Suit filed in case of "Girl dead, boy injured at Glacier National Park

[Esprise Me]

I think that's probably true of most safety regulations--someone had to die, or at least get hurt, in order for it to be deemed necessary to restrict others' freedom of choice. Sometimes a lot of someones. Worth keeping in mind the next time a law or rule seems silly, onerous, or overly conservative.

 

[formernuke]

I think the only thing that will change is insurance rates (more than already) and annual dues.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

The sad thing is a young girl's death prompted all these discussions of changes in the industry standards. Why did someone have to die in the first place?

Steve

This isn't the first death. There is this website dedicated to the deaths of students from a recently closed dive center (per reddit, they closed without notice): Home | Seattle Scuba Info. I have been told that Tareq Saade (SLIDESHOW: UPDATE: Diver who died diving off Seacrest has been identified | Westside Seattle) was also a student at Seattle Scuba, but have not been able to confirm (PADI would know). Whether it is 3 or 4 deaths doesn't matter. But the fact that there were so many from the same shop and nothing was ever done. There's only one expelled instructor from my area, but no idea under what school he taught. Seattle Scuba wasn't expelled by PADI.

I was told by a NAUI instructor who is an attorney and is a consultant for DAN that a number of training deaths are missed by the media. So the problem is bigger than what we realize.

The only way to get change is to make the agencies liable for looking the other way, not doing enough to ensure instructors knew what they were doing. Please don't say "its in the standards." I've spent a number of years working on different versions of USB, and how people interpret standards, somethings wrongfully, tells me that there is often a disconnect between what is written and what is interpreted/understood.

Now one person here will disagree with me, but I do believe the majority of agencies need to tighten up their standards and take steps to ensure that dive centers/instructors are teaching safe courses. A death should result in a significant inquiry and remedial training at a minimum. Non-fatal accidents warrant a review process, possibly recertification.

The fact is, an IE is not enough to ensure that instructors are competent at running safe courses. I know I wasn't sufficiently trained, even though I fairly quickly compensated for poor equipment from dive shops for which I was teaching with my own gear and also providing dive lights that I feel are an open water requirement in the Puget Sound.

There are so many ways agencies could increase dive safety, and I probably haven't even thought up half of them.

 

[BRT]

The sad thing is a young girl's death prompted all these discussions of changes in the industry standards. Why did someone have to die in the first place?

Steve

Sometimes electrical code changes are made because someone has seen a possibility of something happening, something that has never been recorded happening. Doing things that way makes for a big, restrictive rule book.

 

[lowwall]

I'm kind of lukewarm on the Divers Ready YouTube channel in general, but I agree with almost everything in his recent video on this subject:


(I guess he's blocked 3rd party embeds, but clicking the Watch on YouTube link works.)

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

This was just posted by the mother of the young woman. She has given people permission to share (otherwise I wouldn't post here)

 

[Esprise Me]

I'm confused. The dive times listed for Snow and Liston don't match up, and the only dive listed for Linnea is dated ten months earlier. I'm sure the time and date info just wasn't set correctly, and the email makes reference to an intention to get the corrected times consolidated, but is there enough info here now to support that Snow was on the surface when Linnea drowned? Also, I don't see the graph from Linnea's computer, or from Snow's second dive.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I'm confused. The dive times listed for Snow and Liston don't match up, and the only dive listed for Linnea is dated ten months earlier. I'm sure the time and date info just wasn't set correctly, and the email makes reference to an intention to get the corrected times consolidated, but is there enough info here now to support that Snow was on the surface when Linnea drowned? Also, I don't see the graph from Linnea's computer, or from Snow's second dive.

Fixed. I missed the flatlined one. I wouldn't expect the times to line up as this is often not set correctly. I'd have to go through the filing to see in what order did the people enter the water.

The flat part of Linnea Mills laying on the bottom is incredibly disturbing.

Snow's first and second dives are shown in one graph.

 

[Esprise Me]

Fixed. I missed the flatlined one. I wouldn't expect the times to line up as this is often not set correctly. I'd have to go through the filing to see in what order did the people enter the water.

The flat part of Linnea Mills laying on the bottom is incredibly disturbing.

Snow's first and second dives are shown in one graph.

Thanks. My eye went right to the little red uptick right before she sank again. I wonder if that was her kicking up with all her might. Awful.

I don't think you're right about Snow's dives though. The email describes the first one as being to 113 feet, which is what the graph shows; the second one was supposed to be to 121 feet.

And I understand why the times don't line up; I'm just wondering how Linnea's mother concluded that Snow was on the surface when Linnea was sinking without the correct time info. Was there a follow-up email?

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I don't think you're right about Snow's dives though. The email describes the first one as being to 113 feet, which is what the graph shows; the second one was supposed to be to 121 feet.

Yeah, I think you're right. It isn't shown/posted.