Scuba Schools of America/Rusty Berry

[padiscubapro]

looking through the wrongful death suit complaint - and bear in mind that I am not a lawyer - you will also see that the plaintiffs essentially tried to sue anyone that was in any way associated with the rebreather including the manufacturer, the distributor, the manufacturer of the oxygen sensors, the certifying agency, etc. it appears that they did so without any clear explanation for the divers death.

i have no dog in this fight, but i don't know how relevant that suit is to the business in question.

agreed.. I don't think it has any bearing whatsoever on the point in contention..

 

[boulderjohn]

agreed.. I don't think it has any bearing whatsoever on the point in contention..

I think it does.

In the lawsuit, SSA was included for failing to warn the diver about the dangers of rebreather diving in general and the Inspiration in particular. Whether the claim was valid or not is not the issue.

Here is what the OP said:

He taught one of the classes that I was in and the whole time just talked about how cool rebreathers are and went on and on. Someone in my class asked about the dangers or if there had ever been any incidents where some had been injured or killed. He flat out said NO. Later, I found out there was a wrongful death lawsuit that he was named as a defendant in because someone died using a rebreather.

The OP said that SSA said specifically that there were no known incidents in which Inspiration rebreather divers had been injured or killed. If SSA indeed said that, it is not a true statement, and having been sued for failing to issue such a warning already, they certainly should have known that.

Your definition may vary, but for me, when someone knowing says something that is not true, it is a lie. Lying seems to be a the heart of the problem here.

 

[Lina77]

I think it does.

In the lawsuit, SSA was included for failing to warn the diver about the dangers of rebreather diving in general and the Inspiration in particular. Whether the claim was valid or not is not the issue.

Here is what the OP said:


The OP said that SSA said specifically that there were no known incidents in which Inspiration rebreather divers had been injured or killed. If SSA indeed said that, it is not a true statement, and having been sued for failing to issue such a warning already, they certainly should have known that.

Your definition may vary, but for me, when someone knowing says something that is not true, it is a lie. Lying seems to be a the heart of the problem here.

Thank you John, my point was that he flat out lied about any dangers or incidents that had occurred with any rebreathers being used, regardless of manufacturer or how experienced the diver was. He was telling this to a class of students wanting to get certified for OW and have yet to even go out into the ocean for their first dive yet. From what I understand, you can't just jump into rebreathers without being very experienced and know what you're doing. Trying to sell a class of students on rebreathers with ZERO experience is just negligent and reckless.

 

[lemon]

I think it does.

In the lawsuit, SSA was included for failing to warn the diver about the dangers of rebreather diving in general and the Inspiration in particular. Whether the claim was valid or not is not the issue.

Here is what the OP said:


The OP said that SSA said specifically that there were no known incidents in which Inspiration rebreather divers had been injured or killed. If SSA indeed said that, it is not a true statement, and having been sued for failing to issue such a warning already, they certainly should have known that.

Your definition may vary, but for me, when someone knowing says something that is not true, it is a lie. Lying seems to be a the heart of the problem here.

in regards to the lawsuit, if memory serves, the diver who died had been diving his rebreather for 3 years before his death (please correct me if i'm wrong here). to then go back and claim that he had never over three years become aware of the dangers of rebreather diving and the history of the inspiration seems like a dubious claim to me. heck, the inspiration was even popularly nicknamed the YBOD (yellow box of death). i knew that even before i started learning to dive rebreathers.

from my reading of the complaint, the plaintiffs are primarily claiming that the deceased should have been warned that the inspiration is flat-out "defective" by the certifying agency (a dubious claim, imho) and that the manufacturers, distributors, etc shouldn't have been producing and selling it at all. i don't think they were claiming that he wasn't warned of inherent dangers to rebreather diving in general. i imagine a simple glance at the training materials for the unit would clearly indicate the dangers inherent to rebreathers. i think it is even stamped on the rebreather itself.

my point is simply that i'm not entirely convinced that this lawsuit had any merit to it. and as such, i'm not convinced of its relevance.

now in regards to what Lina says she heard him tell a class of OW students about there not being any incidents on rebreathers, if that is true, that is clearly false. i'm not going to get into that, however, because i wasn't there and so i don't know what was or was not said.

 

[boulderjohn]

my point is simply that i'm not entirely convinced that this lawsuit had any merit to it.

now in regards to what Lina says she heard him tell a class of OW students about there not being any incidents on rebreathers, if that is true, that is clearly false. i'm not going to get into that, however, because i wasn't there and so i don't know what was or was not said.

Whether or not the lawsuit had any merit has no bearing whatsoever on this thread. It is totally off topic.

The fact that the lawsuit existed means that SSA had to know that people have died on Inspiration rebreathers, and to say that no one has died on one after being sued for not warning someone about that potential for death is not only a lie, it is a significant lie.

 

[Thalassamania]

A little perspective from a history lesson: NASDS was founded on the Federal Retail Price Management laws, this meant that they carried only one brand of each sort of item, ScubaPro for gear, Bailey for wetsuits, etc. All these brands were (so called) RPM brands which meant, at the time (now illegal) that they could not be discounted ... everything was sold at list price.

The basic shop scheme was to get potential customer in the door, run a patter about how this was the only safe way to train and this was the only safe equipment to use (ANDI's "Safe Air" is an artifact of this approach). The whole idea of the manikins in four levels of gear, identical to what the training staff wore is classic NASDS. The idea was to create an group of divers who were completely cut off from the mainstream, equipment had special "system" names like, "Ballast System," (weight belt) and "Buoyancy System," (BC) and "Environmental Protection System," (wetsuit) and "air delivery system" (regulator). Everything that the diver could need or come in contact with was designed to maintain the lie that NASDS was mainstream, and everything else was somehow peripheral and shabby.

NASDS had their own magazine, "Aquarius" that had what amounted to the articles and same photos you see in other dive magazines, but the only gear on any of the models was those brands that were sold in the shops, same deal with all the training materials, every photo was RPM gear, all the prose were written using the "system" and "safe" patois. They had their own dive resort down in Mexico and a live aboard, all under the aegis of "Club Aquarius." The end came when the California Attorney General came after them after the change in Federal RPM laws. But that did not stop them, they continued on in just the same way, with a no discount (except for the one time package purchase) policy and, IMHO, highly manipulative and deceptive sales practices.

This approach has been shown to improve sales per student. But it will also, in time, result in the sort of stuff we are seeing with SSA. I've been there and seen it with more that a few California shops.

The question is: is the shop in an area where there are sufficient numbers of new students coming in the door so that overselling them will not create so much ill will that the number of new students coming in the door will drop to the point that the increased profits per student no longer makes up for the drop in numbers.

 

[padiscubapro]

in regards to the lawsuit, if memory serves, the diver who died had been diving his rebreather for 3 years before his death (please correct me if i'm wrong here). to then go back and claim that he had never over three years become aware of the dangers of rebreather diving and the history of the inspiration seems like a dubious claim to me. heck, the inspiration was even popularly nicknamed the YBOD (yellow box of death). i knew that even before i started learning to dive rebreathers.

from my reading of the complaint, the plaintiffs are primarily claiming that the deceased should have been warned that the inspiration is flat-out "defective" by the certifying agency (a dubious claim, imho) and that the manufacturers, distributors, etc shouldn't have been producing and selling it at all. i don't think they were claiming that he wasn't warned of inherent dangers to rebreather diving in general. i imagine a simple glance at the training materials for the unit would clearly indicate the dangers inherent to rebreathers. i think it is even stamped on the rebreather itself.

my point is simply that i'm not entirely convinced that this lawsuit had any merit to it. and as such, i'm not convinced of its relevance.

now in regards to what Lina says she heard him tell a class of OW students about there not being any incidents on rebreathers, if that is true, that is clearly false. i'm not going to get into that, however, because i wasn't there and so i don't know what was or was not said.

I can't comment on the truth of his or her statements, I have overheard his sales pitch in the past and have heard similiar questions.. I have never heard him say that there hasn't been any deaths on CCRs, I have heard him say there havent been ay deaths directly attributed a rig (not exact wording of course) which is a true statement.. So far to my knowledge I don't know of any deaths that have been blamed squarely on ANY rig.. I have seen numerous findings for medical and diver error..

ALL CCR divers are taught that a rig WILL fail at somepoint, and what do do when this happens..

I have seen him show CCRS to divers in training I haven't seen him try to sell one (to a diver in training, I have heard him tell them talk to me in a few months about the benefits) thought he is definately planting the seed.. I think for his shop and similiar shops its a good policy to familiarize students with alternate dive configurations especially when there is a very good chance that the diver will see people using CCRs while diving with the store in question.

 

[hypertech]

This guy seems like a clown and I don't usually play blame the victim but....,

Who goes into a store for a $400 class and leaves with $800 worth of mask/fins/snorkel?

 

[boulderjohn]

So far to my knowledge I don't know of any deaths that have been blamed squarely on ANY rig..

Silent Dying

 

[sneighbor]

Thank you John, my point was that he flat out lied about any dangers or incidents that had occurred with any rebreathers being used, regardless of manufacturer or how experienced the diver was. He was telling this to a class of students wanting to get certified for OW and have yet to even go out into the ocean for their first dive yet. From what I understand, you can't just jump into rebreathers without being very experienced and know what you're doing. Trying to sell a class of students on rebreathers with ZERO experience is just negligent and reckless.

Rusty also tried selling me and my wife on the idea of rebreather diving. Mind you, we were also very new to diving, not even out of the pool yet (in fact only 1 lesson). I questioned Rusty about the safety of diving on a rebreather after I had done some research on the internet. What I found is that rebreather diving can be very risky and only appropriate for experienced divers. And, many of the deaths associated with rebreathers involved experienced divers. Rusty very arrogantly blamed the deaths on the failings of other instructors/ divers. He claimed that he had never had a death on his watch. I looked over at my wife and said, "oh, THAT'S comforting." So maybe Rusty was telling the truth, or - after reading about Robles, a half truth, which seems more in character for him.

Knowing what I know about Rusty now, I can't help wondering if the $7000.00 price tag of the Inspiration rebreather had any bearing on the sale of a piece of equipment known in the industry to be prone to failure.

Edit: I suppose even Rusty couldn't be THAT greedy. but I still can't escape the thought.