The complaint says she was taking AOW, that dive was the required deep.
As for the rest shrug
As for the rest shrug
Suit filed in case of "Girl dead, boy injured at Glacier National Park
- Thread starter Jim Lapenta
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Please provide the number in the complaint that identifies that she was doing the AOW deep dive on that dive. My reading skills are apparently not up to the task.
As I have said repeatedly, the details provided show a simply horrific situation, one that staggers the imagination. In the complaint, the attorney appears to list everything the could possibly include to make the situation look as bad as possible, which is what attorneys do. Some of the items in the list barely relate at all, like the fact that the instructor enlisted the help of a 14-year old boy to get the body out of the water. The only purpose of that item is inflammatory.
That is why I find it curious that he does not identify the specific instructional dive being conducted. I would expect that he would identify the instructional dive being done, identify the standards for that dive, and contrast the instructor's actions with those standards. That would be very damning, and yet he leaves it out.
The one time the attorney lists course standards is for the dry suit specialty dive, where he notes the requirement of the instructor to be with the student at all times. He does not, however, say that it was a drysuit specialty instructional dive.
I interpret that memo discusses conversations that took place prior to the fatality.
If those conversations were post fatality, wouldn't that be a rather extreme understatement?
What discussions took place prior to the fatality? What were they about?
Does it matter what AOW dive she was on (surely you don't dispute that was an AOW course taking place, otherwise WTF are they doing up there?)? It was a mess with a dangerously configured diver who wound up deep where she drowned.
A conversation where the person who wrote that memo got the impression they didn't have a good grasp of standards.
That should have raised a red flag. Maybe Barry should have gone over and have at least one meeting to discuss procedures/standards.
In legal terms, you are assuming facts not in evidence. I am curious as to why those facts are not in evidence.
When I am teaching students in new situations, I will commonly do a non-instructional dive with them so they can get used to things before doing actual instructional dives. That could be what was going on.
As I have said repeatedly, I don't know, and I don't know because the attorney who filed the complaint did not include that information, and that void has my interest piqued. Some people are quick to jump to conclusions. I am not like that.
I did a detailed investigation and analysis of a cave diving fatality on behalf of the National Speleological Society. In that case, there was an instructor involved, but he said he was not instructing the victim who died after aborting the dive and heading for the surface on her own (where she eventually died under unknown circumstances). The plaintiff's attorney did everything he could to prove that the victim was a student in a class, even though there was no evidence of that. That is because there is a significant difference between an instructor/student relationship and a diver/diver relationship in terms of responsibility.
I would assume that in this case, the attorney would be doing everything he can to prove there was an instructor/student relationship. The fact that he is instead relying on people like you to make assumptions is surprising.
Where does it indicate that? What standards were violated? What standards are even mentioned?
You are absolutely desperate to invent a story that fits your narrative. Why not write your own short story about it, complete with your creation of the conversation, and then submit it as evidence? I am sure many people will accept it as proof.
It is clear in the complaint they were doing AOW with her and drysuit with another guy. I was wrong it doesn't say the deep dive just conducting AOW with so it was a class. Which dive is irrelevant.
If one of your students shows up for a in water class with a drysuit and no inflator hose are you still doing the class?
For me if a buddy shows up like that I'm not going. In fact I pulled out of a dive this weekend because my buddy was shows signs of dehydration, I canceled the dive that instant as a buddy/buddy relationship.
You are right that we don't have all the facts only part of a story.
If one of your students shows up for a in water class with a drysuit and no inflator hose are you still doing the class?
For me if a buddy shows up like that I'm not going. In fact I pulled out of a dive this weekend because my buddy was shows signs of dehydration, I canceled the dive that instant as a buddy/buddy relationship.
You are right that we don't have all the facts only part of a story.
I was addressing that you said "For just one example, we keep talking about the instructor/student relationship between the principle characters, but we are never shown any evidence that such a relationship existed on that dive. ".
Well, you had provided evidence earlier in the thread the actual instructor establishing that she considered them her students on that dive.
No big deal, just seems you forgot.
I have seen lots of assertions it was an AOW course, no idea what the dive was supposed to be skill wise towards what AOW dive. That is a question in my mind as well.
