That's not true and it's why PADI settled so quickly. Without a pool (confined water) session the ratio had to be one to one. Unfortunately, this wasn't the only standard violated.
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
Actually the confined water session was held. By a loose definition. Very loose. The confined water requirement was met by the use of a roped off area. This is actually quite common. A BSA program in my area has been done for years using the same set up. A roped off area is designated as confined water.
When they left the roped off area yes the ratio observed should have been 1 to 1. In confined water (pool or pool like conditions) it's 4 to 1.
From the report by Dive & Marine Consultants International, Inc.
" On the morning of July 13, 2011, Tuvell, Perry and MP met Douglas to participate in the introductory scuba experience. None of the three participants had ever been scuba diving before. Douglas reviewed each participants paperwork to verify it was completed properly. The three participants watched a PADI DSD instructional video. While the participants were watching the instructional video Douglas was at the dive van preparing equipment.
Following the video Douglas reviewed the information from the video and provided additional instructions including hand signals, right hand quick release weight belt and Douglas emphasized to release the weight belt if unable to stay on the surface. Douglas issued wetsuits and weight belts to the participants. Tuvell was issued a two-piece 5mm wetsuit and a weight belt consisting of 30 pounds of lead weight. The participants donned the wetsuits and weight belts. A buoyancy / weight evaluation was performed. That consisted of entering the lake to about shoulder depth and kneeling down below the surface to determine if each participant had sufficient lead to sink.
The participants then walked back up to the dive van and were issued a scuba system. Tuvell was issued a medium size BC and short steel (described but not verified as a 50 cubic foot cylinder) with a regulator system consisting of a primary second stage, alternate second stage and gauge console with a pressure gauge and depth gauge.
Douglas escorted the participants to the shallow water in a roped off area near a small dock at Bear Lake. On the dock is a flagpole with a dive flag that remained in a lowered and stowed throughout the dive activities on the day of the incident.
(This is what qualifies for confined water in a situation like this and is commonly used in inland areas for these types of programs where an actual pool is not available. Just went through this over the summer. I was asked to go along and look at a location with a shop that is hoping to do OW certs at a scout camp next summer and this is the set up they would be using. It can also be used for DSD's. The area can be marked off with a rope, some type of plastic snow fence, movable docks moved to create a defined area, as long as it is easily discerned to be a clearly defined area. That anyone could leave it at any time is irrelevant. They are not supposed to.)- My words in green.
Once in the shallow water Douglas instructed the participants in essential scuba skills including: fin kicks; equalizing ears; inflate/deflate BD; recover, clear and breathe from regulator; flood and clear mask. Each participant demonstrated these essential scuba skills. The participants were allegedly assigned individual partners, however Douglas instructed them that they would remain together throughout the duration of the dive. Douglas alleges that he assigned Tuvell and the other boy participant, and Douglas assigned himself to the adult participant. Douglas emphasized to the participants that if any of them have any problem whatsoever they are to inform Douglas of the problem and he would then resolve the problem. Following the skills development the participants spent a few minutes becoming comfortable with the scuba equipment in shallow water.
Thereafter Douglas guided the dive team to a rope that follows the bottom contour from the dock to a sunken boat outside the roped off swim area. The participants followed the rope along the bottom to a basket containing bowling balls. The participants played with the bowling balls for several minutes. Douglas then continued to guide the participants along the submerged rope to a sunken boat in approximately 35-40 feet of water. After several minutes of exploring the sunken boat Douglas guided the participants back to the submerged rope and the dive team followed the rope along the contour of the bottom back toward the dock. In the lead were Tuvell and MP swimming side-by-side following the rope to shallow water. Following directly behind them were Douglas and Perry who were also swimming side-by-side to each other."
I bolded the above section. This was used, and is still used in other programs like this, to cover the confined water requirement.
The Standards do say that:
Note: Ratios apply to favorable conditions only. Rough, turbid, very cold water or other circumstances may warrant reduced ratios for student safety.
12 students to 1 instructor and 1 mannequin
For any open water or confined open water dive that includes 10-11 year olds, the maximum ratio is 4:1,
no more than 2 of the 4 may be age 10 or 11.
What they do not do is say "must" be reduced or "shall" be reduced. They also do not define "Rough, turbid, very cold, or other circumstances." Nor so they define favorable. That is left solely up to judgment of the instructor. Therefore, in my opinion only, there is a lot of latitude and trust that may or may not be warranted in that judgment. What is rough to me may be perfectly ok to someone used to doing dives on the Pacific coast. To an instructor used to teaching only in the Caribbean very cold may be 72 degrees. To me I have put new OW divers in a 5 mil and they were fine. Also they do not define how turbid is too turbid. I've seen pools with cloudy water and worse vis than the keys on a good day. Yet because it's a pool no one thinks anything of it. They just stick closer if on scuba.
What are those "other circumstances". Again left up to the instructor. You'd think that common sense would prevail but by whose definition again?
If you have clear standards that say in "confined water outside of an actual pool" the ratio is 2 to 1, 1 to 1, etc. You don't even have the chance to create a scenario like this. Or that a discover, intro, etc can only be conducted in a pool, as one of the agencies I cert through specify, you don't have even the temptation to go into deep water (more than 15 feet).
When they left the roped off area yes the ratio observed should have been 1 to 1. In confined water (pool or pool like conditions) it's 4 to 1.
From the report by Dive & Marine Consultants International, Inc.
" On the morning of July 13, 2011, Tuvell, Perry and MP met Douglas to participate in the introductory scuba experience. None of the three participants had ever been scuba diving before. Douglas reviewed each participants paperwork to verify it was completed properly. The three participants watched a PADI DSD instructional video. While the participants were watching the instructional video Douglas was at the dive van preparing equipment.
Following the video Douglas reviewed the information from the video and provided additional instructions including hand signals, right hand quick release weight belt and Douglas emphasized to release the weight belt if unable to stay on the surface. Douglas issued wetsuits and weight belts to the participants. Tuvell was issued a two-piece 5mm wetsuit and a weight belt consisting of 30 pounds of lead weight. The participants donned the wetsuits and weight belts. A buoyancy / weight evaluation was performed. That consisted of entering the lake to about shoulder depth and kneeling down below the surface to determine if each participant had sufficient lead to sink.
The participants then walked back up to the dive van and were issued a scuba system. Tuvell was issued a medium size BC and short steel (described but not verified as a 50 cubic foot cylinder) with a regulator system consisting of a primary second stage, alternate second stage and gauge console with a pressure gauge and depth gauge.
Douglas escorted the participants to the shallow water in a roped off area near a small dock at Bear Lake. On the dock is a flagpole with a dive flag that remained in a lowered and stowed throughout the dive activities on the day of the incident.
(This is what qualifies for confined water in a situation like this and is commonly used in inland areas for these types of programs where an actual pool is not available. Just went through this over the summer. I was asked to go along and look at a location with a shop that is hoping to do OW certs at a scout camp next summer and this is the set up they would be using. It can also be used for DSD's. The area can be marked off with a rope, some type of plastic snow fence, movable docks moved to create a defined area, as long as it is easily discerned to be a clearly defined area. That anyone could leave it at any time is irrelevant. They are not supposed to.)- My words in green.
Once in the shallow water Douglas instructed the participants in essential scuba skills including: fin kicks; equalizing ears; inflate/deflate BD; recover, clear and breathe from regulator; flood and clear mask. Each participant demonstrated these essential scuba skills. The participants were allegedly assigned individual partners, however Douglas instructed them that they would remain together throughout the duration of the dive. Douglas alleges that he assigned Tuvell and the other boy participant, and Douglas assigned himself to the adult participant. Douglas emphasized to the participants that if any of them have any problem whatsoever they are to inform Douglas of the problem and he would then resolve the problem. Following the skills development the participants spent a few minutes becoming comfortable with the scuba equipment in shallow water.
Thereafter Douglas guided the dive team to a rope that follows the bottom contour from the dock to a sunken boat outside the roped off swim area. The participants followed the rope along the bottom to a basket containing bowling balls. The participants played with the bowling balls for several minutes. Douglas then continued to guide the participants along the submerged rope to a sunken boat in approximately 35-40 feet of water. After several minutes of exploring the sunken boat Douglas guided the participants back to the submerged rope and the dive team followed the rope along the contour of the bottom back toward the dock. In the lead were Tuvell and MP swimming side-by-side following the rope to shallow water. Following directly behind them were Douglas and Perry who were also swimming side-by-side to each other."
I bolded the above section. This was used, and is still used in other programs like this, to cover the confined water requirement.
The Standards do say that:
Note: Ratios apply to favorable conditions only. Rough, turbid, very cold water or other circumstances may warrant reduced ratios for student safety.
12 students to 1 instructor and 1 mannequin
For any open water or confined open water dive that includes 10-11 year olds, the maximum ratio is 4:1,
no more than 2 of the 4 may be age 10 or 11.
What they do not do is say "must" be reduced or "shall" be reduced. They also do not define "Rough, turbid, very cold, or other circumstances." Nor so they define favorable. That is left solely up to judgment of the instructor. Therefore, in my opinion only, there is a lot of latitude and trust that may or may not be warranted in that judgment. What is rough to me may be perfectly ok to someone used to doing dives on the Pacific coast. To an instructor used to teaching only in the Caribbean very cold may be 72 degrees. To me I have put new OW divers in a 5 mil and they were fine. Also they do not define how turbid is too turbid. I've seen pools with cloudy water and worse vis than the keys on a good day. Yet because it's a pool no one thinks anything of it. They just stick closer if on scuba.
What are those "other circumstances". Again left up to the instructor. You'd think that common sense would prevail but by whose definition again?
If you have clear standards that say in "confined water outside of an actual pool" the ratio is 2 to 1, 1 to 1, etc. You don't even have the chance to create a scenario like this. Or that a discover, intro, etc can only be conducted in a pool, as one of the agencies I cert through specify, you don't have even the temptation to go into deep water (more than 15 feet).
SSI's ratio's are much lower. For Try Scuba in a pool, it is 2:1 for 10 & 11 yr olds, & 4:1 for any other ages. In Open water, for 10 & 11 yr olds is 2:1 & for any other ages is 4:1. The minimum age is 10 yrs old.
For Open water training dives Ratios are- 10 & 11 yrs old- 2:1, 12- 15 yrs old- 4:1 & for 15 & older- 8:1, 10:2 with a certified assistant & 12:3 with 2 certified assistants.
For Open water training dives Ratios are- 10 & 11 yrs old- 2:1, 12- 15 yrs old- 4:1 & for 15 & older- 8:1, 10:2 with a certified assistant & 12:3 with 2 certified assistants.
No it wasn't. It has to be "swimming pool like conditions in regard to clarity, calmness and depth." Bear Lake has the clarity of motor oil on a good day. Apparently it had issues with calmness that day as well. I actually have done DSDs in Bear Lake at the Scout camp just north of this one. I kept it one to one for me. Another instructor went 1 to 2. These were adults and we did not go into water over their heads. We also excluded a number of adults who had medical issues.
In the instructor's mind it seems it was. That's why I said a very loose definition of it. Didn't say I would consider it to have been done. I'd have made the scouts arrange something with a local school, college, YMCA, etc for a pool or told them forget about it. If those are common conditions there why was a program even held at all? I'd be leery of even doing snorkeling and skin diving classes.
Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk
---------- Post added October 28th, 2015 at 06:02 AM ----------
SEI came down with new guidelines at dema in 2013. Intro were pool only. No open water period. 4 to 1 adults, 2 to one kids. Personally I now only do a max of 2 to 1 with adults and 1 to 1 kids. I will not take anyone less than 12 for scuba.
Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk
Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk
---------- Post added October 28th, 2015 at 06:02 AM ----------
SEI came down with new guidelines at dema in 2013. Intro were pool only. No open water period. 4 to 1 adults, 2 to one kids. Personally I now only do a max of 2 to 1 with adults and 1 to 1 kids. I will not take anyone less than 12 for scuba.
Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk
I stopped doing DSDs a few years ago. I had a son who couldn't equalize and a dad who didn't want to come up. It's not worth the angst. Luckily we were in 15 ft of water, 150+ vis and flat seas. I won't put myself in that situation again.
The fact that an instructor thinks he is following standards does not mean he is following standards any more than not realizing I am committing a crime makes me not guilty. What they did clearly does not meet standard, but jsut in casde, it only takes a few seconds to make a call or send an email to get a ruling. I like emails, because I have a written response. When we had a discussion about teaching in low visibility in the Instructor to Instructor forum a few years ago, I sent pointed questions from the discussion a few years ago and got equally pointed explanations in reply. That fully clarified my thinking on teaching in low visibility, and the shop I work for changed some policies as a result.
As Pete also said, there were several other violations. If you want to have a case in which the standards are to be evaluated, you have to come up with an example in which they were followed.
regardless of any one case, IMHO the ratio for a DSD type program should never exceed 2:1, we only have two hands and even then sometimes it should be 1:1. I have taught THOUSANDS of these programs and whenever one student has any issue that needs your attention as the instructor the rest are essentially unsupervised and under trained and under experienced to be unsupervised underwater on scuba.
Same here.
Similar threads
