Student lost - Seattle, Washington

[yle]

The only thing that should be included in a report are facts.

It's nice to believe that facts are readily available to investigators, but I get the impression from reading John's posts that investigators rely on interviewing witnesses in order to figure out what the "facts" are. Sometimes those witnesses (from what John describes) have an incentive to be dishonest... which can make the determination of "facts" a little complicated.

It seems John's point is that investigators have to occasionally inject their expertise to sort through the witness testimony, try to determine which "facts" are reasonable and which aren't. If two witnesses give conflicting testimony, the investigator will inevitably have to go with one of them... and by default suggest the other was lying.

This is how I interpreted what John described.

 

[yle]

If I was still a PADI instructor and I caused a training accident, and PADI published a report detailing facts that reveal my negligence, I could try and sue. But PADI would win that case, possibly countersue to recoup their legal costs.

But if the "facts" of the case that PADI would use in their report were taken from a witness, and there were other witnesses that provided testimony of conflicting "facts", then you would certainly have a case that PADI published a report by selecting the witness with the story they wanted to tell, while ignoring other witnesses.

And this seems to be the heart of the matter: if I'm an agency or expert and I publish a report based on available testimony, but later I find out that testimony was available that contradicted my report, I could be sued for lack of due diligence. But I can avoid being sued if my report is kept private.

How do we avoid this? You mentioned the NTSB in a previous post, and you hit the nail on the head: if we get the government involved in regulating the scuba industry, the government will then investigate scuba accidents and the reports (like those of the NTSB) will be made public.

Show of hands for those that want the government to regulate scuba?

 

[NothingClever]

It's nice to believe that facts are readily available to investigators, but I get the impression from reading John's posts that investigators rely on interviewing witnesses in order to figure out what the "facts" are. Sometimes those witnesses (from what John describes) have an incentive to be dishonest... which can make the determination of "facts" a little complicated.

Every time I’ve been an IO, the above has been my experience. One spends a lot of time determining the facts and parsing out causal factors, determining type and degree of negligence and forming a legally sufficient (ergo defensible) conclusion.

 

[NothingClever]

Show of hands for those that want the government to regulate scuba?

You really shouldn’t post while narc’d.

In all seriousness, you make a great point. I don’t think the government should get involved in diving…it has enough other problems to sort out.

So, what’s the alternative?

My perception is WRSTC has had its teeth removed by a large dive agency but I don’t sit in on their council meetings so I can’t assert that as a fact (only a perception).

The alternative to the alternative?

Hence my point some posts ago about quarterly DAN broadcasts that provide a more useful service to divers who are interested and care about improving the industry. They have more access to info and can provide vetted info that’s more instructive than the A&I barroom chatter.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

But if the "facts" of the case that PADI would use in their report were taken from a witness, and there were other witnesses that provided testimony of conflicting "facts", then you would certainly have a case that PADI published a report by selecting the witness with the story they wanted to tell, while ignoring other witnesses.

And this seems to be the heart of the matter: if I'm an agency or expert and I publish a report based on available testimony, but later I find out that testimony was available that contradicted my report, I could be sued for lack of due diligence. But I can avoid being sued if my report is kept private.

How do we avoid this? You mentioned the NTSB in a previous post, and you hit the nail on the head: if we get the government involved in regulating the scuba industry, the government will then investigate scuba accidents and the reports (like those of the NTSB) will be made public.

Show of hands for those that want the government to regulate scuba?

I'd rather see all collected information. If there is contradictory testimony given by two or more parties, publish all of it. Basically two sections: uncontested and contested. I'm skeptical about the lawsuit scenario. If new facts/testimony becomes available (if people present don't provide testimony state so), just update. Don't pass judgment, just report.

People act like government regulation is a bad thing. Personally, I'm glad that work conditions are monitored, that food safety is checked, that pollution is measured. Is it perfect? No, but there is financial incentive to not do the right thing. Fortunately some agencies do the right thing.

I do accept the reality that governments with few exceptions will never regulate the scuba industry.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

You really shouldn’t post while narc’d.

In all seriousness, you make a great point. I don’t think the government should get involved in diving…it has enough other problems to sort out.

So, what’s the alternative?

My perception is WRSTC has had its teeth removed by a large dive agency but I don’t sit in on their council meetings so I can’t assert that as a fact (only a perception).

The alternative to the alternative?

Hence my point some posts ago about quarterly DAN broadcasts that provide a more useful service to divers who are interested and care about improving the industry. They have more access to info and can provide vetted info that’s more instructive than the A&I barroom chatter.

The WRSTC and RSTC never had any teeth to begin with. It is a sham organization set up for one purpose and one only. To keep governments from regulating the activity.
The supposed standards they have are not standards. They are suggested guidelines that member agencies seem to be allowed to modify, adapt, and ignore at will to suit them. Agencies are not required to join the RSTC and they actually make it difficult for smaller ones to.
Any suggested changes in the "standards" to improve safety such as reducing ratios can be vetoed by any one member and anything such as this that may affect profits is dead as soon as it's thought of so it never happens.
Decide you won't follow the standards or allow your instructors and dive shops to do so? Nothing will happen as long as the agency is happy with it. The RSTC will do absolutely nothing.
Which is why many agencies are not members nor do they care to be.
The only thing that will change the industry are the divers themselves. When they insist on not being rushed through classes, not be pressured into buying crap they don't need, and when individual instructors are able to tell shady shops and operations to go to hell when asked or made to feel like they need to cut corners. And when instructors get rewarded for producing quality divers instead of herds of those who can just survive underwater.

 

[boulderjohn]

Which is why many agencies are not members nor do they care to be.

It would be helpful to make a list of all the major agencies that choose not to be members. By "major agencies," I am referring to the fact that there are more than 100 agencies, and the overwhelming majority are barely operational, if they are operational at all. Of the agencies whose names people would recognize, CMAS, BSAC, GUE, and UTD are not members. What others are you talking about?

I believe the agencies for which you teach are members, though. Why do you stoop to such a level?

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I believe the agencies for which you teach are members, though. Why do you stoop to such a level?

Maybe his agency has enough redeeming qualities that the strengths are greater than the weaknesses.

There is no perfect agency but there is certainly a hierarchy

 

[NothingClever]

And when instructors get rewarded for producing quality divers instead of herds of those who can just survive underwater.

Word.

I think those instructors cranking out poorly-prepared divers are the same ones winning annual achievement awards from regional CDs for qualifying the most divers.

The incentive model for some organizations is upside down.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

The incentive model for some organizations is upside down.

What do you mean? Agencies are in business to maximize profits. Seems the status quo is what agencies believe is the best way to achieve that.