Parents sue Boy Scouts for 2011 negligence death

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Wow. You were right. I would not understand. I can not imagine myself purposely breaking standards and putting other people's lives at risk just to earn a living.

So the point seems to be that people are pissed off at PADI because resort managers misunderstand (purposely or not) PADI standards and the managers make it hard for you to say "no, I can't do that"? I guess I get it now.

Sheesh.
 
That's another issue. They do clearly understand the standards. Standards say you can take four so by God you will if you want to keep your job. Doesn't matter if they lied on the medical as in this case, can't really swim a lick, have never had a mask on let alone a scuba rig. You will have them in the open ocean with no assistance should the shtf and get them back in time to meet their van to the ship, airport, camel caravan, etc.. Instructor judgment is not an option even though standards say it is, they don't clearly define or test for it. Judgment requires independent thought. Not usually something developed in 7 days of cramming to pass a three day test. If the standards required 2 to 1, or more appropriately 1 to 1 the operators would go nuts trying to churn out DM's and instructors that would work for even less than they do now. The right way to do an intro is 1 to 1, maybe 2 to 1 in a pool only. No ow. Do the pool and then take them snorkeling in the ocean. Let them figure out that had they gotten an actual scuba cert they could have been doing that and looking at the fishies.

---------- Post added November 14th, 2014 at 07:57 AM ----------

No pool no scuba intro.
 
But the standards don't contain a huge fallacy. They specifically state that if you can not handle the maximum number of participants, you have to reduce the number.

If you're just going down with the assumption that everything will be fine, then 2:1 is easy. So is 4:1.

If you plan to be able to handle an actual emergency, then anything more than 1:1 is a setup for disaster.

You seem to accept this by saying you will only do 1 on 1. Great, you are meeting standards. Maybe the instructor in this case should have said the same thing. I'm comfortable and able to meet standards with 2 participants, usually by staying in constant contact with both of them.

You only have two hands, one set of eyes and a narrow field of vision.

So the first guy rips out his regulator and starts to bolt for the surface. Do you

  1. let him go and he'll probably die, or do you
  2. hold him under with one hand while also hanging on to the second guy, and drown him, or do you
  3. let go of the second guy and try to get the first guy's regulator back in, which means the second guy is on his own and not under your control?


If someone else can handle one or two more, good for them. Just because PADI says there is a maximum number of participants and you take that number, itdoesn't mean you get a free pass on ignoring all the other standards.

And as noted by Omisson, letting Billy bolt to the surface already has you breaking standards. Why multiply your problem by breaking them again by leaving Sam alone too?

By that time the horse has already left the barn. It's just a choice between "who is probably going to die".

I also find it interesting that people defend ratios that not only don't work logically, but don't work in practice. If 2:1 was actually OK, there wouldn't be a "dead boy-scout" thread right now.

flots.
 
About 3 months ago, I was in a DSD.

A small briefing before, by a divemaster, which basically said we only needed to concentrate in breathing, they would take care of “everything else”.

In my group, two students, and one instructor.

Ocean waters, no waves, good visibility. We jumped from the boat.

I was extremely nervous, could hardly breathe.

We descended slowly, the instructor held hands with us. About 10 minutes afterwards or so, at a depth of 10 meters, I lost the regulator and panicked. I had no idea how it worked, so my only thought was to go to the surface. The instructor went after me, trying to put air into my mouth with the regulator. To this day, much of what I remember is the bubbles in my face, the feeling that I would never reach the surface and my lungs that seem to be exploding. At the surface, I was feeling pretty bad, so he took me to the boat and descended again.

I am currently doing OW, and I now see things very differently. I now know how the equipment works, how to deal with basic problems, and after several pool classes, I am finally starting to calm down from what happened. I am no one to have an opinion amongst all the very experienced divers here, but I did have this experience - which ended up with no further problems .

I know that there were rules that were broken, like not teaching how to clear a regulator, mask, etc, but even if so, I find it very hard to understand how can a DSD experience be safe with 4 students and 1 instructor. It’s obvious that this instructor reacted to the immediate emergency. But I do not know how he made the decision of following me and leaving the other student behind, and in what conditions.

I do know that all happened so fast, and that any of the decisions could have ended in disaster.
 
So what's the deal with the 2nd instructor named as a defendant?

where was he and what was he doing?
Lowell is the shop owner and contract holder with the BSA.
No proof, but I suspect he was onsite since they can have more than one group at a time in the water.
 
About 3 months ago, I was in a DSD.

A small briefing before, by a divemaster, which basically said we only needed to concentrate in breathing, they would take care of “everything else”.

In my group, two students, and one instructor.

Ocean waters, no waves, good visibility. We jumped from the boat.

I was extremely nervous, could hardly breathe.

We descended slowly, the instructor held hands with us. About 10 minutes afterwards or so, at a depth of 10 meters, I lost the regulator and panicked. I had no idea how it worked, so my only thought was to go to the surface. The instructor went after me, trying to put air into my mouth with the regulator. To this day, much of what I remember is the bubbles in my face, the feeling that I would never reach the surface and my lungs that seem to be exploding. At the surface, I was feeling pretty bad, so he took me to the boat and descended again.

I am currently doing OW, and I now see things very differently. I now know how the equipment works, how to deal with basic problems, and after several pool classes, I am finally starting to calm down from what happened. I am no one to have an opinion amongst all the very experienced divers here, but I did have this experience - which ended up with no further problems .

I know that there were rules that were broken, like not teaching how to clear a regulator, mask, etc, but even if so, I find it very hard to understand how can a DSD experience be safe with 4 students and 1 instructor. It’s obvious that this instructor reacted to the immediate emergency. But I do not know how he made the decision of following me and leaving the other student behind, and in what conditions.

I do know that all happened so fast, and that any of the decisions could have ended in disaster.

DSD is a horrible little course. And you are right it IS inherently unsafe. Although qualified to teach it I have avoided doing so. OW is the only thing worth doing. PADI has only itself to blame for this sorry tale. It's common sense. Neither British or French agencies would even contemplate something as obviously risky as this.
 
Wow. You were right. I would not understand. I can not imagine myself purposely breaking standards and putting other people's lives at risk just to earn a living.

So the point seems to be that people are pissed off at PADI because resort managers misunderstand (purposely or not) PADI standards and the managers make it hard for you to say "no, I can't do that"? I guess I get it now.

Sheesh.

This is not new. This is not an unknown for PADI, either. Let's talk about a few other things the standards say. For every DSD participant, you must fill out a cardboard form that registers the student and gives them a temporary (week long) certification. You must buy this card from PADI (I'm going on 20 year old memories here) for a couple of bucks each. I would have burned through 2400 or so of these in a year, but the resort owner, in an effort to cut costs, decided to photocopy a registration card and use the photocopied card in the place of the actual registration card, and only use the real registration card in the event of someone telling us that they would be going on to the next island and would need proof of performing the DSD. A DSD participant can dive for a week following successful completion of a full DSD class without the classroom or pool portion.

Now, you are on contract to the resort. They provide you a place to live, a salary, and a plane ticket back and forth. They probably have your passport in the hotel safe. You are in a foreign country and you may or may not have a work permit, you are a newly minted instructor and you just want to please everyone. You want your guests to have a great time, you want to teach folks to dive. You go to the resort manager and you say "well, it's a standard. I can't do the DSD without a $2 card". The resort owner offers that you can always buy the cards yourself if you feel so strongly about it. Make your choice.

That's the reality of instruction. To say "Wow, just quit" shows the same arrogance that PADI showed in this case by dumping this instructor without stating cause. This situation has been a problem since forever, PADI knows it's a problem and haven't come up with a solution to correct it. What possible solutions are there? Well, they could require PADI instructors to only teach through a shop. A PIRA shop would have extra pull with a resort to ensure standards are met. PADI could actually send QA inspectors around to QA independent instructors. They could show up at shop A and tell the owner "I'm here to observe your next introductory lesson", be it classroom, pool, or OW. I'm sure there are another hundred things I haven't thought of that PADI could do to increase the quality of instruction, and a single audit of a dive shop would spread through the industry like wildfire.

But PADI doesn't have to do any of those things, because they can spend $800k now and again and buy their way out of lawsuits. It's probably cheaper to pay off the grieving parents and not actually have a quality program than it would be to send their training and regional staff out to observe a training session or 2. I don't believe that PADI cares about quality in any case. I watched my wife's IE. Every candidate drowned their victim during the rescue by not protecting the airway. Every student. I wouldn't have passed a single one of them. The examiner had to teach hover to a candidate during the examination. Again, the examiner had to teach hover to a candidate during the examination. That candidate passed the examination, by the way.

I understand that this case didn't happen in a resort. The point I am making (Or trying to make) is that the standards are one thing, and reality is a whole different thing. The reality of the situation is that sometimes standards get stretched and broken and thrown out the window, because there is no one to enforce them, because PADI doesn't have the will to do so.

---------- Post added November 14th, 2014 at 11:02 AM ----------

Standards say you can take four so by God you will if you want to keep your job. Doesn't matter if they lied on the medical as in this case, can't really swim a lick, have never had a mask on let alone a scuba rig. You will have them in the open ocean with no assistance should the shtf and get them back in time to meet their van to the ship, airport, camel caravan, etc.

The instructor will often never see the paperwork. It's usually completed in an office somewhere by a person who has no dog in the fight. The instructor finds out how many men, how many women. Then he pulls a 63 for the women, an 80 for the boys. Then he grabs the regulators. Athen he has an inkling of their sizes, so he grabs a wetsuit and appropriate BCD, except the other instructor has a class, so there aren't enough small BCDs, so he has to put one woman in an ill fitting medium. The class takes priority, because those people are paying, so they get first pick of the rental gear and they use it all week. The DSDs get what's left over. The first time the instructor meets the DSD participants is when they arrive in the classroom.

My guess would be that the instructor in the boy scout case never saw the medical, it was either filled out and presented to some office at the BSA event or given to the counter person at the dive shop when getting gear. Most likely at the BSA event, as those folks aren't (maybe?) as well trained as a PADI instructor to make sure the paperwork is right.
 
But Frank, when you say that "in reality" standards are getting broken, I can agree with you. The difference is that I believe that the person making decision to break standards is at fault, not the agency which hasn't made some foolproof, impossible to break standard. From your description of resorts where you worked, if the maximum ratio allowed by PADI was 1:1, it sounds like the resort management would still stick to the same thing you described. Would that still be PADI's fault?

---------- Post added November 15th, 2014 at 12:23 AM ----------

If you're just going down with the assumption that everything will be fine, then 2:1 is easy. So is 4:1.

Really? How would you handle 4? I've always wondered how?

Regarding two participants, on a DSD, I actually go with the assumption that a million things could go wrong. When I have someone that feels / looks nervous, we probably never go deeper than 2-3 meters. I would assess that during the period we are practicing mask and regulator clearing in shallow water as well as continuously during the dive. Their ability to do those skills tells me a lot on how to conduct the rest of the session. It's kind of hard to reply to hypothetical situations as they depend on a million variables but if one person tries to bolt to the surface, I would be trying to slow his ascent without letting go of the other person.
 
But Frank, when you say that "in reality" standards are getting broken, I can agree with you. The difference is that I believe that the person making decision to break standards is at fault, not the agency which hasn't made some foolproof, impossible to break standard. From your description of resorts where you worked, if the maximum ratio allowed by PADI was 1:1, it sounds like the resort management would still stick to the same thing you described. Would that still be PADI's fault?

The resort I taught in now does not even attempt to follow standards. They teach completely outside of standards (for DSD) and are still at 8:1. Standards are designed to protect PADI, not to protect the instructor. At least the resort I was is now upfront with their instructors and will tell them that they will not be following standards when teaching, unless a certification is to be issued.

So the question back is, if PADI creates standards for their instructors, which serve to protect PADI and the instructors (in a best case scenario), but the reality of the situation is that the folks hiring these instructors to teach know that the standards cannot be followed, or the hiring manager doesn't want them to be followed, or a situation occurs that makes it so difficult to be impossible to follow the standards, is it the standard that is at fault, the instructor, or the entity who created the standard, knowing how difficult it is to follow.

I suspect we will have different answers. That's OK, we have different life experiences and backgrounds. I suspect that if you were faced with a moral dilemma that could cost you your job, you would agonize and justify an answer you could live with. Maybe you are an investment person. Maybe your client wants you to invest in penny stocks for their retirement. The SEC would prohibit that in the USA, and some supervisor would break your trade, but maybe the laws are a bit more lax in Singapore. But you know it's morally wrong to invest in penny stocks as a part of a retirement account. But it's what the client wants. My wife was the supervisor overseeing all of Enron's company provided retirement accounts. She would plead with her clients to diversify, but no, they were riding the wave. Sadly, she rode billions of dollars into penny stocks, then poof. There was no will to do the right thing, on the SECs part, or the companies (Morgan Stanley/Dean Whitter)part, or on the individual employees part.

Maybe it isn't all about blame.
 
Really? How would you handle 4? I've always wondered how?

How would I handle it? The same way as I handle 2 or 40. By saying "Sorry, I can only take one person at a time. I'll be back soon, and you'll be next in the water."

Apparently I'm too cautious or paranoid because I regularly see mobs of DSDs on vacation and people here are arguing that everything is just fine the way it is.

I wouldn't be broken-hearted if this went all the way though the courts and all the rec agencies had to change their standards to 1:1, 2:2, 3:2 & 4:2.

What's even more interesting is that the insurance companies haven't forced the issue. Back when I just finished high-school I worked at a place that serviced/rebuilt appliances, including repainting using the old-fashioned explody-cancer-causing paints and chemicals. While the Fire Marshall inspected now and then and required a few things like fire extinguishers and no smoking signs, the real enforcement was from the insurance company who came by every three months and required tons more safety equipment and compliance including moon-suits, supplied air, spray booths, explosion proof cabinets, etc. The insurance guy just said "do this or we'll cancel your policy" and didn't give a crap if the state or feds allowed anything in particular. They were protecting their money.

I'm not sure why the insurance companies allow these ratios.

flots.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom