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

[KevinNM]

Let's be specific. What agency took away his certification, and what agency got him a C-card?

The reason I ask is I am pretty sure I know the case you are talking about. There was a lot of outrage about it, because there was a strong sense that he did it intentionally--the student was a girlfriend who had just broken up with him. It happened in Grand Cenote, just outside of Tulum. The outrage that was generated was because his teaching status was NOT terminated by IANTD--he just went on teaching for that agency. (I write cave diving accident reports for the National Speleological Society.)

IANTD appears to think it's fine if you drown a student during the process of becoming a cave instructor.

 

[Marie13]

Was Linnea still descending when Bob got to her? If so, that's a horrific complication for anybody, let alone a student.

I wouldn't advise a rescue diver in this situation to ditch their own weight. If they lose contact with the victim, they're going to be in an uncontrolled ascent. Ordinarily, ditching the victim's weight isn't a priority at depth. The idea is to control your and their ascent, though emphasizing getting them buoyant.

If this was a recovery and not a rescue attempt, I could see taking the time to remove lead from wherever it was hidden on the body. If there was ditchable weight in the BCD (a debated point, not clear in the suit) a quick thinker might have ditched it in a rescue.

But we've got an AOW student rescuing a grossly overweighted diver with a shrink-wrapped dry suit at depth in dim light and possibly both are descending and/or at a depth the rescuer has never seen. There comes a point where you have to say I can't complicate this for rescuers by becoming the second victim.

One of the things that surprised me as a student and again as an instructor is how much emphasis is put on the emotional well being of the rescuer. If Bob is out there lurking on Scubaboard, I'd tell him the same thing I tell Rescue students: There's no such thing as a bad rescue attempt if the rescuer is not another victim. You did something, and that's 100% better than nothing.

In reading reports about students dying, I ask myself "could this have happened to my student?" In this case, the answer is unequivocally no for the following reasons:

1. Nobody dives a dry suit with me unless they are experienced with it, certified for it, or had a pool session with me.
2. A student who couldn't inflate their suit isn't diving.
3. No matter how much lead the shop gave the student, I wouldn't let a woman with Linnea's build dive with 40 pounds in salt water, let alone fresh.
4. Lead never goes in dry suit pockets. It unbalances trim badly. I've slipped a few pounds in non-ditchable BCD pockets, but these divers still had 90% of their weight on a belt and ditchable weight pouches. And I've only done this if a pre-dive weight check had them under-weighted.

Damn this story makes me angry. And I don't swear.

Yes, I believe Linnea was still descending when Bob caught up with her. They also went even deeper while he was attempting to help her.

What irks the crap out of me is that while Bob was beginning to go to Linnea’s assistance, the stupid instructor swam over him and kicked him with her fin. That sticks out hugely to me.

 

[boulderjohn]

IANTD appears to think it's fine if you drown a student during the process of becoming a cave instructor.

That was another case. IANTD had several controversial ones in rapid order.

 

[Rollin Bonz]

... If the instructor in this case had been of that mind, she could have swapped gear with the student, used the BCD inflator hose to inflate her drysuit, and inflated her BCD orally. An instructor should be able to do a dive easily without a BCD inflator.

Note that I am not recommending that course of action.

I believe the drysuit in question had a non-standard, proprietary inflation connection, so it wasn't a matter of not having an inflator hose so much as not having a compatible inflator hose. If that were the case, swapping gear would not have helped.

 

[Esprise Me]

I believe the drysuit in question had a non-standard proprietary inflation connection, so it wasn't a matter of not having an inflator hose so much as not having a compatible inflator hose. If that were the case, swapping gear would not have helped.

It was both, according to the complaint; the drysuit was sold without an inflator hose, and it required a nonstandard connector. However, there was a passing mention of another drysuit and reg set in the car that Linnea could have used. In fact, the instructor offered to take an uncertified person named Shannon along on the dive, presumably using that extra set of equipment. Shannon declined. Good for Shannon.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

So everyone, I'm looking at how the system could be changed to possibly have avoided this situation. Now due to the plethora of mistakes that were made, beginning with the abandonment of common sense, this accident without a class III medical device FDA requirements, could not have been avoided.

Would it be a reasonable requirement for con ed courses that instructors must on the first dive (drift diving may be an exception) check that students can hover without sculling in a fairly horizontal position? Requiring a wait check will be skipped, as it already is in some open water courses (at least here in the Puget Sound) despite it being required. But if the first skill is always "hover", maybe, just maybe it would at least make the course a less of a circus.

 

[boulderjohn]

Yes, I believe Linnea was still descending when Bob caught up with her. They also went even deeper while he was attempting to help her.

What irks the crap out of me is that while Bon was beginning to go to Linnea’s assistance, the stupid instructor swam over him and kicked him with her fin. That sticks out hugely to me.

Of course, the instructor has disputed this, saying on FaceBook that it is all false.

I know some attorneys are on this thread, and this question is for them. In the Trump "stolen election" controversy, we saw the attorneys making big speeches about the specific things that were done to steal the election (like the rigged voting system), but when they were in court they never even mentioned those things. The explanation we lay people got was that they could not say those things in court because they knew they were not true, and as attorneys they could be penalized for knowingly making false statements. It's OK to flat out lie in a public forum, but not in court.

So, how about this filing? The details of the dive, such as the one quoted above, supposedly came from the GoPro. If the GoPro were to show anything significantly different, then the attorneys in this case are making false statements. I would think that an attorney's description of events for which he is supplying clear evidence would be pretty reliable

 

[CuzzA]

One of the things that surprised me as a student and again as an instructor is how much emphasis is put on the emotional well being of the rescuer. If Bob is out there lurking on Scubaboard, I'd tell him the same thing I tell Rescue students: There's no such thing as a bad rescue attempt if the rescuer is not another victim. You did something, and that's 100% better than nothing.

Indeed. Bob should have a clear conscious and take solace knowing he was the only one to try and save her. And I'll be clear again that I am in no way criticizing, Bob. The purpose of this subforum is to learn from others mistakes. Often we learn of situations here that even the dive training agencies don't know, or they are simply not prevalent enough to add to training. That is my focus with my past few posts.

Now, perhaps instructors in certain geographical areas cover similar scenarios. For example, if a diver is stuck due to kelp. Maybe shops that deal with that train their divers to ditch it all and go to the surface. Perhaps the training agencies should add to the curriculum that come life or death, that scuba rig can be left behind to get to the surface. And they should add in a rescue scenario with a trapped diver, be it nets, kelp or unditchable ballast, take the divers rig off.

Again, I am mentioning this for posterity and as a solution to that type of scenario.

 

[Esprise Me]

Of course, the instructor has disputed this, saying on FaceBook that it is all false.

I know some attorneys are on this thread, and this question is for them. In the Trump "stolen election" controversy, we saw the attorneys making big speeches about the specific things that were done to steal the election (like the rigged voting system), but when they were in court they never even mentioned those things. The explanation we lay people got was that they could not say those things in court because they knew they were not true, and as attorneys they could be penalized for knowingly making false statements. It's OK to flat out lie in a public forum, but not in court.

So, how about this filing? The details of the dive, such as the one quoted above, supposedly came from the GoPro. If the GoPro were to show anything significantly different, then the attorneys in this case are making false statements. I would think that an attorney's description of events for which he is supplying clear evidence would be pretty reliable

If the GoPro footage that the plaintiffs are in possession of contradicted their complaint, then yeah, that would be bad for them. But it doesn't have to conclusively prove everything they're alleging, either. If material facts are in dispute after the defendants file their answers, the next step is the discovery phase. This allows records to be subpoenaed, parties to be served with interrogatories (written questions they must answer), and parties and witnesses to be deposed (questioned under oath). The plaintiffs can use the evidence not yet in their possession but gained through discovery to prove their case at trial.

Also, somewhere back in this thread is a screenshot of the instructor making a second ill-advised comment on the case. It starts with her saying "don't do it," which is unclear out of context--maybe telling someone not to become a dive instructor? She then describes this event as a student drowning while she was struggling to clear her ears, and says she never did find out what happened. So I don't think there's going to be some radically different version of events presented at trial by the defense.

 

[Bob DBF]

Would it be a reasonable requirement for con ed courses that instructors must on the first dive (drift diving may be an exception) check that students can hover without sculling in a fairly horizontal position?

Sounds good to me.

The instructor I took AOW from requires PPB for the first dive. His thought is that he is not about to do a deep dive without knowing that the diver can control their buoyancy. It gives him a chance to work with the diver on that and other dives before taking them deep.

I could just hear him go off if it was suggested that he train a diver in a dry suit without an inflator attached.