Training Scuba Ranch Incident Report

[johndiver999]

Instructor 'permanently suspended' after 12-year-old North Texas girl's scuba death

The Scuba Ranch in Kaufman County has released a new statement regarding the death of a 12-year-old Rockwall girl during a scuba certification class.

www.fox4news.com

But NAUI has not changed his status. So it is safe to assume that he has followed all the NAUI requirements about reporting on the accident after it occured?

But I am confused, if the instructor used an unqualified DM (in other words didn't meet the required student ratios) NAUI must know that their rules were not followed, and that a fatality occurred when this violation took place, so how can they keep the instructor on an active status? Seems like a temporary status change would be the least they could do, even if was simply an attempt to appear responsible.

People in this thread have argued that we must trust our young children's lives to "professionals", yet the professional organization itself does not seem to be acting in a responsible manner in this; most serious, of circumstances. None of this looks good to me.

 

[kammel78]

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.

I'd agree if he was acting in absence of a higher professional authority. Armstrong, as the instructor of record, had the duty of care of the students. I don't see how he could legally pass that duty of care off to a non-teaching participant any more than a pilot could grab someone from the passenger cabin and ask them to land the plane. If, though, Roussel was presented to Armstrong by Scuba Toys as a full, active teaching status DM, then that's a different scenario.

Roussel will have to answer for his actions, especially if he deliberately withheld his non-teaching status from Armstrong and/or Scuba Toys, but Armstrong, if he gave student care over to a non-teaching participant, should be held directly responsible. Not to mention Armstrong's post-accident actions (or lack thereof).

 

[boulderjohn]

Dylan Harrison instructor 'permanently suspended'

The instructor conducting the scuba course in which 12-year-old Dylan Harrison died has been 'permanently suspended' by The Scuba Ranch

divemagazine.com

 

[CG43]

Not to mention Armstrong's post-accident actions (or lack thereof).

According to the report by Richard Thomas in the link from johndiver 999 #151, it seems that Roussel and Armstrong were completely blocked after the loss of the girl.
If they were still professionals, they would have organized a meaningful search.
They were no longer even divers, otherwise, they would have at least tried to search underwater in some way.
They were not even men who tried in any way to organize a quick search.
Just recently, the excellent divers who handle a 2/8 situation so confidently,
after the accident, everything falls apart.
Of course, you practice behavior after accidents. But if the accident is caused by one's own mistakes or incompetence, it is a very difficult and different situation.

 

[TostitoBandito]

Dylan Harrison instructor 'permanently suspended'

The instructor conducting the scuba course in which 12-year-old Dylan Harrison died has been 'permanently suspended' by The Scuba Ranch

divemagazine.com

Cool, now put him on leave or fire him from his day job and drop some criminal charges on him. At the very least they should have enough for some flavor of obstructing an investigation. Get something on him and then they can add more charges later if there's evidence to support them.

 

[kammel78]

Cool, now put him on leave or fire him from his day job and drop some criminal charges on him. At the very least they should have enough for some flavor of obstructing an investigation. Get something on him and then they can add more charges later if there's evidence to support them.

But then the investigators would have to want to charge one of their own and stop obstructing the investigation themselves.

 

[Belzelbub]

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

I do agree with this in most situations.

That said, I did join in with both my daughters' open water dives. They did the pool dives with just the instructor. Of course, I made sure that I wouldn't interfere in any way. With the younger one, it was just me, her, and the instructor. Instructor made me do every skill as well. With the oldest, I watched the first day from afar while they did most of the skills. Due to an odd number, I was her buddy on the next day which was mostly actual diving. Again, I didn't interfere. So much so that when another diver accidentally knocked her regulator out, I waited until she dealt with it (couldn't get the primary, but got the octo) before I offered any help.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

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.

All of the kids I certified had parents on site. I was not a babysitter, and bringing the kid to class and dropping them off was not going to happen. A parent or legal guardian had to be present.
In some cases, I certified both. I never had a problem with parents interfering. I made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that I was the instructor. Not the parents.

I had more issues with husbands and boyfriends trying to interfere when certifying wives and girlfriends. One woman looked at her husband and told him I was the instructor, and if he didn't shut up, she was going to slap him.

If at any time a parent were to try and interfere, the instruction would stop and possibly result in cancellation of the class altogether. It was part of my learning agreement that I had them read and sign.
Parents, unless taking the class, were not permitted to help the kids with gear, coach them (other than to offer positive encouragement), or offer tips on what to do and how.

On checkouts, I took kids one-on-one for dives 1,2, and 3. Unless the parent was taking the class and was the buddy. Where the parent was already certified, I had them in the water for the last pool session so the kid could practice the rescue skills on them. Panicked diver, non-responsive from depth, and rescue tow, and getting them onto the pool deck at least partially. I had 12-year-olds who weighed less than 90 lbs., who had no issue with assisting much larger dads and moms.

They were also with the kid on dives 4 and 5. Why wouldn't they be if they were going to be buddies after the class?

But then, my class was a minimum of 8 weeks, when a kid was involved, with 16 hours of pool time and the same in the classroom. That was the way I was taught as a YMCA Silver Instructor, and when I crossed over to SDI, I taught the same way.

 

[cerich]

Craven Indifference
I didn't manage to capture it all.. but more than enough.
Scubatoys and NAUI demonstrated craven indifference and in fact while a legal term as well, IMHO depraved indifference.

Click link to see

 

[DOBY]

Full video………

Owner of dive shop in 12-year-old’s death seemingly admitted to past fatalities on video

An unearthed 2017 video shows the owner of Scuba Toys, the dive shop involved in the recent death of a 12-year-old girl, seemingly admitting that their business had been linked to multiple prior deaths.

www.fox4news.com