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

[wetb4igetinthewater]

So here's the problem...
Do we create a system with huge oversight, perhaps like medicine, with continuing education requirements, lots of oversight and great expense (not that it actually eliminates bad medicine)? Or do we count on instructors to do the right thing with some oversight, recognizing that the bell curve will inevitably mean more Debbie Snow's and perhaps needless injury and death?

The Conception disaster proves that we can always count on politicians to do the wrong thing, in that case now creating an insurance crisis that will benefit only trial lawyers instead of insisting that we enforce the regulations that already existed requiring a roving watch.

What do we do with scuba?

I think it's time for the best instructors to tell the truth. That the standards are biased in favor of the agencies selling curriculum, instead of the student. That scuba instruction needs to cost more and take longer. That insurance needs to protect the instructors as well as the students, and that agencies need to get paid for their excellent curriculum, but no more than that.

If you want to claim QA, then DO it!
Don't bamboozle the unsuspecting customer, in whose ranks I include Linnea Mills, no matter what responsibility she might also have had as a "certified diver."

There is a lot to unwrap here. I will try to be concise in addressing things, but not in the same order:
1. The Conception: as you stated, there were rules in place that were ignored. Adding more rules isn't going to change things. Is there a practical oversight that could increase safety? Possibly with inspections of the realities of how the industry has changed. For example, can the electrical system provide sufficient power to meet customer needs? I suspect that is one where the market changed dramatically in the past 10 to 20 years where people have all sorts of rechargeables, including but not limited to: heated vest batteries, dive lights, camera strobes, cameras. With a full boat with worse case scenarios for all items, can the boat handle it? I'm unqualified to discuss this in greater detail than that. That's something for boat captains.

2. For reforming scuba, we cannot have a GUE-like system worldwide. While that level of quality instruction and divers would be nice, the oversight and skills are beyond (my opinion) of what the market demands. However, reform is certainly needed. I think there is a happy medium. Eliminate self-certification. Add the concept of weight distribution to address the difference between the center of mass versus center of volume/displacement. Have proper weight checks at the safety stop with empty wings/BCDs (and in the case of a dry suit, as empty as comfortable and warm), and in the case of a lot of neoprene, ensure that there is also enough weight to ascend under control in case the neoprene expands significantly. New courses should have a weight/buoyancy check. This isn't a dramatic change, but would require instructors improving their skills and knowledge. If one agency were to do this, instructors will likely crossover to other agencies that don't require it. So this would have to be a WRSTC requirement, but I have yet to hear positive things about those meetings. The fact that there is a nondisclosure agreement of discussions doesn't give me a lot of confidence in that organization.

Just a couple ideas.

3. The problem with telling the truth, there is the accusations of agency bashing, violating code of conduct (a joke, but anyway). The industry simply refuses to acknowledge the truth. The good instructors are the minority, so they just get shouted down by the champions of mediocrity that far outnumber them.

There just isn't enough will in the industry for there to be pragmatic change unforunately.

Elect me World Dominator, and I'll fix the scuba industry. I suspect that I would be the last person a number of folks here would want in that position.

 

[Wookie]

Champions of Mediocrity.

I will remember this for a long time.

 

[Subfiend]

Elect me World Dominator, and I'll fix the scuba industry. I suspect that I would be the last person a number of folks here would want in that position.

I am certain there are a lot of folks quietly reading this thread that would rather have it be you than me.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I am certain there are a lot of folks quietly reading this thread that would rather have it be you than me.

Well in all seriousness, it isn't that hard to improve safety in dive instruction. There just has to be the will. It just amazes me that the industry response from the DAN 2016 report for the top ten items they'd like to see improve has been ignored.

That's incredibly frustrating for me. It isn't just that Ms. Mills death could have been avoided, but other ones as well.
EDIT: as I have been asked for a link (a generic one is https://apps.dan.org/publication-library/, I recommend people to read all available reports), I've attached it instead to make it easier for people.

 

[Omisson]

You are assuming that the QA process didn't work, and that PADI doesn't know what goes on out in the real world.

Yes, we know that PADI mentions in an internal memo that Gull was involved in an incident the year previous,
View attachment 771482
but IIRC, Gull was dropped as a PADI facility following that incident (renting gear to an uncertified individual). I may not remember correctly, my memory is flawed for sure, but I'm pretty sure I remember that Gull was dropped (and properly so) but they still continued to display the PADI marketing material, and teach PADI classes.

Again, I have no problem with a dive shop renting gear to anyone who walks in the door, but PADI does, or seems to. I might think that a quick spot check by the regional rep would be in order when he's driving through and a cease and desist would keep PADI from being flogged on an obscure internet chat board.

I don’t know if the QA program works, helps, or is even realistic in rooting out problems- because there is no data shared to see chains-of-events.

I would imagine an expelled shop still advertising as if they were still a part of an agency is more a statement on the shop, then the agency…. But given the vast numbers of scuba stores and the locations near and far around the world, do you think such policing is practicable?

 

[dlofting]

After reading a lot of posts in this thread and others of a similar vein I'm questioning whether certifications actually are the way to go.

I am one who will do a lot of research before I take up a new activity that carries with it a degree of risk. I will take a course or courses if they are offered and expect quality instruction. Scuba diving is the only activity that falls into this category where a certification is required....this seems to be mostly a requirement because a third party needs to fill your tanks (excepting people who own an appropriate compressor).

In every other activity I've done, rock climbing, canyoneering, canoeing, winter hiking in the backcountry, I determine my level of competence. If I hire a guide or someone to provide a service, they determine whether I am competent and the degree of risk they accept by taking my money.

Should scuba diving be the same? Do certifications imply a level of competence that is not always there, but in doing so remove responsibility from the service provider and the participant to assess risk?

 

[Omisson]

Incorrect. The prior death resulted in a lawsuit filed in July 2020. PADI was aware of this suit and its carrier assigned counsel to defend that lawsuit -- the same counsel that took possession of the dive computer later in November.

I noticed you responded to this section to clarify that the 2020 death was reported….

Amy insight on the other issues raised regarding the evidence that some characterized as having been “concealed” or appropriated?

 

[Wookie]

I don’t know if the QA program works, helps, or is even realistic in rooting out problems- because there is no data shared to see chains-of-events.

I would imagine an expelled shop still advertising as if they were still a part of an agency is more a statement on the shop, then the agency…. But given the vast numbers of scuba stores and the locations near and far around the world, do you think such policing is practicable?

Well, considering that the regional rep is supposed to visit each facility annually, I don’t consider it a stretch for them to visit as they pass through town. And I agree that a shop advertising something that they are not is on the shop, but if a car dealer advertised that they offered Ford Factory Service, but all they had was a service technician, Ford would be on that like stink on poo.

To me, it sounds like that PADI doesn’t care enough about their brand to make any effort to protect it. I don’t think that’s true, having been a PADI instructor for 20 years. So I’ll ask you back, do you think PADI cares enough about their brand to protect it? And would you think that includes policing?

 

[PirateFoxy]

Well, considering that the regional rep is supposed to visit each facility annually, I don’t consider it a stretch for them to visit as they pass through town. And I agree that a shop advertising something that they are not is on the shop, but if a car dealer advertised that they offered Ford Factory Service, but all they had was a service technician, Ford would be on that like stink on poo.

To me, it sounds like that PADI doesn’t care enough about their brand to make any effort to protect it. I don’t think that’s true, having been a PADI instructor for 20 years. So I’ll ask you back, do you think PADI cares enough about their brand to protect it? And would you think that includes policing?

In this day and age, you could do a lot just sitting at home with a computer and a good internet connection - what's on the company website? What are people talking about in online reviews? Are there any new photos of/in the shop on social media, what do they show? Seems like that would potentially identify plenty of stuff like improper use of agency name/logo and highlight issues that seem to be recurring without getting off the metaphorical sofa. Then a call/email/letter or a surprise visit (depending on the issue) to actually address the matter.

Heck, a lot of that is the kind of work you can give someone quite low-paid, like a college intern, so it's not like you have to hire on extra workers at $$$ per hour to do it. (I'm not saying this is what anyone SHOULD do, just that you don't have to have your feet on the ground in a brick and mortar store anymore to get an idea of what the shop is up to in many cases.)

 

[tursiops]

I would imagine an expelled shop still advertising as if they were still a part of an agency is more a statement on the shop, then the agency…. But given the vast numbers of scuba stores and the locations near and far around the world, do you think such policing is practicable?

You don't have to monitor/police ALL the shops...just the one's you've expelled.