Training Scuba Ranch Incident Report

[ROUS]

I would like to know what 90 foot lake there is in Texas, that you would want to dive.

I used to dive that deep in Possum Kingdom. You could do it easily at Scuba Point or near the dam. (But it was cold down there. Brrr.)

 

[OMyMyOHellYes]

Only issue I have with Athens is the owner. IYKYK

IK

 

[johndiver999]

I don't have kids, so I can't relate on the same basis you can. But speaking as a person who taught swim lessons for nearly 20 years, I have to disagree.

Having parents close by while teaching children to swim is a terrible, terrible idea. They interfere, plain and simple.

Perhaps, do you think the risk of a fatality during swim lessons in a pool is comparable to scuba in a mud hole with a bunch of students?

 

[Jcp2]

Perhaps, do you think the risk of a fatality during swim lessons in a pool is comparable to scuba in a mud hole with a bunch of students?

Why would you choose the mud hole to begin with?

 

[kammel78]

If it was a NAUI training activity, then I assume that NAUI would have pursued the relevant dive report and computer info. I believe that PADI professionals used to be (and I assume continue to be) required to provide an accident report after a serious incident in order to retain their active teaching status.

Is there any transparency from the training agency with respect to confirmation that a report was filed and if associated dive profiles were included? I doubt they would voluntarily release the actual information, but it would be interesting to know if NAUI is, or is not, performing the most basic due diligence in associated with this fatality. Has NAUI kept the instructor under a "current" or active certification? Is the instructor's "status" associated with the submittal of an accident report for NAUI after a training fatality?

Seems like most of these questions should be addressed by a SOP of the training agency.

So, you can check the instructor's status anytime online (well AWS outages notwithstanding). He's active. Roussel is and has been Sustaining, so he should not have been acting in any sort of teaching role by my understanding. Also, fwiw, he has a Shearwater in that photo. No clue what he was actually diving during class, though.

My point was that I can't see how an Instructor who was also a Sheriff's Deputy and PS diver on the Sheriff's Dive Team, who could not provide dive logs, as anything other than criminal obstruction.

And I can't see how anyone with KCSO who aided Armstrong in any way, as also not criminally culpable.

 

[DOBY]

Roussel is and has been Sustaining, so he should not have been acting in any sort of teaching role by my understanding.

100% correct. The divemaster (Roussel) should have had no role in assisting with the dive according to NAUI standards. In addition, one could technically argue that he would/should have been included in the 8:1 student to instructor ratio meaning it actually was at 9:1 in violation of NAUI standards.

See below:
For a NAUI Divemaster, sustaining status means they hold a valid leadership-level certification but currently do not meet all the requirements to perform their full duties. An individual in sustaining status is not authorized to supervise dives or assist in training.
This is in contrast to an active status dive master who has met all the annual requirements and is fully authorized to perform all the duties of their certification.

Requirements for active status
The specific requirements to move from sustaining back to active status can include:

• Maintaining a minimum number of logged open water dives annually.
• Participating in professional development and other diving activities.
• Paying annual membership dues.
• Maintaining good health and meeting all NAUI medical requirements.
• Completing the renewal application process.
• Carrying professional liability insurance.

A Divemaster may choose sustaining status if they are not actively working as a dive professional for a period and want to maintain their certification status without meeting the full active requirements. They can later renew and complete the steps to return to active status when they are ready to resume their duties.

 

[boulderjohn]

For a NAUI Divemaster, sustaining status means they hold a valid leadership-level certification but currently do not meet all the requirements to perform their full duties. An individual in sustaining status is not authorized to supervise dives or assist in training.
This is in contrast to an active status dive master who has met all the annual requirements and is fully authorized to perform all the duties of their certification.

Requirements for active status
The specific requirements to move from sustaining back to active status can include:

• Maintaining a minimum number of logged open water dives annually.
• Participating in professional development and other diving activities.
• Paying annual membership dues.
• Maintaining good health and meeting all NAUI medical requirements.
• Completing the renewal application process.
• Carrying professional liability insurance.

PADI uses different language, but as I understand it from my PADI instructional experience, they key issue is the last bullet point--carrying professional liability insurance. If Roussel was not an active DM, then it is likely that he did not carry professional liability insurance. If he did not carry such insurance and was determined to be liable for the fatality, that would be very, very bad for him.

Good thing he lost his computer.

 

[kammel78]

PADI uses different language, but as I understand it from my PADI instructional experience, they key issue is the last bullet point--carrying professional liability insurance. If Roussel was not an active DM, then it is likely that he did not carry professional liability insurance. If he did not carry such insurance and was determined to be liable for the fatality, that would be very, very bad for him.

Good thing he lost his computer.

Curious from a legal perspective, how much liability Roussel would be exposed to as a non-teaching professional in the class. Would any actions he directly contributed to still fall on the instructor as Armstrong should not have given any students into Roussel's care?

Also curious if Roussel was included by Scuba Toys or Armstrong and if he was paid by either.

 

[kammel78]

Anybody happen to catch what the comment they scrubbed was or from? Seems to be in relation to Dylan.

 

[boulderjohn]

Curious from a legal perspective, how much liability Roussel would be exposed to as a non-teaching professional in the class. Would any actions he directly contributed to still fall on the instructor as Armstrong should not have given any students into Roussel's care?

Also curious if Roussel was included by Scuba Toys or Armstrong and if he was paid by either.

My understanding is that if you are acting as a professional, you are liable for your actions as if you are an active professional, whether you are or not. The key is whether people are counting on you to act in a supervisory role.