Parents sue Boy Scouts for 2011 negligence death

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

There was a discussion on this topic a year or two ago in the Instructor to Instructor forum on ScubaBoard. PADI has a video about low visibility instruction, and a link to that was included in the discussion. In addition, I conferred with PADI about the topic and reported on those conversations. The topic was important to me because that is the kind of visibility I usually instruct in. I am talking about OW instruction, not DSD.

In that kind of visibility, you are not allowed to leave OW students unattended at any time. Someone has to be close enough to provide help immediately in case of a problem. Here are some examples of how that impacts OW instruction. You can use your judgment to determine how it would impact a DSD.
One of the skills required for the OW class is to share air and ascend to the surface. If you have more than two students, you have to plan for the ones you are not with when you ascend with that pair. You must either have an assistant with the others at all times, or the rest must be on shore.

When you do the CESA, you must ascend with the individual student. If you have more than one student, then you must either have assistants near them (up or down), have the rest on shore, or have the student(s) not doing the CESA at that time ascend and descend next to you with the student dong the CESA.

If you are the only instructor with several students at depth, and one of them ascends, you must bring the others with you.​

Perhaps you could explain how a training agency (any training agency) assesses a new instructor's judgement. To what standard is that judgement assessed? I've watched a few IEs, and I've not seen the "Instructor's Judgement" evaluation, but then, I'm not an Instructor Examiner.

For a training agency to leave something as ambiguous as "in reduced visibility, the instructor must reduce his training ratio to _____ is inviting the kind of trouble we're seeing in this instance. PADI mass produces instructors. None have their judgement evaluated. Therefore, a system of standards that can be followed in varying environmental conditions must be established. i.e. (Blue Bold) In reduced visibility (15 feet or less) the instructor must reduce all introductory scuba lesson ratios (OW, DSD, DS) to a ratio not to exceed 2:1 or 1:1 or 4:2 or whatever. Anything else is inadequate guidance for the instructor.
 
Perhaps you could explain how a training agency (any training agency) assesses a new instructor's judgement. To what standard is that judgement assessed? I've watched a few IEs, and I've not seen the "Instructor's Judgement" evaluation, but then, I'm not an Instructor Examiner.

For a training agency to leave something as ambiguous as "in reduced visibility, the instructor must reduce his training ratio to _____ is inviting the kind of trouble we're seeing in this instance. PADI mass produces instructors. None have their judgement evaluated. Therefore, a system of standards that can be followed in varying environmental conditions must be established. i.e. (Blue Bold) In reduced visibility (15 feet or less) the instructor must reduce all introductory scuba lesson ratios (OW, DSD, DS) to a ratio not to exceed 2:1 or 1:1 or 4:2 or whatever. Anything else is inadequate guidance for the instructor.

Well, there is the video mentioned before, and when I was not sure about how to handle the poor visibility locally, I contacted headquarters and got very specific recommendations for different options available to me.

I don't have your wealth of experience, Frank, but I would not have taken 3 DSD divers under those conditions, and if I did, when one of them went to the surface and I needed to follow, the other two would have gone with me. That does not seem to me to require a level of judgment at the Sherlock Holmes level.
 
Well, there is the video mentioned before, and when I was not sure about how to handle the poor visibility locally, I contacted headquarters and got very specific recommendations for different options available to me.

I don't have your wealth of experience, Frank, but I would not have taken 3 DSD divers under those conditions, and if I did, when one of them went to the surface and I needed to follow, the other two would have gone with me. That does not seem to me to require a level of judgment at the Sherlock Holmes level.

Yes, but we aren't all created equal. I wouldn't get in the water with introductory divers without a CA. I'll bet you've seen it done, however. I wouldn't take any DSD in a mudhole in Utah, Colorado, or anywhere else. I had great success with 8 DSDs in St Lucia, but I also had a CA with me every time.

A system that allows a single instructor to have more than one student in any conditions is bound to fail. That's my opinion. When you increase by a certified assistant, the number you can control goes up dramatically. A system that relies on the judgement of the instructor is sure to fail. Not always resulting in a fatality, but will still fail.

Does your video have black bold standards in it? Or does it have non-measurable goals?
 
From the other thread. The BSA is alleging the dive instructor did not have liability insurance per BSA's contract with him/them.

If he didn't have liability insurance then he probably isn't an active instructor.


Perhaps you could explain how a training agency (any training agency) assesses a new instructor's judgement. To what standard is that judgement assessed? I've watched a few IEs, and I've not seen the "Instructor's Judgement" evaluation, but then, I'm not an Instructor Examiner.

For a training agency to leave something as ambiguous as "in reduced visibility, the instructor must reduce his training ratio to _____ is inviting the kind of trouble we're seeing in this instance. PADI mass produces instructors. None have their judgement evaluated. Therefore, a system of standards that can be followed in varying environmental conditions must be established. i.e. (Blue Bold) In reduced visibility (15 feet or less) the instructor must reduce all introductory scuba lesson ratios (OW, DSD, DS) to a ratio not to exceed 2:1 or 1:1 or 4:2 or whatever. Anything else is inadequate guidance for the instructor.

The instructors judgement portion of my IE was a continous thing. It involved all my briefings, pre and post dive, all my instructions to my diver class and then one or more of the examiners would do something to screw up the exercise to see how the instructor candidate would handle the situation. It could be something as simple as removing their reg at the wrong time, doing a skill totally backward or even bolting for the surface. The judgement came in how the whole deal was handled, both during the event and in the post dive briefing. And believe you me, they can get creative.
 
Ugly read.

“PADI’s Wicked Ways--throwing a divemaster under the bus, and colluding with plaintiffs

from the October, 2014 issue of Undercurrent (www.undercurrent.org )

PADI's money-making Discover Scuba Diving course (DSD), once simply called a resort course, is on trial, and it looks like PADI will do whatever it can to protect it -- even if it means throwing a PADI instructor under the bus, and operating secretly and illegally behind the court judge's back.

PADI instructor Corbett Douglas, who worked for Blue Water Scuba, based in Logan, UT, had four divers -- three Boy Scouts and their scoutmaster -- under his charge in a DSD course in Utah's Bear Lake in July 2011. During the introductory dive, one Boy Scout had anxiety problems, as apparently did the scoutmaster, and Douglas was faced with a choice: guide the two anxious victims back to the surface or let them go on their own. Because the other two scouts seemed stable on the bottom, he guided the two troubled divers to the surface. By the time he returned, one of the boys he left behind, David Tuvell, had drowned.

DSD programs have an accident rate more than twice that of PADI's standard openwater certification courses. As Bret Gilliam wrote in Undercurrent back in March 2012, a big problem lies with the standard: Only one instructor may lead up to four divers. Should a diver get into trouble, the instructor must either let him head to the surface alone or go with him and leave the other divers unaccompanied. Gilliam argued that two instructors were essential for safety, which would also permit the groups to be much larger, with as many as a dozen divers.

"If there is an issue over how Tuvell died, it is the standards of the Discover Scuba Diving program."

Less than two weeks after the death of David Tuvell, PADI publicly expelled Douglas (an Iraq veteran and schoolteacher) for life as a PADI instructor, but refused to explain either publically or to him personally how he had violated PADI standards. Also, no witness statements had been conducted, and autopsy reports and police reports had not yet been made available. PADI then made an issue out of Douglas at a large DEMA gathering -- it had determined that "his continued membership was not in the best interests of PADI." Corbett, however, was following PADI procedures: He had four students and he served the troubled divers. And that's what may really be on trial -- whether the DSD program is, in fact, a faulty, unsafe program.

The case went to court, naming Douglas, Blue Water Scuba, PADI and the Boy Scouts as defendants. PADI has argued that the Blue Water defendants are solely responsible for the death, not the standards of its DSD program.

David Concannon, the attorney representing Douglas and Blue Water Scuba, told Undercurrent that he repeated the fatal dive, and spoke to witnesses and medical examiners, but can't find that Douglas violated any standards. "If there is an issue over how Tuvell died, it is the standards of the DSD program . . . It does not tell you how to make a safe ascent. It does not tell you how to stay on the surface. It does not tell you to drop your weights and maintain your buoyancy. None of this information is given to the participants. The instructors are not allowed to deviate from that."
However, the judge later learned that PADI had colluded with the plaintiff's attorney and arrived at a secret settlement with the plaintiffs, David Tuvell's parents. In that confidential agreement was a clause in which PADI denied responsibility and agreed with the Tuvells that its members were responsible for the boy's death. Another provision in the settlement allowed PADI to stay in the case for as long as PADI wanted so it could "clear its name" and defend against any allegations that the DSD program was defective.
PADI's motives? One theory is that the agency made the confidential settlement to get itself out of the case as a defendant so that the court couldn't scrutinize the inefficiencies in the DSD curriculum.

The other motive is to get rid of the competition for insuring PADI dive instructors, says Concannon. Here's how it's structured: Each major dive agency has its own insurance program and offers liability insurance to its instructors as part of membership. The agency, in turn, presents its instructors to an insurance broker (PADI's preferred broker is Vicencia & Buckley), who then finds underwriters to fund the insurance program. The underwriters charge a premium, which is passed on to the instructor, and the broker takes a commission from the premium and shares it with the dive agency.

Two years ago, PADI was bought by a private equity firm, which soon realized it had overpaid for a dive training agency that had rapidly declining enrollment numbers -- the lower the number of instructors purchasing insurance through PADI, the fewer commissions, and thus, revenues collected. But PADI couldn't raise membership rates or hike insurance premiums for its dive instructors because it was competing with other insurance underwriters, primarily Willis Recreational Diving Insurance, on the basis of price. Although Blue Water Scuba is a PADI dive shop, it chose Willis as its insurer, and listed Corbett Douglas as a person to insure under its plan. "If he was insured by Vicencia & Buckley, Douglas would never have been expelled, PADI would have vigorously defended him," says Concannon. "But here was a case to make Willis spend a lot in defense costs for a big verdict. PADI couldn't resist competing with Willis on this basis. If Willis quits brokering insurance to the diving industry, Vicencia & Buckley can raise prices because it no longer has to compete."

Thus, PADI entered an agreement with the plaintiffs, David Tuvell's parents, that made them amend their original complaint to settle some claims against PADI and keep the agency a party to the case, reviewing documents and advising the Tuvells how to hold Douglas and Blue Water Scuba liable. But PADI is not doing so as atonement to the deceased's grieving parents, says Concannon. "There's no legitimate reason for PADI to do that other than to make Willis spend their profits and lose more money just to defend the case and find the instructor is not liable. By getting rid of the competition, PADI can finally raise its rates."

After finding out about the secret agreement, the judge threw out the plaintiffs' amended complaint earlier this year, saying that "PADI and their Counsel unnecessarily multiplied the proceedings . . . [and] set off a series of answers, cross-claims and third-party claims that were unnecessary." Despite the collusion, the judge seemed to let PADI off earlier, making it pay the Blue Water defendants $2,000 to compensate them for legal fees paid to defend themselves against that amended claim. But PADI still intends to stay as a party in the case -- Concannon says it filed a motion to do so, and a hearing on that will be held October 6.

Looks like PADI got its wish even before the case goes to trial. Earlier this summer, Willis announced it was dropping out of the dive insurance industry, leaving just one other -- smaller -- underwriter as PADI's only competition. "The ultimate result of this trial will not be about a family winning a case against [an]instructor," says Concannon. "It's that now an instructor suddenly will have to pay a lot more for liability insurance because the only place to get it is through PADI sponsored insurance."

We called and e-mailed PADI's vice-president of marketing and communications, Kristin Valette, to get the dive agency's reply and point of view, but she didn't respond.

- - Vanessa Richardson”
 
I don't understand how it makes sense, to be honest.

The standards are pretty clear to me. In poor visibility, you are not allowed to leave uncertified students alone, either at depth or at the surface. If two people decide they need to head to the surface and you are alone, you must ascend with them, and you must bring the other students with you.

I don't understand why anyone thinks there was a decision to me made in this case.
 
I don't understand how it makes sense, to be honest.

The standards are pretty clear to me. In poor visibility, you are not allowed to leave uncertified students alone, either at depth or at the surface. If two people decide they need to head to the surface and you are alone, you must ascend with them, and you must bring the other students with you.

I don't understand why anyone thinks there was a decision to me made in this case.

Hey!! You guys bolting!! Wait a minute while I let these other guys know we're surfacing.

Oh, Snap!!
 
Hey!! You guys bolting!! Wait a minute while I let these other guys know we're surfacing.

Oh, Snap!!

I know you're being the sarcastic, but minus the wait a minute, that would be the calm rational thing to do. The 2 bolting for the surface have already put themselves in danger, no use putting the others in danger by leaving them alone.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom