Parents sue Boy Scouts for 2011 negligence death

[Subfiend]

I DID study Latin. Did you spell that correctly? In the UK, I was taught "Res ipsa loquitur". Maybe lawyers write it differently in this country?

Your spelling is correct. O's isn't.

---------- Post added November 24th, 2014 at 11:22 AM ----------

There is a public benefit though. Regardless of any legal maneuvering, it brings the sufficiency (or lack of sufficiency) of standards into full public view, where otherwise, the issue could easily end up buried with a settlement, and an NDA.

It's important to remember that the discussion about the sufficiency of standards in this case WAS buried by a settlement and an NDA until it was brought to light. Now, it's out in the open, it can be discussed here and people can make their own decisions, and it will be discussed in the open in the case. All the bickering about how many pounds of lead when all of the divers have testified that they were neutrally buoyant, or whether flat calm conditions and 20-30 feet of viz is a "pool-like environment," only serves to change the subject. And, to me, this appears to be the intent of bringing up these ancillary topics -- it simply changes the subject and creates noise to obscure the real question, which is how do you ensure that this doesn't happen again?

I don't think I can contribute any more to this discussion at this time, so I will bow out and let the rest of you continue. Enjoy.

 

[Omisson]

I DID study Latin. Did you spell that correctly? In the UK, I was taught "Res ipsa loquitur". Maybe lawyers write it differently in this country?

Spell check... Damn

---------- Post added November 24th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ----------

Thanks for your comments and questions. As I said in the beginning, I am not going to try the case here and you don't seem to be too interested in the facts, so I am done responding to your questions. Your comments and opinions speak for themselves, and people are free to judge whether you have a dog in the fight or not. Personally, I believe that you do.

Unlike you, I have been open from the beginning about my role and where I get my information, and I stick to the facts in the case and the allegations in the pleadings in my comments. Where I have stated opinions, I have identified them as such. Read the rules and you will see that this is permissible. Or don't. That's up to you, too.

Meanwhile, the facts are here and people are free to discuss them and form their own opinions, as many have. That was the whole point of this thread. The point is not to sweep the discussion about safety and standards under the rug.

Anyway, have a Happy Thanksgiving!

So everyone can clearly see- Subfiend has refused to answer the two questions, saying now he is done answering questions. Pretty convenient when the questions undermine his whole narrative.

People can judge who is playing the shill all from this.

 

[flots am]

It's important to remember that the discussion about the sufficiency of standards in this case WAS buried by a settlement and an NDA until it was brought to light. Now, it's out in the open, it can be discussed here and people can make their own decisions, and it will be discussed in the open in the case.

Sounds like a "win" to me.

As a software engineer, processes that have unhandled failure modes are an unacceptable risk and need to be changed to properly handle the failure.

If a process works most of the time, but when it doesn't, something horrible happens, it doesn't mean that someone should get punished for breaking the process, it means that the process needs to be modified to eliminate the possibility of the failure.

flots.

 

[boulderjohn]

To answer your questions, all three of the divers that were in the water have testified that: (1) everyone was neutrally buoyant and not overweighted (regardless of the amount of lead used)

But these are Interesting, carefully parsed responses....

A) "Regardless of the amount of weight" - so IS it true the youth was in 35 pounds of lead?

For readers who do not understand this point...

1. Testimony on whether you were overweighted or not requires a level of expertise not found in a DSD student who has had no instruction in the matter and is therefore relying on the expertise of the instructor to make that judgment.

2. It is possible to become neutrally buoyant at depth even when significantly overweighted, simply by putting a lot of air in the BCD. For every pound a diver is overweighted, nearly a pint of air is needed to achieve neutral buoyancy. A diver who is overweighted by 8 pounds will need to add the volume equivalent of nearly a gallon of air to the BCD.

3. A critical factor in weighting is the thickness of the wet suit used. The thicker the suit, the more weight is needed. I teach students in 7mm suits in fresh water every year. It is rare that I have a student who needs 20 pounds. I have had students need as little as 10 pounds.

4. Changing depths changes the volume of air in the BCD. The more shallow the water, the more this happens. Diving at high altitude also makes this happen more. The more air in the BCD, the more it is affected. If a neutrally buoyant diver has only a little air in the BCD, buoyancy changes with depth are minor and are easily controlled by changing lung volume. With a lot of air in the BCD at shallow depths at high altitude, a change in depth of a foot or so can cause an increase in buoyancy great enough to precipitate a rocket ride to the surface. To be more specific, if a diver who is 2 pounds overweighted goes from 17 feet to 14 feet at that altitude, according to Boyle's Law, the excess air in the BCD will expand by a mere 2.4 ounces, which is easily controllable. If the diver is instead 10 pounds overweighted, the excess air in the BCD will expand by a volume equal to 12 fluid ounces, which is more of a challenge.

5. Without knowing the physical size of the diver and the thickness of the wet suit, the degree to which the diver may or may not have been overweighted with 35 pounds is impossible to tell. As I said earlier, in my experience, I have rarely had students in 7mm suits need more than 20 pounds. I myself use about 16 pounds in a 7mm suit.

 

[Zippsy]

Hmmmm...... I must be confused. A bunch of posts seem to have disappeared. Weird.

 

[boulderjohn]

Hmmmm...... I must be confused. A bunch of posts seem to have disappeared. Weird.

You may be confused by the many different threads on this topic and are looking in the wrong one. As a moderator, I can see the entire history of this thread, and I don't see anything missing.

 

[Omisson]

Sounds like a "win" to me.

As a software engineer, processes that have unhandled failure modes are an unacceptable risk and need to be changed to properly handle the failure.

If a process works most of the time, but when it doesn't, something horrible happens, it doesn't mean that someone should get punished for breaking the process, it means that the process needs to be modified to eliminate the possibility of the failure.

flots.

See -this is just absurd.

This case is not about the 4:1 DSD standards ratio. Any attempt to steer it there is a dodge- a red herring.


Let's say for arguments sake it was a 2:1 ratio instead of the 3:1 it was.

Father bolts to surface.

Youth is left on bottom.

Same outcome.

Because the critical factor was the instructor abandoning a student under water.

PERIOD.

 

[flots am]

See -this is just absurd.

This case is not about the 4:1 DSD standards ratio. Any attempt to steer it there is a dodge- a red herring.

It's absolutely about the ratio. 4:1 guarantees a standards violation as soon as anything happens. So does 3:1 and 2:1.

The only ratio that allows handling an emergency without abandoning or at least temporarily ignoring the other participant(s) is 1:1.

However, as I mentioned before, if you or anybody else has a method of handling an emergency with one of the participants while still maintaining control of the other(s) with a ratio of more than 1:1, I'm all ears.

flots.

 

[Wookie]

See -this is just absurd.

This case is not about the 4:1 DSD standards ratio. Any attempt to steer it there is a dodge- a red herring.


Let's say for arguments sake it was a 2:1 ratio instead of the 3:1 it was.

Father bolts to surface.

Youth is left on bottom.

Same outcome.

Because the critical factor was the instructor abandoning a student under water.

PERIOD.

Yeah,. I got to go against you here too. I say that the only way to teach introductory scuba is with a X:2 ratio, and that is what this thread is about. I heard at DEMA about the 30+ lbs of lead and the leaking BCD, which speak to the poor decision making process of the instructor, but way back in the beginning of this thread, I said that PADI requires their instructors to show good judgement, but that PADI does not evaluate the judgement of their instructors (nor does any other training agency, IMHO). I have no issues with the first number of any ratio of any scuba class within reason. My issue has always been with the second number. I maintain that a CA would have eliminated leaving anyone alone at the bottom. A CA would have been a second set of brains to make sure the gear was appropriate and working correctly, and that the student wasn't overweighted. If nothing else, a CA would have been a qualified witness to the incident.

I can't argue that the instructor didn't end up breaking standards, and that the broken standards caused the death of a young lad. I do maintain, however, that the standards set the instructor (and indeed, all of us instructors, as this is an industry wide problem) up for failure.

I just can't see how an instructor can maintain the safety of more than one introductory diver without a CA in any situation.

 

[Omisson]

Yeah,. I got to go against you here too. I say that the only way to teach introductory scuba is with a X:2 ratio, and that is what this thread is about. I heard at DEMA about the 30+ lbs of lead and the leaking BCD, which speak to the poor decision making process of the instructor, but way back in the beginning of this thread, I said that PADI requires their instructors to show good judgement, but that PADI does not evaluate the judgement of their instructors (nor does any other training agency, IMHO). I have no issues with the first number of any ratio of any scuba class within reason. My issue has always been with the second number. I maintain that a CA would have eliminated leaving anyone alone at the bottom. A CA would have been a second set of brains to make sure the gear was appropriate and working correctly, and that the student wasn't overweighted. If nothing else, a CA would have been a qualified witness to the incident.

I can't argue that the instructor didn't end up breaking standards, and that the broken standards caused the death of a young lad. I do maintain, however, that the standards set the instructor (and indeed, all of us instructors, as this is an industry wide problem) up for failure.

I just can't see how an instructor can maintain the safety of more than one introductory diver without a CA in any situation.

Again- I agree the ratio is a problem without a certified assistant.

But in this case the instructors judgment and violations killed a child not the ratio per se.

Interesting that you heard at DEMA about the overweighting and BCD issues that the attorney is pretending we're not a factor.