Parents sue Boy Scouts for 2011 negligence death
- Thread starter DandyDon
- 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
No, I haven't.
I have on occasion caught people who were about to bolt (from the deep end of the pool) and prevented them from doing it. Is that what you mean? If someone has a clear head start on me from a depth of 15 feet and is going as fast as possible to the surface, I'm not catching them.
I have never had a student want to bolt in the open water. Maybe that is because I do the required preparatory work in the shallow water first.
---------- Post added November 24th, 2014 at 04:25 PM ----------
One more thing about the ratios...
Because there was no work done in confined water, then that work had to be done in open water. When that happens, a device including a descent line must be used, and it cannot be more than 6 feet deep. The maximum ratio for that is not 4:1. It is 1:1.
Ok, I understand what you mean now.
I took the topic of discussion to be that controlling the dive under the ratio PADI has in standards was not possible. Maybe I didn't follow the thread closely enough to realize others were focused on no pool session, over weighting, other standards violations.. I thought the entire discussion centered around the ratio and if direct contact can be maintained using that ratio. It didn't seem that the other violations were a big part of this discussion until recently.
---------- Post added November 24th, 2014 at 06:33 PM ----------
That was what I meant. With a head start in 15' you can't catch them, it would be over before it started. I do consider seeing a sign that someone will bolt and then grabbing them when they start as catching them though, and as required by direct supervision.
From the beginning--many months ago, people have been insisting that no standards were violated, and the deaths were an inevitable result of the instructor following those standards explicitly. The focus was to put the blame on the standards themselves, standards that supposedly rendered the poor instructor helpless. The SDI/TDI letter said specifically that no standards were broken. In reality, as more and more information comes out, we are seeing that MANY standards were broken. This event was conducted in a way was not even close to the requirements of the course.
Even that original argument can be challenged. The standards allow a 4:1 ratio for the OW dive following the required confined water session that was skipped, but that is under optimal conditons. They also say "You must apply continuous and sound judgment before, during and after the dive. It’s your professional responsibility to conduct a risk assessment by evaluating variables such as water conditions, temperature, visibility, water movement, entries and exits, ability of participants, certified assistants available, your and your assistant’s personal limitations, etc., to determine what ratio will fit the situation — reducing the ratio from the maximum if needed. Take into account changing variables and your ability to directly supervise and observe participants. Reassess during the dive."
People are still arguing that the ability to judge whether the conditions in the lake that day were optimal, especially given that the students had been denied a required shallow water training session are beyond the ability of a trained instructor, that no one has the ability to make the decisions required by that standard.
Ayisha
Contributor
If the victim was wearing 35 lbs of ballast, it would be interesting to know the lift capacity of the BCD. It's likely that the lift capacity could have been 25 or 30 lbs.
However, if the victim was not taught how to inflate the BCD, since it is apparently not taught in the DSD, the lift capacity would be much less without any air added - only what was in the victim's BCD at depth. If the child was grossly overweighted, this would likely not be enough to keep the child positive on the surface.
If what the other child reported was correct, that the victim made it close to the surface and then sunk back down, this could be supported by the overweighting/under-inflated BCD/leaking BCD hypothesis. The child could have kicked his way to almost the surface, tired himself out, and not been able to reach or stay there.
However, if the victim was not taught how to inflate the BCD, since it is apparently not taught in the DSD, the lift capacity would be much less without any air added - only what was in the victim's BCD at depth. If the child was grossly overweighted, this would likely not be enough to keep the child positive on the surface.
If what the other child reported was correct, that the victim made it close to the surface and then sunk back down, this could be supported by the overweighting/under-inflated BCD/leaking BCD hypothesis. The child could have kicked his way to almost the surface, tired himself out, and not been able to reach or stay there.
That's another incorrect statement that one of the critics made right from the start, saying on several occasions that not only is inflating the BCD not taught in the DSD course, instructors are forbidden to teach anything not specifically listed. That is all completely false.
In the Instructor manual, on page 120, in the knowledge development portion of the course instructors are required to teach "Equipment purpose and use."
On Page 121, the confined water standards include the following
Note that the instructor skipped this session altogether and went straight to the OW experience.
John, is that Page 120 specific to DSD? And if so, for my own edification, I'm seeking confirmation that based on your reading of court documents/evidence, you are stating that the instructor didn't bother to give almost half of the instruction in the DSD course?
That's considerably more than "normalization of deviance" and completely eclipses lack of judgement.
My eyes are open so wide. It was too late before the instructor used bad judgement on ratio, lake conditions, overweight ing and/or defective bcd.
That's considerably more than "normalization of deviance" and completely eclipses lack of judgement.
My eyes are open so wide. It was too late before the instructor used bad judgement on ratio, lake conditions, overweight ing and/or defective bcd.
John, is that Page 120 specific to DSD?
Those are standards for the DSD course. The course can be taught pool-only or with an open water component. I included some of the standards for each version. You are not required to do as much if you are only teaching the course in the pool, which is, of course, not what happened.
---------- Post added November 25th, 2014 at 10:21 AM ----------
I would like to add to that comment because early on in this debate some of the posters were saying that the poor instructor was forbidden by PADI standards to teach any skill not specifically listed in the standards for the course. They were at that time also arguing that proper use of the BCD is a skill not listed in the course, which we have already seen is not true. I would like to explain, for the umpteenth time in relation to this charge, that it is in itself false.
First of all, not all required skills are listed. Many are understood and need to be taught as needed. For example, the skills do not tell you to teach the student how to hold the mouthpiece in the mouth. For 99% of students that is not a problem, but for others it is necessary instruction. I had one in the last class who could not figure it out. I was allowed by standards to explain it to her. When she put her face in the water to test it, she thought the equipment was malfunctioning because every time she exhaled, bubbles streamed out of the mouthpiece. I was permitted to explain that as well, even though that instruction is not listed in the standards. For DSD, the classroom standards include teaching "equipment purpose and use." Those four words cover a lot of ground with no specifics mentioned.
Next, there is no rule forbidding instructors from adding content to the course. The rule that is often mistakenly cited is that we cannot refuse to certify a student for a failure to perform well on a something that is not included in the course. If I want to explain bubble theory for decompression, I am free to do so, but I cannot make passing an exam on it a requirement for certification. In a Discover Scuba course, that rule has no bearing whatsoever, since there is no certification involved.
Finally, not only are we allowed to add to the content of the course, we are encouraged to do so. All instructors are required to read a two decade-old message from the President and CEO advising us that the course standards provide basic content for our courses, and we should use our own experiences to enrich that learning. In the past, the PADI Course Director who directed instruction at my shop had all instructors provide a summary of the additional information that we taught so that he could put together a combination for everyone so that all our students would get a more consistent experience in terms of the extra material being provided.
what does BCD stand for anyhow?
I specifically teach that it is NOT a life vest on the surface nor is it an "up" device.I have come to the conclusion that there are three aspects to this case
One, the dive from what I hear was a cluster you know what. However, I fear that type of class is more common than not. (regardless of standards)
Two, Standards for the class make it so in the event of an emergency, a single instructor without CA with more than 2 students can't possibly mange the emergency and stay in standards (actually I have felt this way 18 years). This is a discussion the industry MUST have.
Three, one agency has proven they care about the money more than the instructor...and we should be surprised??? LOL
---------- Post added November 25th, 2014 at 01:40 PM ----------
By the way, I have taught thousands of resort classes, I spent a fair amount of wasted breath saying "if CW was done properly, the ratios are less important" to industry insiders at DEMA. I believe that fully. Teach them all teh skills, have them swim around in the pool(or in chest high water) and when comfortable introduce them to the OW portion and you'll hardly ever get a bolter, do a quick rush thru the skills and immediately start swimming them on a ow dive and you get issues at an unacceptable rate.
But what do I know?
Let me give some background and ask you a hypothetical question.
A couple of years ago, two divemasters working voluntarily with a dive club that chartered a boat for a three tank dive took role call after each dive to make sure everyone in the club made it back. Incredibly, they missed one of them after the first dive and never knew he was missing until another boat picked him up drifting in the waves late in the afternoon. The two DMs were sued. PADI was included in the suit under the claim that the DMs were "agents and/or employees" of PADI. PADI had nothing to do with that incident. They did not hire the DMs for that job. They did not tell them what to do. There were no standards involved. Taking the role accurately is not taught in the DM class. PADI argued that the DMs were not their agents and/or employees, but the jury disagreed and found them liable for $2 million.
Think about the precedent for a second. Under the rationale of that case, every single time a graduate of a PADI program screws up and gets in a lawsuit, PADI could automatically be included in the suit and automatically be found guilty, even if they didn't have a blessed thing to do with the events that unfolded. It would be like successfully suing a medical school every time one of their graduates is guilty of malpractice. That would put them into bankruptcy in short order. Since then PADI has been scrambling to make sure that the statement that none of their graduates is an agent of theirs is everywhere. Other agencies are similarly scrambling. I know SSI is doing the same thing now.
So what happened in this case? If you read the claim, PADI was included in the lawsuit on the allegation that the instructor was acting as "an agent/and or employee" of PADI. He was not, but the DMs in the earlier case were not, either.
So here is my hypothetical question. You are the President and CEO of an agency, and you learn that one of the instructors your agency certified 20 years ago really screwed up badly, violating all sorts of standards in a case in which a student died. You are being sued for $5 million on the theory that this instructor was acting as an "agent and/or employee" of your organization. The instructor is guilty as sin and will certainly lose. If you do not fight the accusation that he is an agent of your organization, you will therefore lose $5 million automatically. You have no other defense available to you (unless you can think of one right now). What do you do? Do you fight the accusation, or do you tell your Board of Directors, "I know that this will set a bad precedent and we will certainly lose millions of dollars. I know we will lose millions of dollars every time one of our instructors screws up and violates standards. I don't care! We are going to stand by him!"
Similar threads
