to have the certifying agencies be more discriminating in not only who the certify but also include a gas management course. This starts at OW and is refreshed with each successive class.

 

[Web Monkey]

Another twist:
The judge goofed. He concluded that one of the acts of negligence was not assigning Tancredi a buddy. The judge said "it is probable that an assigned 'buddy' would have assisted Tancredi by giving Tancredi additional air when he first indicated breathing difficulty and would have helped Tancredi to the surface at a time when his life could have been saved." I don't think so. To have given Tancredi air would have endangered the donor.

The judge was right on the money.

Anybody qualified to do the dive would have had enough gas for both of them to surface normally and do any required deco at any point in the dive.

If the other divers weren't prepared to do this, they shouldn't have been on the dive either.

Terry

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Another twist:

The judge goofed. He concluded that one of the acts of negligence was not assigning Tancredi a buddy. The judge said "it is probable that an assigned 'buddy' would have assisted Tancredi by giving Tancredi additional air when he first indicated breathing difficulty and would have helped Tancredi to the surface at a time when his life could have been saved." I don't think so. To have given Tancredi air would have endangered the donor. To have gone right to the surface would have resulted in DCS. (This is evidenced by the fact the DM got bent doing so.) Tancredi was narced and apparently paniced. What is the chance of him doing a controled ascent? Two chances: Fat and Slim. What is the chance of him waiting through two deco stops? Again: Fat and Slim. And, that is assuming the donor had enough air for two people to do the ascent and deco stops. So, then, what's the chance of Tancredi giving up the donor's air supply at the first deco stop so he can head for the surface while the donor does his deco stops? Again: Fat and Slim. The net result is that for someone to have given him air, they were pretty certain to get bent, assuming they did not go OOA or embalize before even getting to the surface. I doubt a buddy would have helped him... unless it would have been to thumb the dive.

That is correct ... and evidence that the judge is probably not a diver.

However, I'm fairly sure he can read ... enough to understand the standards to which diving is taught at the OW level ... which is to say, the way it's "supposed" to work in an ideal situation. That, it's pretty apparent, is the standard upon which he based his decision.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Cacia]

Perhaps what the focus of this discussion is not so much about responsibility of the dive op/ DM, the buddy or the diver. What should really be examined is the responsibility of the training organization.

"Responsibility" in this context = CASH

I can't see it....Every agency already advocates not to do this. Just curious, why don't you hold the diver responsible? How is somebody in Rancho Margarita (PADI) responsible?
Your opinions here have left me so incredulous. Lets make some tech diving agency liable the next time some guy crawls off and dies in an underwater cavern? Ridiculous.

make someone at the training agency and his kids have to sell their house so we can pay the dead guy's a relatives a half a million for his mishap...frightening.

 

[Darnold9999]

However, I'm fairly sure he can read ... enough to understand the standards to which diving is taught at the OW level ... which is to say, the way it's "supposed" to work in an ideal situation. That, it's pretty apparent, is the standard upon which he based his decision.

Ultimately that is the problem. A judge may choose to apply the "ideal" standards rather than the more difficult to determine standards that apply in real life diving. Particularly in a situation where the judge is faced with a difficult fact situation. i.e. an insurance company with deep pockets on one hand and a family that has lost their only means of support on the other.

Good cases make bad law - is the quote I am looking for here.

 

[boulderjohn]

Perhaps what the focus of this discussion is not so much about responsibility of the dive op/ DM, the buddy or the diver. What should really be examined is the responsibility of the training organization.

Nice idea, but almost impossible to do.

The problem is that no educational system anywhere produces students with anything remotely close to perfect recall of content or (especially) the willingness to follow training that they understood perfectly.

I read an article in a dive mag a couple of years ago about a man who was just finishing packing up after he and his buddy had completed a cave dive, for which they were fully qualified. He saw two divers approach the area with tanks, and he recognized them as people he himself had only recently certified. He went over and talked with them, and as he did, he reminded them that they were free to dive in the open water area, but they were not qualified for the cave and should be sure to avoid it because of the danger.

Of course, as soon as he was gone, the new divers went into the cave and died.

Should the instructor or the agency be held accountable for this?

 

[ItsBruce]

Web Monkey: That dive should never have happened. No one, from what I can tell, had enough gas. They are just lucky no one else died. I believe the dive op and DM were negligent in a variety of ways. I also believe the diver was negligent in doing the dive. (How many people on this thread have sat out a dive because they were not comfortalbe about making it? I'll start: Me.) Was the negligence a cause of death. Clearly. Was the lack of a buddy a cause of death. Sorry, I don't think so. Had he been with a buddy, he'd likely have killed the buddy, too.

One more thing: Judges work off the evidence and arguments. Evidence comes from many sources, including experts. Arguments come from the lawyers. The lawyers are also the ones who decide what evidence to offer and what experts to call and what to ask the experts. I'd guess the lawyers didn't go into the bit about a buddy not really being able to help in the circumstances.

 

[OE2X]

Of course, as soon as he was gone, the new divers went into the cave and died.

Should the instructor or the agency be held accountable for this?

No and I don't advocate this. Actually I said in an earlier post that ultimately I feel that the responsibility lies with the diver.

Directing the comments at the agencies comes from the perspective that they are responsible for lowering the bar of skills for the diver - particularly the new diver. Yes there are certain exceptional instructors that go the extra distance and raise the standards back to where they should be. This is done by individual instructors and is not expected by the agencies. Without raising the standards and expectations of performance and skills of the student, then they will slip into ignorance and accept trust me dives that involved deco without appropriate equipement, training etc...when they should know better and not do this dive.

A 145' dive with an AL80 on air and with a bottom time of 20 minutes is unthinkable for me.

 

[Web Monkey]

I had mentioned that (http://www.scubaboard.com/showpost.php?p=1725161&postcount=54).

A good buddy would have called the dive before it ever happened. They would have both needed to be stupid in order to get hurt.

Terry

Web Monkey: That dive should never have happened. No one, from what I can tell, had enough gas. They are just lucky no one else died. I believe the dive op and DM were negligent in a variety of ways. I also believe the diver was negligent in doing the dive. (How many people on this thread have sat out a dive because they were not comfortalbe about making it? I'll start: Me.) Was the negligence a cause of death. Clearly. Was the lack of a buddy a cause of death. Sorry, I don't think so. Had he been with a buddy, he'd likely have killed the buddy, too.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I had mentioned that (http://www.scubaboard.com/showpost.php?p=1725161&postcount=54).

A good buddy would have called the dive before it ever happened. They would have both needed to be stupid in order to get hurt.

Terry

... which begs the question, were there any good buddies available on this charter? Apparently, even the DM would not have made a good buddy in this case ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)