Parents sue Boy Scouts for 2011 negligence death

[boulderjohn]

Why multiply your problem by breaking them again by leaving Sam alone too?

That is one of the points I do not understand. What was it in the standards that required him to leave students unattended at the bottom? Even if he was required by his employer to have more than two students, did his employer require him to leave some unattended on the bottom?

This instructor might as well have been in a resort.

The big difference is visibility. This was a murky lake, not a resort with crystal blue waters. When you know you are descending into murky water, then you know there is a larger likelihood of trouble, and you know you can only see a short distance when in supervision. As I have said several times in the threads on this case, I teach OW students under these conditions, and I will never be alone with more than two under water. Never. I will be close enough to prevent bolting. If I have to go to the surface for any reason and don't have an assistant to leave behind, anyone else goes up with me.

People seem to think that making a decision like that requires one to think like an Einstein. It seems like common sense to me. Not only that, as was shown in a thread on low visibility instruction in the Instructor to Instructor forum a couple years ago, PADI has an instructional film explaining exactly that.

Just to be sure back when that thread was going on, I contacted PADI and asked a series of questions about low visibility instruction, and I got clear answers. It did not take Einstein-like brilliance for me to do that, either.

 

[flots am]

. . .

 

[Steve_C]

I did a DSD several years ago in a Maui at a nice hotel There was a class session. Forget exactly what it was that was taught but I know it included never hold your breath. Then we went into a pool and I spent 15-20 minutes ten feet down showing the instructor I was not scared and relaxed under water and had some kind of buoyancy. Just me and the instructor. If we would have stopped there, I would have said so what and probably never put on scuba again and gone back to being an avid snorkler which I was.

But the DSD included an easy shore dive. There was me, the instructor, and an "I am experienced, I know it all" certified diver who insisted on being way overweighted in spite of the instructor's advice. Part way through the dive I looked around and did not see number three. I signaled to the instructor and he pointed up. Diver 3 had gotten low on air and was now on the surface watching us. Instructor had stayed near me the whole time. About 15 minutes later we headed for shore admiring eels and tropicals with number 3 following on the surface. Max depth was probably about 20 ft.

It was an awesome experience including swimming with large sea turtles. I left stoked on scuba and it changed my life.

So while I am all for safety and good ratios I am not so keen on doing away with DSD in its entirety.

Note that I did it in ideal conditions, after a fairly long pool test, with a shore entry. I have a lot more reservations about somebody jumping off a boat with DSD. A shore entry gives initial experience in very shallow water.

 

[Wookie]

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

flots.

If you are insured by Willis, it's 2:1 regardless of the instructor's agency's standards. Sadly, it was part of this issue that this is all about.

 

[Centexbear]

Steve C....sounds to me like a great experience and that's the way DSD should be handled...at least from this newbie's point of view.

 

[SeaCobra]

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.

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

No pool no scuba intro.

How do we know they lied on the medical? My sources indicate that he had indeed indicated asthma and used the proper PADI form supplied to the BSA.

 

[Omisson]

Many resorts (Sandals type all inclusive) offer the resort course as a free benefit, part of the all inclusive package, so the staff does a ton of these a day. Many folks who cater to the cruise ship market also do a ton of these a day. The ratio is now 4:1, it was 8:1 the year I did 8 or 16 a day, 313 days a year.

This instructor might as well have been in a resort. We called it churning and burning. What we don't know is how many bolters he's ever had, how many times he's lost control of his student, how many times things went wrong according to standards and everything was all right. All of the folks who talk about "just reach out and grab him when he bolts" have never made their living doing this. You might have to go through another student to get at the one who is having a panic, causing another panic. You think 4 students all dive close enough to the instructor that he can look in their eyes the whole time and assess the impending bolt? In this instructors case, he had to evaluate 3 students at the same time, the whole time, and how does anyone prevent a bolter anyway?

It's great doing 1:1 DSDs, it's how I took my Step Mom and Dad resort diving in Belize the year I got married. That isn't the reality of resort diving. In resort diving, the van dumps off 12 strangers from the cruise ship. You have 6 hours to get them fitted in gear, 2 hours in the classroom (that you learn to do in an hour and 15 minutes), 1 1/2 hours in the pool, fill their tanks while they eat lunch, load their gear on the boat, take them to a boat ride and for a dive, and get them back to the cruise ship by 3:30. 6 days a week.

Those who would puff their chest out and say that the instructor should be close enough to prevent a bolter at all times don't understand the reality of resort courses.

This wasn't a RESORT COURSE. It was a BOY SCOUT DSD. This wasn't an instructor churning and burning... Nor was he "In residence at a resort".

At least get the facts right when you beat up the straw man.

 

[flots am]

If you are insured by Willis, it's 2:1 regardless of the instructor's agency's standards. Sadly, it was part of this issue that this is all about.

I wonder if they'll enforce that proactively or just say "you're not covered" if something happens?

 

[sea_ledford]

This wasn't a RESORT COURSE. It was a BOY SCOUT DSD. This wasn't an instructor churning and burning... Nor was he "In residence at a resort".

At least get the facts right when you beat up the straw man.

I don't think Wookie was specifically referring to this case, just the general situation in which MOST DSDs take place. Which, unfortunately, quite often happens in the absence of adhering to standards. And the people that are shocked and awed that a DSD would be conducted in such uncontrolled circumstances (ie anything other than one hand with a death-grip on each student) haven't even seen how there are generally conducted at a resort.

There are two conversations going on about this, one involving the case and legal maneuvering the other involving PADI ratio standards.

Most of us that are talking about the ratios are saying they are not meetable (at their max 4:1) under any circumstances. We are strangely still arguing about it even though everyone seems to agree on that point. The primary difference is camp A believes that it's the the instructors responsibility to decrease the ratio, Camp B thinks that if it is an unrealistic standard, it should be PADI (or any other agency) that should decrease it via standards.

Personally, I'm just happy that none of my 8 at a time DSDs off the back of boat anchored in 50' water managed to kill themselves. And for what its worth, I did get fired from that job for refusing to break standards.

-Chris

 

[John C. Ratliff]

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.

All instructors, whether DSD instructors or not, should re-read this post!

SeaRat

---------- Post added November 14th, 2014 at 12:00 PM ----------

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.

I worked for 18+ years for a workers' compensation insurance company as a safety and health professional. The insurance companies who oversee these resort courses apparently do not employ any safety professionals or industrial hygienists who have a diving instruction background, and so are ignorant of the risks. If change is wanted, talk to the risk managers/safety professionals who work for the insurance company; they will be in the best position to make changes.

SeaRat
John C. Ratliff, CSP, CIH, MSPH
CSP = Certified Saety Professional
CIH = Certified Industrial Hygienist
NAUI #2710 (retired)




---------- Post added November 14th, 2014 at 12:08 PM ----------

I don't think Wookie was specifically referring to this case, just the general situation in which MOST DSDs take place. Which, unfortunately, quite often happens in the absence of adhering to standards. And the people that are shocked and awed that a DSD would be conducted in such uncontrolled circumstances (ie anything other than one hand with a death-grip on each student) haven't even seen how there are generally conducted at a resort.

There are two conversations going on about this, one involving the case and legal maneuvering the other involving PADI ratio standards.

Most of us that are talking about the ratios are saying they are not meetable (at their max 4:1) under any circumstances. We are strangely still arguing about it even though everyone seems to agree on that point. The primary difference is camp A believes that it's the the instructors responsibility to decrease the ratio, Camp B thinks that if it is an unrealistic standard, it should be PADI (or any other agency) that should decrease it via standards.

Personally, I'm just happy that none of my 8 at a time DSDs off the back of boat anchored in 50' water managed to kill themselves. And for what its worth, I did get fired from that job for refusing to break standards.

-Chris

More instructors need to take this kind of stand, with whole-hearted support from their instructional agency. For what it's also worth, I did get fired from the WC insurance company for refusing to become a marketing extension and "pass" on SDI's (Serious Disabling Injuries) and fatality investigations (one firm wanted any findings to be oral-only--a violation of the workers' compensation laws for firms in the "assigned risk pool"), after 18 years and 3 months working there. There is life after being fired for ethical disagreements (high tech EHS Engineer, industrial hygienist, and EHS Manager); but once compromised, it is much harder to remain true to the standards of practice.

SeaRat