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

[tursiops]

@Omisson

You asked:

Wait- aren’t ALL divers taking AOW already CERTIFIED?

So why is there any issue leaving two certified divers in the water?

I answered:

The PADI standards require direct supervision by the instructor during AOW for any dives deeper than 60ft, and direct supervision shallower than 60 ft for certain Adventure Dives.

She violated standards, no? Is that not what you asked? "Is there any issue with leaving two certified students in the water?"

You are confusing the standards issue with whether or not an action is a causal contributor to an accident. This isn't a "strict liability" issue- its about fundamentals of diving at issue with nominally certified divers. The standards are not where the problem rooted in this case... as I think ALMOST everyone now concedes... except those who refuse to address the facts.

Perhaps you should have asked a better question...

 

[cerich]

While the WRTC standards that govern ALL scuba diving agencies (except it seems CMAS)

No they do NOT. Speaking as a former member of the RSTC (USA) board I am 100% sure of that, I am also sure that they don't even cover AOW or Drysuit courses of the members of the WRSTC actually. The courses at play in the accident in discussion. Only agency standards apply.

 

[Angelo Farina]

And if we were to follow the NAUI or CMAS standards of 1968 only fit males between 18-30 would ever survive a dive class.

My experience here in Italy in the seventies is that the succes rate was acrually low, just around 30% of students were certified successfully as autonomous divers, and a smaller number got a "touristic diver" pass, which means not-automomous, only guided.
For a number of reasons we had a lot of young (and pretty) females in those courses. And for them the succes rate was slightly better, 35-40% passed.
I remember a class around 1980 where all 15 students were girls!
Also female instructors became common at the end of seventies (my wife was one of them).
In historical photos of the first pioneering courses hold by Luigi Ferraro in years 1948-1956 you also see a lot of female students, and one female instructor (the wife of Ferraro).
So, at least here, there has never been a significant gender inequality.
Of course you had to be fit (but not strong), already a good swimmer and free diver, and you had to apply hard for learning a complete set of theoretical and practical skills, as training was done, until 1980, using the ARO (CC pure-oxygen rebreather).
For a number of reasons, the ARO is a device more friendly for females.

 

[Subfiend]

Believe me, nothing in this lawsuit surprises me, except for Snow's decisions. Those will always flabbergast me, and even though I know Snow personally, as dumb as her decisions were, it would be far dumber to ever discuss the case with anyone as there is no statute of limitations (my understanding) for murder.

I really wish the NPS investigators had looked at evidence of whether Snow was impaired. Sadly, they didn't. The evidence exists. They just never looked at it. Kind of like how they never realized Linnea's dive computer was downloadable and they should have known enough to impound it when they discovered it in Snow's possession. But hey, they're professional investigators, and they work for the federal government. That should be enough to convince anybody of their competence.

 

[Ayisha]

@Subfiend:​

​

"I really wish the NPS investigators had looked at evidence of whether Snow was impaired. Sadly, they didn't. The evidence exists. They just never looked at it."​

K, I'll bite. What is the evidence that shows that Snow may have been impaired?

 

[yle]

I really wish the NPS investigators had looked at evidence of whether Snow was impaired. Sadly, they didn't. The evidence exists. They just never looked at it. Kind of like how they never realized Linnea's dive computer was downloadable and they should have known enough to impound it when they discovered it in Snow's possession.

From what I recall, the entire group drove for several hours that day to get to the dive site. The original plan was to leave in the morning and get there early afternoon. Their departure was delayed by a few hours, so they arrived late afternoon.

I'm trying to imagine how, after driving several hours, it would be reasonable to conclude that Snow was "impaired" while at the dive site. Are you claiming that she was impaired before departure, and remained impaired for the rest of the day (including the long drive)? Or that she was unimpaired for the long drive, and then became impaired only after arriving at the dive site?

I'm genuinely curious, because the civil suit is very detailed but makes no mention -- doesn't even speculate -- on impairment. Also curious how you think this would change anything.

The data on Linnea's computer: also curious how you believe this would change anything. Do you believe that data would provide any information (depth, time, temperature) that we didn't already know?

 

[CHenderson]

I will tell you that RR might be up to "standards" but it is far from good, everything is on one knees. Might meet standards but far from good.

Further I have told you that I personally have knowledge of one of there instructors doesn't even know basic diving. I didn't see Snow training but based on what I did personally see the above which makes me seriously question her training.

Good way to put it "up to standards". I'd add that I suspect just barely. My opinion based on my brief experience with them is that they recruit and push younger divers through at an accelerated rate (100% pass rate I might add) for the money. I had chosen them for my IDC and had gotten bad vibes from the Director of Training there after I arrived. Their pre arrival sales pitch over the phone was perfect but let's say that once the personal experience started, expecially when I had legitimate questions regarding the course schedule, (all of which I was promised would be gladly answered) in their multiple conflicting and confusing emails, I think I heard circus music. Upon arrival it appeared that some of the instructional staff were out of sync with the Training Director, more conflicting instructions and emails, adding to the confusion and questions. Chalk it up to my own failure to do some more extensive research before choosing them and to be honest, even though I'm confident I could have passed easily, the whole thing felt wrong. I disenrolled from the class, packed my gear and decided to push my IDC until a later date at another location. I am a retired veteran and my idea of a training standard is Pass or Fail (GO or NO GO). I dont want the promise of "passing" to be part of their sales pitch. I will and should be responsible for the eventuality of passing or failing standards and I wasn't sure that safety and "real standards" were part of the program there. If there isn't some kind of attrition or first fail rate, then IMO the testing isn't rigorous enough. Just my personal experience with the CDC side of Rainbow Reef and I'm sure there are others who disagree, especially if they are part of the crew there. As far as the dive operation, the captains and mates, charter DM's and staff were mostly professional with one exception I wont mention. I say again, this was my personal experience and the one that will stick with me regarding this outfit and actually I'm discovering that they aren't the only ones.

 

[Manatee Diver]

My opinion based on my brief experience with them is that they recruit and push younger divers through at an accelerated rate (100% pass rate I might add) for the money.

I should note that Snow failed her first attempt at passing the IDC at RRCDC. So it isn't a 100% pass rate.

 

[formernuke]

I should note that Snow failed her first attempt at passing the IDC at RRCDC. So it isn't a 100% pass rate.

You pass the IDC not necessarily the IE.

As for the IE pass or fail on that isn't a real judge of things

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

As for the IE pass or fail on that isn't a real judge of things

How should it be done?