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

[Esprise Me]

I agree, although I don't see how that will work. It is either a non-training dive, in which case PADI has nothing to do with it, or it was a training dive, in which case... "Here is the binder of standards violations by the instructor. Here are the Instructors IE records showing she passed academic and in water requirements at the time of her exam. Here are all of the internal QC documents we have on the instructor. Why are we here again?"

Unless PADI does have a bunch of QC documents that demonstrate repeated standards violations, and a lack of evidence of them doing anything about it, it seems to me that PADI should be in the clear.

I do think PADI will probably be able to defend itself in this case. But I imagine it's helpful to the plaintiffs for PADI to have enough skin in the game to put those binders into evidence themselves.

 

[Bob DBF]

I don't think that anyone can say here that the instructor didn't violate standards. The problem would be listing all of the standards violations without running out of ink or paper. I would guess that PADI is named for the same reason that the Drysuit Seller is named, so that the defendants can't point their finger at them and make them a John Doe.

Us saying the instructor is violating standards is much different, in court, than PADI giving chapter and verse on exactly how standards were violated and therefore they should be dropped as a defendant since the instructor was ignoring their standards.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I don't think that anyone can say here that the instructor didn't violate standards. The problem would be listing all of the standards violations without running out of ink or paper. I would guess that PADI is named for the same reason that the Drysuit Seller is named, so that the defendants can't point their finger at them and make them a John Doe.

I don't pretend to be a lawyer, nor do I understand strategy, that's why I'm a lousy chess player.

I wish I knew what the earlier fatality was all about and what was done to prevent it from happening again.

Are we talking about the Tuvell case? The only issue there with regards to standards is ever allowing ratios for DSD/try scuba at more than 1:2. AFAIK, only PADI allows for 1:4 in open water. Though I'd be curious to learn if others have ratios that high as well.

 

[Wookie]

Are we talking about the Tuvell case? The only issue there with regards to standards is ever allowing ratios for DSD/try scuba at more than 1:2. AFAIK, only PADI allows for 1:4 in open water. Though I'd be curious to learn if others have ratios that high as well.

I disagree. The major standards violation AFAIC was the instructor taking 3:1 and considering the lake he was in to be “pool like conditions”. The argument is that it is impossible to maintain allowable standards 4:1 on a DSD unless everything goes perfectly (which DSD’s sometimes don’t). Tupelo lost control of his participants by having one leaving to the surface and not bringing the 2 boys to the surface with him. But no matter what, once you have a participant on the surface and 2 on the bottom, you’ve broken standards.

I don’t remember the argument being that Tupelo didn’t break standards, I remember the argument being that at 4:1 it’s nearly impossible to maintain standards. That’s why Concannon and Willis Canada went after PADI. All of the other training agencies reduced their ratios to 2:1.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I disagree. The major standards violation AFAIC was the instructor taking 3:1 and considering the lake he was in to be “pool like conditions”. The argument is that it is impossible to maintain allowable standards 4:1 on a DSD unless everything goes perfectly (which DSD’s sometimes don’t). Tupelo lost control of his participants by having one leaving to the surface and not bringing the 2 boys to the surface with him. But no matter what, once you have a participant on the surface and 2 on the bottom, you’ve broken standards.

I don’t remember the argument being that Tupelo didn’t break standards, I remember the argument being that at 4:1 it’s nearly impossible to maintain standards. That’s why Concannon and Willis Canada went after PADI. All of the other training agencies reduced their ratios to 2:1.

My understanding is that agencies set max ratios and leave it to the instructor to reduce from that. My perception of the reality in many tropical locations (based upon my friends "living the dream") is that instructors don't have much of a choice. Either go with max ratios, or they will be replaced before they exit the dive center.

I don't think agencies can claim that an instructor violates standards by not reducing ratios as they provide absolutely no guidance as to when to reduce that. Just want conditions warrant. That's passing the buck.

It simply isn't possible to maintain control of more than two people. Unless you grew up near a nuclear waste site and have more than 2 arms.

 

[Wookie]

My understanding is that agencies set max ratios and leave it to the instructor to reduce from that. My perception of the reality in many tropical locations (based upon my friends "living the dream") is that instructors don't have much of a choice. Either go with max ratios, or they will be replaced before they exit the dive center.

I don't think agencies can claim that an instructor violates standards by not reducing ratios as they provide absolutely no guidance as to when to reduce that. Just want conditions warrant. That's passing the buck.

It simply isn't possible to maintain control of more than two people. Unless you grew up near a nuclear waste site and have more than 2 arms.

And this is the crux of the whole case, and the ScubaBoard trial that resulted from it.

 

[boulderjohn]

I disagree. The major standards violation AFAIC was the instructor taking 3:1 and considering the lake he was in to be “pool like conditions”.

The instructor was doing an OW dive; the pool-like conditions do not apply.
1. He did not do a pool/pool like experience at all--he went straight to open water. The students did not get the required shallow water instruction.
2. He had two boy scouts, which meant he had to have another adult. With the visibility, he should have either done two dives with you scout in each or brought in another instructor.
3. He did not do a weight check, and all three were grossly overweighted, nearly in the ballpark of Linnea. People on previous dives with him said his idea of a weight check was to slap a ton of weight on you and then see if you sunk. If you sunk, you were good to go.
4. The student's BCD was leaking. With the amount of weight he had, it needed to be full.
5. They were in shallow open water with BCDs full of air, so their buoyancy changed dramatically with any change in depth and buoyancy control for people who had no training in it was a challenge.
6. The adult on the dive lost buoyancy control and went to the surface. The instructor went up after him leaving the boys below. You simply cannot leave divers below. There was no reason to get to the surface quickly. He should have brought the boys up with him.
7. When he went back down, one boy was gone.

 

[Wookie]

The instructor was doing an OW dive; the pool-like conditions do not apply.
1. He did not do a pool/pool like experience at all--he went straight to open water. The students did not get the required shallow water instruction.
2. He had two boy scouts, which meant he had to have another adult. With the visibility, he should have either done two dives with you scout in each or brought in another instructor.
3. He did not do a weight check, and all three were grossly overweighted, nearly in the ballpark of Linnea. People on previous dives with him said his idea of a weight check was to slap a ton of weight on you and then see if you sunk. If you sunk, you were good to go.
4. The student's BCD was leaking. With the amount of weight he had, it needed to be full.
5. They were in shallow open water with BCDs full of air, so their buoyancy changed dramatically with any change in depth and buoyancy control for people who had no training in it was a challenge.
6. The adult on the dive lost buoyancy control and went to the surface. The instructor went up after him leaving the boys below. You simply cannot leave divers below. There was no reason to get to the surface quickly. He should have brought the boys up with him.
7. When he went back down, one boy was gone.

The testimony of the other Boy Scout differs from what you said.


From the deposition of the other Boy Scout, at page 28:


5 Q Okay. Uh, and then at some point near of the
6 surface, David stopped, and you continued, and you made it to
7 the surface, correct?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Uh, and so tell me about that. You said that --
10 your testimony is that David was floating just below the
11 surface, maybe one foot below the surface?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Within arm's length, correct?
14 A Yes, it was within arm's length.
15 Q And -- and how long did that -- so he -- was he
16 neutrally buoyant, so that he was not going down and not going
17 up for a period of time?
18 A That's -- that's what it looked like.

The deposition transcript is Court Document No. 245-11.

The point remains that it’s very difficult to follow standards 3:1 in a choppy lake with poor visibility.

 

[MrVegas]

A DM/dive leader allowing a diver to splash without a working DS inflation hose would be criminally negligent.

What if the vintage diver types showed up in drysuits without inflator hoses or BCs?

Skooba Totes

(Honestly, I can't imagine what that would be like.)

Seriously, though, there are some threads on Scubaboard about people not hooking up inflator hoses, and I think even some discussion of it on this thread. (See for example, Dry Suit Death?, post #27.) Personally, I would say around 15-20 feet is where the squeeze passes from "noticeable" to "uncomfortable."

Are there any controlled studies or fully documented incidents that demonstrate exactly what someone can expect from drysuit squeeze at particular depths?

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

What if the vintage diver types showed up in drysuits without inflator hoses or BCs?

Simple. Refer them to a different instructor who is familiar with their gear.