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

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Also, there is much discussion of weather in this thread. According to Weather Underground historical data, the temperature at 4:55pm in Kalispell, MT (the closest I could find to Lake McDonald) on November 1, 2020 was about 50F and the weather was fair.

I will admit that I did make assumptions about the weather. It is always good to challenge assumptions. So I found this: https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/glacier-national-park/59916/november-weather/35433_poi?year=2021. High of 46, low of 21. Now I have to go back and look at the timeframe, but if my memory serves me correct, they were pushing daylight. Whether some people are correct that they were pushing daylight.

I did note this from the original filing:

111. On Sunday, October 25, 2020, the Gull Dive Defendants conducted the first of Linnea’s training dives at Seeley Lake, Montana, at an altitude of 4,019 feet. The temperature at the beginning of the day was -5 degrees Fahrenheit, with a wind chill of -15 degrees Fahrenheit, and the ground was blanketed with snow and ice. The high temperature at Seeley Lake on that day was 18 degrees Fahrenheit.

I have not fact checked it however.

This one just made me cringe:

120. During the dive on October 25, 2020, Snow wore a dry suit, as did student Joel Wilson. Liston, wore a wetsuit, as did Linnea. Due to the extreme cold, Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 28 student Nathan Dudden elected not to dive and, instead, he gave his wetsuit to Linnea to wear on top of the wetsuit she rented from the Gull Dive Defendants to help Linnea stay warm.

Per point 151, they were to meet at Gull Dive Center, a 3-hour drive to the Lodge at Lake McDonald. An excerpt in an email stated:

Prepare for cold weather. Please bring extra undergarments, extra gloves and hoods if you have them. Nothing worse than putting on wet cold gloves.

I can't speak as to the impact of the mountains to the west causing sunset to be shorter and temperatures to be colder. As a landscape photographer, I have chased many sunsets and learned the hard way that I had to adjust for mountains.

This is an important point:

174. Rather than arrive at the Lake McDonald Lodge at 2:00 p.m. to begin diving, as planned and communicated to the divers days earlier, the dive party did not arrive until closer to 4:00 p.m

175. Sunset in Glacier National Park on November 1, 2020 was at 5:14 p.m., with the sun falling behind the mountains to the west southwest and creating dusk well before that time.

204. The dive started at 5:08 p.m., six minutes before sunset.

The complaint does not cite the temperature at that day/time, probably (my guess) in that it wasn't as extreme as the dive location on October 25 as described in point 111 (copied above).

While I was not there that day obviously, I would guess that the temperatures had dropped from the high of 46. Not an issue going into the water, but it would have been an issue during the interval. Overall, I still think my premise is correct in that temperatures are an issue on average in November at elevation.

@MrVegas thanks for pointing out my assumptions/extrapolation. It made me dig into things more and review the original filing.

Another point is water temperature. Using Lake McDonald's current water temperature is 70°F. Today's forecast is: Clear throughout the day., with a high around 75°F and a low around 51°F. Winds are out of the SE at 5 mph with gusts of 18 mph. the water temperature was between 48.7 and 44.3 degrees.

Now this aspect is completely on the dive center and the instructor. However, I would like to see an apprentice period (based on certification) for new instructors where no mixed courses are allowed and reduced ratios. I know that myself as a new instructor, I wasn't able to handle max ratios, but fortunately I was co-teaching. Actually even now I can't handle max ratios and even in warm, crystal clear water, I can't handle max ratios. While I think I can prepare students against panic and am capable of identifying students with issues, I don't think anyone can guarantee that more than one student may panic at a point in time, and if you are at max ratios, you are going to have a bad day. Yes, this is statistically small where this occurs. But it does happen and can easily be addressed.

 

[PirateFoxy]

To answer your earlier question, I took "Open Water" and "'Advanced' Open Water" with what would probably have been the same PADI materials the victim would have used. I'm fairly certain the Open Water materials do imply that you are expected to dive independently if you are issued a certification, but the way the book is laid out it would take a while to find a specific quote. The 'Advanced' book goes much more into independently planning and executing your dives. As a matter of law it will probably be hard to show a material defect with the PADI approved materials, but if the question gets in front of a jury I wouldn't necessarily expect that to particularly matter since the details of this case are truly horrific. Because of that, there are a few comments up thread expecting PADI to settle with a NDA in place.

Part of my question is how explicit is that expectation and how much are instructors expected to evaluate on that point and fail to certify a student who may have mastered the scuba skills but does not have the ability to actually implement them independently regardless of what others might be telling them at the time? Not as a matter of law but as a question of if the current standards are actually adequate to genuinely prepare a diver to act as they are supposed to, and if not, is that something that the various training agencies need to change? Either in the teaching/certification process to more explicitly address those skills or in what is actually expected of a recently certified diver.

I mean, I look at our 17 year old now and I'm not at all sure he'd have the confidence to say "this doesn't seem right, I'm not doing it" to an instructor and he's generally a pretty confident kid. He's also just not a mature adult yet - it generally takes some life experience to get to that point and based on my own experiences in medicine, some people *never* get to the point of questioning an authority figure in that way. So if it's going to be a fundamental part of class/training safety after OW that students can and WILL do so, that's a problem with the system.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

To answer your earlier question, I took "Open Water" and "'Advanced' Open Water" with what would probably have been the same PADI materials the victim would have used. I'm fairly certain the Open Water materials do imply that you are expected to dive independently if you are issued a certification, but the way the book is laid out it would take a while to find a specific quote. The 'Advanced' book goes much more into independently planning and executing your dives. As a matter of law it will probably be hard to show a material defect with the PADI approved materials, but if the question gets in front of a jury I wouldn't necessarily expect that to particularly matter since the details of this case are truly horrific. Because of that, there are a few comments up thread expecting PADI to settle with a NDA in place.

Part of my question is how explicit is that expectation and how much are instructors expected to evaluate on that point and fail to certify a student who may have mastered the scuba skills but does not have the ability to actually implement them independently regardless of what others might be telling them at the time? Not as a matter of law but as a question of if the current standards are actually adequate to genuinely prepare a diver to act as they are supposed to, and if not, is that something that the various training agencies need to change? Either in the teaching/certification process to more explicitly address those skills or in what is actually expected of a recently certified diver.

I mean, I look at our 17 year old now and I'm not at all sure he'd have the confidence to say "this doesn't seem right, I'm not doing it" to an instructor and he's generally a pretty confident kid. He's also just not a mature adult yet - it generally takes some life experience to get to that point and based on my own experiences in medicine, some people *never* get to the point of questioning an authority figure in that way. So if it's going to be a fundamental part of class/training safety after OW that students can and WILL do so, that's a problem with the system.

According to the minimum course requirements in the WRSTC, https://wrstc.com/downloads/03 - Open Water Diver.pdf in a paragraph spanning pages 3 and 4 it states:

Open water certification qualifies a certified diver to procure air, equipment, and other services and engage in recreational open water diving without supervision. It is the intent of this standard that certified open water divers shall have received training in the fundamentals of 4 recreational diving from an instructor (see definition). A certified open water diver is qualified to apply the knowledge and skills outlined in this standard to plan, conduct, and log open-water, no-required decompression dives when properly equipped, and accompanied by another certified diver.

I think it is not much of a stretch of the imagination that most courses fail in this. People have open water scuba diver on their card, but they are only skilled at the scuba diver level.

I will admit that when I first started teaching, I failed my students in this regard. It is a common practice in my region to recommend students to join shop dives and dive clubs, both of which I agree. But what is missing, and the source of the problem, is not to go dive with each other. It is always go dive with an experienced diver. Students know subconsciously if they are prepared to dive by themselves. It took me a bit to develop that dive planning document that I have provided for free (available in the links in my signature) for my own open water courses. I hope I have not violated the terms of this group with mentioning it, but I say emphatically that the dive planning materials from every single agency from which I've seen (more than the ones I teach/have taught for) are deficient.

When I read the WRSTC guidelines for minimum requirements, it is pretty darn low. And the fact that these low standards are typically not met is just sad.

 

[PirateFoxy]

According to the minimum course requirements in the WRSTC, https://wrstc.com/downloads/03 - Open Water Diver.pdf in a paragraph spanning pages 3 and 4 it states:

Open water certification qualifies a certified diver to procure air, equipment, and other services and engage in recreational open water diving without supervision. It is the intent of this standard that certified open water divers shall have received training in the fundamentals of 4 recreational diving from an instructor (see definition). A certified open water diver is qualified to apply the knowledge and skills outlined in this standard to plan, conduct, and log open-water, no-required decompression dives when properly equipped, and accompanied by another certified diver.

I think it is not much of a stretch of the imagination that most courses fail in this. People have open water scuba diver on their card, but they are only skilled at the scuba diver level.

I will admit that when I first started teaching, I failed my students in this regard. It is a common practice in my region to recommend students to join shop dives and dive clubs, both of which I agree. But what is missing, and the source of the problem, is not to go dive with each other. It is always go dive with an experienced diver. Students know subconsciously if they are prepared to dive by themselves. It took me a bit to develop that dive planning document that I have provided for free (available in the links in my signature) for my own open water courses. I hope I have not violated the terms of this group with mentioning it, but I say emphatically that the dive planning materials from every single agency from which I've seen (more than the ones I teach/have taught for) are deficient.

When I read the WRSTC guidelines for minimum requirements, it is pretty darn low. And the fact that these low standards are typically not met is just sad.

I guess one of the things I'm wondering is if during instructor training, instructors are told something along the lines of "If you have a student who can do the skills but who you do not feel confident can execute the skills and dive INDEPENDENTLY, do not pass them"? Because it kind of sounds like there's more just assuming that if someone does certain skills, of course they also can apply and implement those skills as an independent diver, and that may not be the case at all.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I guess one of the things I'm wondering is if during instructor training, instructors are told something along the lines of "If you have a student who can do the skills but who you do not feel confident can execute the skills and dive INDEPENDENTLY, do not pass them"?

Sure you can do that, but then you don't get paid.

There's an incentive for instructors who teach for shops to just rubber stamp certification. I have refused certification for a number of people when I taught at a shop. They just enrolled in the next month's class and were certified. I have doubts that they improved sufficiently that I'd pass them.

Because it kind of sounds like there's more just assuming that if someone does certain skills, of course they also can apply and implement those skills as an independent diver, and that may not be the case at all.

Some agencies like SDI and NAUI explicitly state this. How much it gets used, I have no idea.

 

[goldfishtornado]

as a question of if the current standards are actually adequate to genuinely prepare a diver to act as they are supposed to

I don't recall the source, but my impression is that the majority of divers are occasional recreational warm water divers, who typically dive at relatively shallow depths, with a dive guide or dive master. All the materials are very clear you are only "certified to dive in conditions similar to your training."

Very confusingly what WRSTC members like PADI call "Open Water Diver" is supposed to comply with EN 14153-2/ ISO 24801-2 "Autonomous diver." The reality is that there are probably a reasonable number of people, who as @wetb4igetinthewater says, should probably have only qualified for the "Scuba Diver" level. What EN 14153-1/ISO 24801-1 defines as "Supervised Diver." This doesn't cause astronomically huge incident rates because most of divers who never pursue training beyond "Open Water" effectively never dive beyond the "Scuba Diver" level.

The thing that I find so perverse about this particular case is that to advance beyond the "Open Water" level PADI heavily emphasizes the "Advanced" course. Linnea sought out the recommended training to advanced her diving, but never got the chance to learn to be a safer diver.

He's also just not a mature adult yet - it generally takes some life experience to get to that point and based on my own experiences in medicine, some people *never* get to the point of questioning an authority figure in that way.

To me that's the crux of the issue. Even if you know your own limitations you may what to expand them. In that case you expect to push past your previous limits, and it's very natural for someone that age to trust an instructor to help them do that safely. With a bit of life experience, some will also tend to verify by at least tying to reconcile what's in the book with what the instructor is saying and doing. Unfortunately, experience is a cruel teacher it gives the exam before the lesson.

All that being said, I do wonder why the dive industry tolerates instructors who hold themselves out as professionals, but are unwilling or unable to ensure their students safety. I can understand why PADI may not want, and at least claims not to have, that type of supervisory relationship with their PADI (certified) instructors. What I don't understand is why insurance companies are willing to insure them.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

What I don't understand is why insurance companies are willing to insure them.

I expect that to change, and agencies may regret allowing too many clowns to join/remain in the circus.

 

[Bob DBF]

All the materials are very clear you are only "certified to dive in conditions similar to your training."

Please point out that restriction on the C-card. It may be a good recommendation to dive in similar conditions until one gets more experience, however once certified they are limited by their own judgement.

Very confusingly what WRSTC members like PADI call "Open Water Diver" is supposed to comply with EN 14153-2/ ISO 24801-2 "Autonomous diver." The reality is that there are probably a reasonable number of people, who as @wetb4igetinthewater says, should probably have only qualified for the "Scuba Diver" level. What EN 14153-1/ISO 24801-1 defines as "Supervised Diver."

This is a integrity problem if an instructor gives a OW cert to a Diver that doesn't deserve one.

This doesn't cause astronomically huge incident rates because most of divers who never pursue training beyond "Open Water" effectively never dive beyond the "Scuba Diver" level.

And the ones that dive beyond SD level, do not necessarily pursue training beyond OW, they learn by diving. Two of the most accomplished divers I have had as long term buddies were "career" OW divers.

 

[PirateFoxy]

Please point out that restriction on the C-card. It may be a good recommendation to dive in similar conditions until one gets more experience, however once certified they are limited by their own judgement.

I feel like maybe the process isn't considering well enough if people have said judgement before giving them a certification. Or perhaps evaluating if some instructors or shops have too much of a habit of producing divers who don't have it - that'd require some kind of check in process to evaluate certified students some time after they were certified, though, which is a lot of work.

 

[Silverback9]

Every time I see the events written out I'm shocked again by how many opportunities the instructor had to put a stop to things. Has anyone explained why criminal charges were not filed? I can't remember reading anything about it, but I may have forgotten.

Here is an article on it. The reason the prosecutor gives will shock you also.

Attorney General won't file charges in Glacier Park scuba death

Jun. 23—The U.S. Attorney's office of Montana has declined to press criminal charges against a dive instructor who was involved in a incident where a Missoula woman drowned in Glacier National Park's Lake McDonald. On Nov. 1, 2020, Linnea Rose Mills, 18, was diving with a group near the dock at...

www.yahoo.com