Parents sue Boy Scouts for 2011 negligence death

[Dr. Lecter]

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.

Any idea how the parties for whom you consulted would feel about the bolded statement?

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Not really. I was not called as an expert witness. That would have to be determined by a higher authority. I never billed myself as one. Yet they thought enough was there to call me.

 

[demed]

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

for the aspiring Perry Mason in the audience with too much time available, i must admit that 'explained' would have been a better choice of word than 'told'

---------- Post added October 7th, 2014 at 09:03 PM ----------

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.

If i understand you correctly, browsing the internet is now called researching, while cutting and pasting from the internet is authoring papers. Is this research conducted under the auspices of a scientific body? Can you also point us to the peer review that happened prior to and leading to publication?

Attorneys consult anyone who could be useful to support an hypothesis, and being consulted by one is no more reliable index of competence than an email signature.

 

[Omisson]

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.

Jim,

I've always appreciated the thought you have put into your training related posts and think you writing is pretty sound, but I'm kinda baffled here.

You've "published" or "been published"... One involves peer review and critique - the other access to Amazon DOT com. There is a HUGE difference.

One should be careful in not overreaching... Especially in a field as fraught with actual scientific and safety studies and longtime dive experts as we are in. Don't play up expertise - when you are a solid but relatively *new* instructor (and in a sense new diver relative to many) - with a good writing style. Stick to your fields of competence.

Just from a pecuniary perspective PADI wouldn't expose itself if the standards were as loose as you claim. While I agree a better confined open water definition could be mandated and I like mandatory assistant requirements on discover scuba experiences for 2-4 people.... The thing speaks for itself - PADI is the most successful dive franchise in the world bar NONE. PERIOD.

For you to take a pot shot on the quality of the PADI standards seems to me, as an attorney, silly - because time and market share has proven your premise wrong. PADI is far and away the dominant industry agency, with very few verdicts legal against them, and no history of running seriously afoul of government regulatory authorities. And as an American based company that's extrodinaire for an inherent high risk sport like scuba.

So let's try and be somewhat reasonable in assessing. The instructor was not in a reasonable confined ow environment, had no assistant, and was ill prepared for an exigency. The Boy Scout motto is be prepared... This guy wasn't.

 

[scagrotto]

PADI is the most successful dive franchise in the world bar NONE. PERIOD.

Any chance you can tell us who the most successful seller of hamburgers is and the relevance of that success to the quality of the product?

 

[ScubaSteve1962]

Any chance you can tell us who the most successful seller of hamburgers is and the relevance of that success to the quality of the product?

So they sell billions of hamburgers, get a few thousand complaints, and that means their product must be low quality. From what I've seen here the majority of people that complain about Padi and their standards aren't Padi certified divers.

 

[flots am]

Just from a pecuniary perspective PADI wouldn't expose itself if the standards were as loose as you claim. While I agree a better confined open water definition could be mandated and I like mandatory assistant requirements on discover scuba experiences for 2-4 people.... The thing speaks for itself - PADI is the most successful dive franchise in the world bar NONE. PERIOD.

A mandatory assistant when dealing with more than one non-certified diver would eliminate the problem of "who to chase and who to watch in an emergency", however after re-reading the original post, it's not clear there was an emergency. It just says that the instructor and scoutmaster left. If they were chasing someone, that's something PADI could fix with a standards change (assuming the inst. would have followed the standards), but if they just felt like leaving, that's just stupid and not even PADI can "fix stupid",

PADI's market share is a completely different issue and is driven nearly entirely by their marketing, not their safety record or instructional quality. In fact, nobody, especially prospective PADI customers (new SCUBA students) has any way of determining their training or safety record, since injury/fatality/diver activity data isn't available.

flots.

 

[Wookie]

PADI's market share is a completely different issue and is driven nearly entirely by their marketing, not their safety record. In fact, nobody, especially prospective PADI customers (new SCUBA students) has any way of determining their safety record, since injury/fatality data isn't available.

flots.

Don't reckon it would matter anyway. I keep hearing "More rebreather divers die diving AP Evolution/Inspiration than any other rebreather. Probably because there are more AP rebreathers out there than all the other brands. There are certainly more PADI divers and instructors than all other brands.

 

[nimoh]

If i understand you correctly, browsing the internet is now called researching, while cutting and pasting from the internet is authoring papers. Is this research conducted under the auspices of a scientific body? Can you also point us to the peer review that happened prior to and leading to publication?

Attorneys consult anyone who could be useful to support an hypothesis, and being consulted by one is no more reliable index of competence than an email signature.

who's the straw man now?

---------- Post added October 8th, 2014 at 08:58 AM ----------

Any chance you can tell us who the most successful seller of hamburgers is and the relevance of that success to the quality of the product?

For that matter, Microsoft Windows is the most successful operating system bar none.

 

[Wookie]

For that matter, Microsoft Windows is the most successful operating system bar none.

Maybe Windows eats at McDonalds? That's why it's so bloated and fat?