Shannon Lewis - The True Story

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

I have read all the court transcrips and have talked to Wayne on more than one occasion. Wayne is one of the most honest men I have ever met.

When you read all those transcripts can you recall anywhere that the plaintiff asserted Shannon was my student on that terrible day? I would think if the plaintiff had any credible evidence that she was my student that day they would have said it thereby claiming I had a higher duty of care, in the legal sense. They would have used this to strengthen their case. They did not make any such claim because all evidence to the contrary exists, all except the assertion of one man.

Did you read the deposition of Mr. Flick carefully? Did you see anywhere in his deposition where he stated she was my student that day? Please read it again. If you no longer have it I can provide it to you. You will find in that sworn testimony that he stated she was not my student.

Did you read the statement Bill Huth, (posting as amaze, post #52) made above explaining how he remembers the day where she was asking for someone to dive with? In fact asking him to dive with her. If she were my student she would not have had to be looking for someone to dive with. Ask around about Bill Huth. Ask about whether or not Bill would be willing to post a lie on here or anywhere else about this. I encourage others here to witness for Bill Huths' honesty and motives for post #52. You will discover that he too is an honest man.

Ask your friend Wayne what he thinks about Bill Huth. Ask him if he thinks Bill would tarnish his reputation and credibility by telling a lie to protect me? Wayne and Bill Huth are friends.

We can believe that she may have told Wayne she was a student of mine. My assertion is that if she told him that she was my student she told him she was a former student of mine and that she was headed back to Ginnie to dive with me that day and that Wayne confused what she told him.

There is overwhelming evidence that she was not my student that day.

 

[TONY CHANEY]

When you read all those transcripts can you recall anywhere that the plaintiff asserted Shannon was my student on that terrible day? I would think if the plaintiff had any credible evidence that she was my student that day they would have said it thereby claiming I had a higher duty of care, in the legal sense. They would have used this to strengthen their case. They did not make any such claim because all evidence to the contrary exists, all except the assertion of one man.

Did you read the deposition of Mr. Flick carefully? Did you see anywhere in his deposition where he stated she was my student that day? Please read it again. If you no longer have it I can provide it to you. You will find in that sworn testimony that he stated she was not my student.

Sure, why not please provide it for all to read on here? I never said once that she was your student. I have no beef with you and as far as I know we have never met. I asked you for the transcrips before on The Deco Stop if you remember. I would not call Wayne a friend (I do not use that term very easily) but I have done dealing with him several times over the years. Don't try to change this around to a friend protecting a friend. Is it a clear and cut case that three divers entered the cave, one had complications, she was escorted toward the exit way below the surface, left there and she died later. There are a lot of other stuff like "she was not my student," she was on ear medications, etc but in the end result was the same.

I will say again that anyone who dives with me, I am my brother's / sister's keeper. That's it plain and clear no ifs and buts about it. But that is just me.

 

[The Chairman]

It sounds like you feel that a dive buddy has no "duty" to another member of the team? Is duty contingent only upon money changing hands?

That's quite a twist of what I did say.

Waving your buddies off is a long time tradition both in caves and in OW. Once they wave me off, they are no longer my responsibility. Until they wave me off, they are. You may or may not like the practice and that's irrelevant. It's a common occurrence and happens all the time but not for a student. The student/instructor relationship does not allow a wave off. As a Scuba Instructor I have to be close enough to render assistance until my student is out of the water. It's a contractual agreement that I take seriously, and I am up front to any tag along, that my first and primary responsibility is to my student and not them. Quite often the tag along is a parent, a significant other or a BFF, and they are happy that the student is getting this extra focus. I've had many wave offs over the years and if the buddy does not seem to be in too much distress, I certainly don't have an issue with it. But in a class, when one student calls the dive, the dive ends for everyone. If a tag-a-long gives us the wave off, depending on circumstances or conditions, I may or may not let them go alone. But my first duty is to my student and it will always be that way.

 

[danvolker]

I think this is a key concept or "take-away" in this discussion. "THE WAVE OFF".
This also get's to the reason real buddies are better than unknown tag-along buddies. If a long time dive partner waves you off, you should know from past behavior, that if they say they are fine--and are near the surface, they are totally safe and you can continue the dive without them.

If you DON'T know the tag along, you are being told your responsibility is over--WHICH IT IS...they have just terminated your buddy responsibility with the "wave off", BUT, your ability to "divine" their general well being is poor, since you have no idea about how this person behaves or solves issues compared to your real buddies.

These are TWO separate issues. One, the "Wave off", which ends the buddy responsibility- the "contract"....and TWO, your being able to "divine" the fitness and wellness of your "buddy" at any given moment.

So when you see a diver underwater--someone you don't really know at all, or not well, and they signal they are "A OK", are you supposed to NOT BELIEVE them, and watch them like a hawk till they get in the boat? Or, are you supposed to SEE their OK sign, and act from this as if they really are OK? Again, there is serious nonsense in this world with so many people WANTING a NANNY STATE, and where it ALWAYS "has to be someone else's fault" when someone dies. As I said in a previous post, do you really want a world where you can't let a friend take a bath, without you or someone watching them, to make sure they don't drown in the tub? We have gotten to this Nanny State mentality in this thread, and we all need to "push back".

 

[The Chairman]

and where it ALWAYS "has to be someone else's fault" when someone dies.

Herein lies the real problem. Denial. A few cannot accept that Shannon made wrong decisions here. No one is at fault but her, so why look any further? Everyone makes mistakes, so why can't they accept that with Shannon? This was an unintentional suicide. Nothing more or less than that.

FWIW, I hate the term 'Nanny State' and the inferences it brings.

 

[danvolker]

One of the tangents here is the act of "accepting" a new buddy on a dive.
Let me use cycling as a visualizing tool for this....If we are racing cyclists, and we want to go out on a training ride, and ride in a 3 to 6 man pack on A1A....averaging 25 to 30 mph for an hour or more.....it means we "should be" riding about 6 inches to 8 inches apart, that each rider maintains an extremely steady speed with no oscillations in speed from coasting and speeding up ( which causes everyone behind to have to brake so they don't hit the wheel in front of them, then speed up to get back on)...and no constant swinging left and right to either side of the imaginary line everyone is trying to hold....It also means that any cyclist that sees a dangerous obstacle in the road ahead, or a car in a driveway about to pull out in front of us, is going to CALL OUT the obstacle. Each rider in this group should be working as a team member, and any that fails in this, can endanger the safety of other members of the group. Touch the wheel ahead of you at 30 mph, because some jerk you don't know 2 bikes ahead, just began coasting and the biker ahead of you went on the brakes---and you and everyone behind you are involved in a 30 mph crash....in an instant. Broken collar bones, concussions, real life threatening injuries. All of this, because you allowed people in your group that were bad team members.
In fact, this is a rampant problem on A1A in South Florida. There are so many riders with poor etiquette and poor skills, that crashes are frequent. Most of the worst offenders, get pissed if anyone suggests they should hold their line better, or stop coasting, or, even worse, that they are drafting too close ( the worst and stupidest common issue.....Drafting 2 inches behind a bike ahead of you, at 27 mph, reduces the workload to feel more like you are only pedaling hard enough to go 24 mph--a huge drop in horsepower production Heart rate and breathing rate are much lower....However, the tradeoff is that NO ONE is good enough in bike handling, to ride that close. If the bike ahead slows just a tiny bit, if anyone of many things happens, the rider to close behind, touches wheels, and a terrible crash ensues....yet....a rider can cheat, and not have to work as hard...and maybe win a sprint later, if they cheat 2 inches behind.
So some of us, avoid riders like this like the plague...we are very picky about who we will ride with, and we will do an easy ride with some new people, before we will fully commit to riding with them in a full tilt 30 mph pace line. Insta buddies can kill you. This makes cyclists "cliquish" ..very much like the Exploration Teams of the WKPP in the 90's, that would ONLY dive with people they knew well, in challenging settings. There were Exploration Team members, and helpers or everyone else. The ones going in to the cave 3 miles or more, are going to be the short list that ONLY do dives like this with SELECT buddies that can be expected to operate like a smooth 30 mph pace line.

 

[victorzamora]

Waving your buddies off is a long time tradition both in caves and in OW. Once they wave me off, they are no longer my responsibility.

Agreed. Especially if discussed beforehand....which I always try to do. My buddy had a gear issue 1200ft back, 100ft deep in a cave one day. No big issue, we all had PLENTY of gas. He signalled he was turning, signalled us to continue, and waved us off. I signalled back the "Okay" signal, waved him off. We met on the surface where he was disappointed about his gear malfunction, but enjoying the otherwise pretty day. I try to make it clear to any buddy I dive with that if they signal "turn" or "thumb" then I go with them. If they wave me off, I'll keep on. I don't mind turning, and I don't mind going on down one man....even though that'd typically make for two solo divers. If there's any reason for me to be concerned (ear issues and you're 100ft deep, major gas loss, confusion/anxiety, etc) then I'll elect to go with you....but if it's just "man that sucks, see you at the surface....y'all have a good dive" then I have no issues. I've waved buddies off and been waved off.

 

[boulderjohn]

Agreed. Especially if discussed beforehand....which I always try to do. My buddy had a gear issue 1200ft back, 100ft deep in a cave one day. No big issue, we all had PLENTY of gas. He signalled he was turning, signalled us to continue, and waved us off. I signalled back the "Okay" signal, waved him off. We met on the surface where he was disappointed about his gear malfunction, but enjoying the otherwise pretty day. I try to make it clear to any buddy I dive with that if they signal "turn" or "thumb" then I go with them. If they wave me off, I'll keep on. I don't mind turning, and I don't mind going on down one man....even though that'd typically make for two solo divers. If there's any reason for me to be concerned (ear issues and you're 100ft deep, major gas loss, confusion/anxiety, etc) then I'll elect to go with you....but if it's just "man that sucks, see you at the surface....y'all have a good dive" then I have no issues. I've waved buddies off and been waved off.

This brings us to an interesting problem for cave divers related to this case. You may recall that Brett Gilliam was hired by the plaintiffs in the case to submit an expert opinion. The focus of his opinion was that there is no such thing as a wave off in cave diving. It cannot happen. According to Gilliam, if any member of a group of cave divers decides to end a dive a dive, every single member of the group is obligated to end completely the dive at that time. In support of that, he cites the NACD Cavern/Cave Diver Workbook (2005-2006):

Page 49:
Exit: This signal is used for any number of reasons but its one meaning is clear to
all cave divers- the dive is over and it is time to return to the surface.

Any diver may call any dive at any time for any reason, no questions asked and
no recriminations! This is the Golden Rule of Cave Diving and must be
incorporated in all dive plans.

The only response of all dive team members is to turn and exit the cavern or cave
system.

Note the last sentence in the quotation. I was not NACD trained myself, so I had never seen that sentence before, and I had never heard that the "golden rule" of cave diving includes the concept that if one member of a group decides to end a dive, all members of the group must decide to end the dive immediately.

This suggests that if on any dive with any group of dives of any ability level one of them waves off the others and ends the dive, this rule will be brought up in a subsequent lawsuit if anything bad happens, as it was in this case.

 

[LiteHedded]

This brings us to an interesting problem for cave divers related to this case. You may recall that Brett Gilliam was hired by the plaintiffs in the case to submit an expert opinion. The focus of his opinion was that there is no such thing as a wave off in cave diving. It cannot happen. According to Gilliam, if any member of a group of cave divers decides to end a dive a dive, every single member of the group is obligated to end completely the dive at that time. In support of that, he cites the NACD Cavern/Cave Diver Workbook (2005-2006):



Note the last sentence in the quotation. I was not NACD trained myself, so I had never seen that sentence before, and I had never heard that the "golden rule" of cave diving includes the concept that if one member of a group decides to end a dive, all members of the group must decide to end the dive immediately.

This suggests that if on any dive with any group of dives of any ability level one of them waves off the others and ends the dive, this rule will be brought up in a subsequent lawsuit if anything bad happens, as it was in this case.

this was how i was trained.

 

[boulderjohn]

this was how i was trained.

I was certainly trained that any diver can call the dive at any time for any reason, and if it is a two person team, that will certainly end it for the team. I had never before read or heard it said that in a larger team, not only must all members end the dive, they must all return to the surface together.

If that is indeed the meaning of the rule, then all people doing the "wave offs" being described in this thread are violating it, and they are leaving themselves open to liability should anything happen to a departing teammate or teammates.