Parents sue Boy Scouts for 2011 negligence death

[Jim Lapenta]

The whole point is that had the standards for the course not allowed it in the first place it would not have happened at all. This is needs to be stressed and not lost in the discussion. The standards clearly allowed an unsafe situation to exist. Therefore the standards are as much to blame as the instructor.

Why do you think they did a backdoor deal with the plaintiffs then threw the instructor under the bus. It also had the effect of costing instructors another insurance agency. This was driven by greed and agency self preservation.

And don't think they won't do it again if an instructor takes three students into gin clear water and one bolts. They'll use the horsecrap line that the standards are ok. They now have to or admit that they have been full of crap all along. They won't do that as it would ruin them.

The standards allow unsafe conditions and practices to occur. Period.

 

[flots am]

All were done in the ocean with a 2:1 ratio, with pool sessions first. so you may be bolting from 30 or 40 feet. And even using your scenario, how long would it take to tell the other student lets go up. The scouts were not on a platform, they were on a line. Had they stayed on the line they would probably still be alive, but to leave 2 un-certified teens in the water for a few seconds and expect them to do that was wrong.

Cutting right to the chase, and ignoring depth, platforms, allowable ratios and what sort of activity was going on, because it really doesn't matter, it's just plain stupid to have one instructor and multiple uncertified divers.

That's the whole story. If you do it often enough, someone is going to die or be injured. There's no way to avoid it.

I don't really care that "the standards allow this or that" or this insurance company did something else, or PADI did some sort of legal maneuvering, because it's all irrelevant.

Shi* happens. It will. It really will. I give you an iron-clad guarantee that eventually someone will panic or have an asthma attack or just plain freak out and bolt, and If you want to be able to handle it as an interesting story for lunch and not a fatality, you need more than one professional in the water supervising the divers.

flots.

 

[demed]

The whole point is that had the standards for the course not allowed it in the first place it would not have happened at all. This is needs to be stressed and not lost in the discussion. The standards clearly allowed an unsafe situation to exist. Therefore the standards are as much to blame as the instructor.

Why do you think they did a backdoor deal with the plaintiffs then threw the instructor under the bus. It also had the effect of costing instructors another insurance agency. This was driven by greed and agency self preservation.

And don't think they won't do it again if an instructor takes three students into gin clear water and one bolts. They'll use the horsecrap line that the standards are ok. They now have to or admit that they have been full of crap all along. They won't do that as it would ruin them.

The standards allow unsafe conditions and practices to occur. Period.

I would recommend getting to the point where you have more dives than internet posts before acting like an expert and making such statements - the instructor didn't follow standards in so many ways that talking about ratio is pounding sand - a real instructor, as opposed to a drone, understands how and when to apply ratios. this guy didn't, and made a number of other violations.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

As do hundreds of other instructors, if not thousands, all over the world every day when they do follow ratios according to standards as they are written. In the best conditions an instructor could take 4 people. Which is still 2 too many. Some would say 3 too many. The resorts allow and require them to. They are still within standards. Did this instructor make an error in judgment? Damn right he did. But he never should have had that option. If the standards said confined water only, not confined water like, and one minor or two adults at a time per instructor that kid would still be alive, the instructor still teaching, an insurance agency still covering instructors, and this discussion not happening. The agency I cert ow divers through has those ratios and condition limits.

 

[clint@uniquescuba.com]

I'm not a PADI dude and fortunately never have been so excuse me for my ignorance of the PADI standard.

If it's not too much to ask I have a few questions for the PADI epigone.

1 - With PADI a DSD participant is classified a "Student"?

2 - With PADI it's within standards to take up to 4 participants in water over their heads with only 1 professional in the water?

3 - With PADI the participant is never taught how to make a safe ascent to the surface even though they might be on SCUBA at depth?

4 - With PADI the participant is never taught why and how they might suffer an overexpansion injury (and prevention) if they do not exhale during a rapid ascent to the surface?

5 - With PADI the participant is never taught how to properly ditch weights if they need to and establish safe positive buoyancy at the surface?

6 - By PADI standard, even if the Instructor wanted to "go the extra mile" and teach these extra skills they are forbidden to deviate from the DSD program?

7 - With PADI, it's possible to defy the laws of science and actually stay with participants at the bottom while simultaneously escorting panicking divers safely to the surface?


Thank You in advance for any answers

 

[Wookie]

I'm not a PADI dude and fortunately never have been so excuse me for my ignorance of the PADI standard.

If it's not too much to ask I have a few questions for the PADI epigone.

1 - With PADI a DSD participant is classified a "Student"?

A DSD participant is not a student. A DSD is an "Experience", the folks are "participants". Used to be you had a special booklet for the experience which actually issued a card, good for a week.

2 - With PADI it's within standards to take up to 4 participants in water over their heads with only 1 professional in the water?

For DSD that is correct. OW course allows 8:1. When I was teaching 8 DSD a day in 1996, 8:1 was allowed.

3 - With PADI the participant is never taught how to make a safe ascent to the surface even though they might be on SCUBA at depth?

That is correct.

4 - With PADI the participant is never taught why and how they might suffer an overexpansion injury (and prevention) if they do not exhale during a rapid ascent to the surface?

That is correct. SCUBA is a safe sport is stressed. Remember, this is many folks first experience with scuba. We wouldn't want them to be know they could be hurt. They are taught to always breath and never hold their breath. They are not told why.

5 - With PADI the participant is never taught how to properly ditch weights if they need to and establish safe positive buoyancy at the surface?

That is correct.

6 - By PADI standard, even if the Instructor wanted to "go the extra mile" and teach these extra skills they are forbidden to deviate from the DSD program?

I cannot speak to this. I hear lots of stuff about how PADI instructors are not allowed to over teach. I think that is a poor interpretation of the standards. WHat the standards say is that the participant/student must be able to perform a certain set of skills, and if they do, you must pass them. I used to overteach the heck out of the DSD, and I got great results. I taught neutral buoyancy in the pool, flood and clear, reg recovery, and safe free ascents. That way, in open water, they could actually enjoy their dive. I do not believe the intent of the standard is to prevent over teaching, it's to set a minimum. Some will disagree.

7 - With PADI, it's possible to defy the laws of science and actually stay with participants at the bottom while simultaneously escorting panicking divers safely to the surface?

I assume you are tongue-in-cheek and trying to make a point and a serious answer is not required.


Thank You in advance for any answers

 

[demed]

As do hundreds of other instructors, if not thousands, all over the world every day when they do follow ratios according to standards as they are written. In the best conditions an instructor could take 4 people. Which is still 2 too many. Some would say 3 too many. The resorts allow and require them to. They are still within standards. Did this instructor make an error in judgment? Damn right he did. But he never should have had that option. If the standards said confined water only, not confined water like, and one minor or two adults at a time per instructor that kid would still be alive, the instructor still teaching, an insurance agency still covering instructors, and this discussion not happening. The agency I cert ow divers through has those ratios and condition limits.

The straw man argument influx continues - please go read how the standards as written *in context*. Resorts and optimal conditions have nothing to do to the murky lake where the accident happened, as a murky lake is not 'confined water like' by by any stretch of imagination.

---------- Post added October 7th, 2014 at 07:38 AM ----------

I'm not a PADI dude and fortunately never have been so excuse me for my ignorance of the PADI standard.

If it's not too much to ask I have a few questions for the PADI epigone.

1 - With PADI a DSD participant is classified a "Student"?

A DSD participant is not a student. A DSD is an "Experience", the folks are "participants". Used to be you had a special booklet for the experience which actually issued a card, good for a week.

2 - With PADI it's within standards to take up to 4 participants in water over their heads with only 1 professional in the water?

For DSD that is correct. OW course allows 8:1. When I was teaching 8 DSD a day in 1996, 8:1 was allowed.

3 - With PADI the participant is never taught how to make a safe ascent to the surface even though they might be on SCUBA at depth?

That is correct. The participant is not taught or expected to know what the inflator is for on their BCD.

4 - With PADI the participant is never taught why and how they might suffer an overexpansion injury (and prevention) if they do not exhale during a rapid ascent to the surface?

That is correct. SCUBA is a safe sport is stressed. Remember, this is many folks first experience with scuba. We wouldn't want them to be know they could be hurt. They are taught to always breath and never hold their breath. They are not told why.

5 - With PADI the participant is never taught how to properly ditch weights if they need to and establish safe positive buoyancy at the surface?

That is correct.

6 - By PADI standard, even if the Instructor wanted to "go the extra mile" and teach these extra skills they are forbidden to deviate from the DSD program?

I cannot speak to this. I hear lots of stuff about how PADI instructors are not allowed to over teach. I think that is a poor interpretation of the standards. WHat the standards say is that the participant/student must be able to perform a certain set of skills, and if they do, you must pass them. I used to overteach the heck out of the DSD, and I got great results. I taught neutral buoyancy in the pool, flood and clear, reg recovery, and safe free ascents. That way, in open water, they could actually enjoy their dive. I do not believe the intent of the standard is to prevent over teaching, it's to set a minimum. Some will disagree.

7 - With PADI, it's possible to defy the laws of science and actually stay with participants at the bottom while simultaneously escorting panicking divers safely to the surface?

I assume you are tongue-in-cheek and trying to make a point and a serious answer is not required.


Thank You in advance for any answers

like with every case of group thinking, this is clearly a case where adding more brains to a problem instead of adding up, lowers the overall intelligence to the minimum denominator, as it would be expected when attempting to discuss matter of which they clearly have no first hand knowledge - which is troubling for the industry when these consider themselves PRO.

3 - DSD participants MUST be explained equipment and its purpose, as well practicing BCD inflation and deflation
4 - DSD participant MUST be told about the risks of overexpansion injuries - even the flipchart stress that
5 - DSD participant must be explained how the equipment works, including weight system

 

[clint@uniquescuba.com]

3 - DSD participants MUST be explained equipment and its purpose, as well practicing BCD inflation and deflation
4 - DSD participant MUST be told about the risks of overexpansion injuries - even the flipchart stress that
5 - DSD participant must be explained how the equipment works, including weight system



So they are "Told" and not "Taught" ?

 

[Wookie]

The straw man argument influx continues - please go read how the standards as written *in context*. Resorts and optimal conditions have nothing to do to the murky lake where the accident happened, as a murky lake is not 'confined water like' by by any stretch of imagination.

Standards do not require confined water. The standards specifically mention "confined open water", and how you set up confined open water. I believe the instructor met the intent of "confined open water" by placing a guide line.

It seems that this entire argument (and indeed, the argument being litigated) is that PADI relies on the "continuous and sound judgement" of the instructor for every part of this scenario. I maintain that PADI does not evaluate the judgement of the instructor candidate, and having watched a number of IE's as well in participating in some, it is not difficult to pass an IE without demonstrating sound judgement. This instructor met all of the standards going into this DSD except for demonstrating continuous and sound judgement which directly led to the standards violation of:

Supervision

Do not leave participants unattended, either at the surface or underwater.

Continually observe participants with only the brief,periodic interruptions needed to lead the dive and to provide assistance to individual divers.

Do not engage in any other activities, such as taking Photographs or video, while supervising participants.

Had the instructor had and demonstrated sound judgement before the dive, this event would have never occurred. Likewise, had PADI restricted participant ratios to 1:1 or anything over 1:more than one it would never have happened either.

---------- Post added October 7th, 2014 at 11:07 AM ----------

From the standards:

Conduct a knowledge development session or briefing that covers:

Breathing rules and equalization techniques
Equipment purpose and use
Hand signals
Regulator and mask clearing techniques
Respect for aquatic life (if appropriate)
Importance of watching and staying close to instructor
Limitations of the program and value of further training

Skill Performance Requirements
Have participants complete the following skills in shallow water: Exception: Only BCD inflation/deflation required for pool-only experience.
Breathing underwater
Regulator clearing
Regulator recovery
Mask clearing
Equalization techniques
Inflate and deflate a BCD at the surface

If participants will go on an open water dive, and shallow water for skills practice is inaccessible, an instructor conducts the skills session from a boat, dock or other surface support station by using a descent line, horizontal bar or platform that is within 2 metres/6 feet of the surface. The ratio is 1:1 when using the descent line option.

Now, I haven't taught a DSD in 20 years. It seems many of the parts I used to do anyway have been incorporated as standards, but I'm not sure where drop the weights or and type of ascent or descent are practiced anywhere. I no longer have the flip chart, so if it says anything about lung expansion, I've missed that, but it does not speak to them in the standards.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

My posts are based on actually researching the root cause of several dozen fatalities. Enough that I chose to author and publish several papers and a book based on that research. I will continue to publish and write articles in an effort to raise awareness of the danger involved in scuba.

In addition to that, in the last year and a half I've been consulted by attorneys in three separate cases dealing with instructor judgment/conduct vs standards. These consults were as a result of my research and the material I've published.

Am I an expert on this stuff? I don't think so. But some feel that the efforts I have made to understand and try to help mitigate these accidents make my views and opinions of value. As well as having the standards for nine different agencies in my library to refer to. I can look this stuff up when needed.

The "in context" reference is irrelevant. Standards that are so loose as to even allow the option to engage in unsafe practices have no "context'' defense. They are flawed and refusing to admit and fix the flaws in order to preserve income streams is not only dangerous, but immoral and highly unethical in any activity.