Training agency throws Instructor under the bus while misleading the court

[ElGaucho]

Some of you criticize the "what ifs". But the truth of the matter is a judgement call was made. And that call depends a lot on many factors. From an armchair internet forum perspective, it's very easy to say "this is what he should have done". But again, without going to strange what if extremes:

If the scoutmaster panicked or bolted to the surface, in a way that his life / safety seemed to be threatened, versus having two kids at 14ft (the bottom of the lake as some of you call it was just 14ft from my understanding), the instructor made a call, in a split second, he judged out of the only two possible immediate responses to go after what he perceived as the imminent danger. Can anyone else see this? In hindsight we are all effing geniuses, but he just made a judgment call at that time with the information he had. In ANY chance, with three DSDs in the water, and only one instructor, in that situation, he chose the option HE felt was the right one at that point. And the problem is, he was forced to make this choice, because the system is setup to FAIL.

With this I don't want to say "damn it, this is all PADIs fault, and everyone else is innocent". By no means. But there ir a REVISION required to these ratios IF THEY IMPLY YOU CAN BE IN THIS SITUATION AND MOST CERTAINLY FAIL. There was NO WAY for him to break the standards. Again, if he had stayed with the kids, ascended slowly with them, and found a dead scoutmaster on the surface, then he would still be in the same position.

People, this could happen to any of us, please stop believing this was a lousy instructor and you are all geniuses. This brown stuff that hits the fan could happen to any of us. We should be aiming to discuss and demand a change in the ratios, because right now it is a trap designed to make you fail under certain circumstances. And it extends to basic OW for sure. Stop throwing an instructor who made a judgment call that turned out to be wrong under the bus yourselves because from your internet hindsight you would do things much different. If you do that, there is no learning out of this tragic accident. And that's what PADI did in a way, and that's WHATS WRONG. In defending their ultimate liable arse, they are forgetting that we NEED TO CHANGE this ratios id there is a possibility to improve them and improve safety.

There is NO WAY one instructor can take care of more than 2 people at the same time without extra help, and be positive he can tackle most situations. You just can't. And in a DSD scenario, for sure 1:1 is the only really safe way to do it. This is the discussion we should be having, not wether the instructor did a good or a bad job. Any choice he made at that point, with those ratios, could have ended equally bad.

 

[Zippsy]

Gaucho, you say "he chose the option HE felt was the right one at that point" but he broke standards when he took the three into the water - not because the ratio was 2:1 or 1:1 but because he didn't reduce the 4:1 to a number he could manage. I'm not a genius. That's why I try to follow standards. I can not figure out how to safely be able to handle three brand new DSDs so I follow standards and don't do it. Other people may be able to so I am fine with them doing it. I can also imagine how I could do a 3:1 in certain circumstances and still follow standards. Some genius (or just a wiser instructor) may have already figured out how to do 4:1 and stay within standards. I'm happy to let them do that too. I have learned through discussion of this case that reducing ratios to 1:1 or 2:1 will definitely make the course more safe but only because some instructors are not bright enough or brave enough to do what PADI requires you to do already, ie., reduce the ratio to a number that allows you to follow all the standards. If they do reduce the ratio, it will stop a lot of other instructors from safely doing the program with 2, 3 or possibly even 4 participants.

 

[victorzamora]

I bet you there is or could be a case were this type of action resulted in a death or a serious accident. It is just plain stupid to try and defend standards which do setup the instructor to fail in a bad situation. And that's what is being discussed here when we talk about the actions taken.

This actually DID happen....but I can't remember if a lawsuit came out of it. Guy was certified, joined his SO (wife? girlfriend?) during her training dives. She panicked (medical condition, if I remember right), bolted to the surface. Instructor grabbed her, she inhaled water, her SO (husband? boyfriend) hauled her to safety and got paramedics that resuscitated her. She spent some time in the hospital.

 

[Diver0001]

Some of you criticize the "what ifs". But the truth of the matter is a judgement call was made. And that call depends a lot on many factors. From an armchair internet forum perspective, it's very easy to say "this is what he should have done". But again, without going to strange what if extremes:

This is true to a point but as an instructor you know from being in the trenches that certain things do become best practices.

Nobody ... literally nobody ... would leave 2 under age (IIRC) uncertified divers behind under water in murky conditions because someone else in the group had some kind of non life-threatening issue. I mean.... I wouldn't even do that in a swimming pool that was 2 or 3 m deep!

You're an instructor..... I know you don't want to pass judgement, but frankly... what part of that sounds like a good idea to you? If you put yourself in that position would you REALLY do that? I don't know about you, but there's no way I would leave an uncertified diver behind in that position with his "neck on the rails". NO.... WAY.... If we believe the reports then what part of that are we supposed to believe was sound judgement?

If the scoutmaster panicked or bolted to the surface, in a way that his life / safety seemed to be threatened, versus having two kids at 14ft (the bottom of the lake as some of you call it was just 14ft from my understanding), the instructor made a call, in a split second, he judged out of the only two possible immediate responses to go after what he perceived as the imminent danger.

If you're asking if we can understand that the instructor's first impulse was to deal with the emergency... Yes. Any instructor's first impulse would be to deal with the emergency..... (assuming that they had not done what was necessary ahead of time to avert the emergency all together!!!!)

It seems to me that the big issue becomes the issue I was mentioning above. *IF* an instructor has become totally absorbed in dealing with what they believe to be a life threatening situation... *who* ... in God's name... is going to deal with the other divers?

The point I'm trying to make in this thread is that it can't be done. It's entirely reasonable to expect an instructor to intervene and handle adequately with 1 diver in distress.... but it's unrealistic to expect that same instructor to (a) save a life and (b) bring the rest of the group in a controlled manner to the surface. He *needs* backup.

The main question remaining is this:

- is it PADI's responsibility to mandate the kind of "backup" required in all situations, in all contexts world wide? (a question of standards)
- is it up to the shop or instructor to act responsibly to organise this? (a question of management)

This is what this whole case is about.

In my opinion (speaking only for myself) I believe this is a question of management. I want PADI to tell me what the student needs to learn. I want them to let ME decide how to do that! In my local environment I need 2:1 supervision. In Egypt they might be able to do 4:1 because they have 40 metre visibility and I have 3 metre visibiliy!

If PADI combs everyone with the same brush then colleagues in Egypt will be applying 2:1 supervision when it is not necessary. If PADI prescribes THEIR method then we would be *required* by standards to apply 4:1 supervision in a context that makes that unsafe. Therefore it's completely logical for PADI to assert (correctly imo) that this is a management issue.

In other words, PADI is justified in defining the minimum standard and allowing local management to decide if that's good enough for their conditions. This is not only the way things work, it's a STANDARD to adjust the course for local conditions.

R..

 

[ElGaucho]

In my opinion (speaking only for myself) I believe this is a question of management. I want PADI to tell me what the student needs to learn. I want them to let ME decide how to do that! In my local environment I need 2:1 supervision. In Egypt they might be able to do 4:1 because they have 40 metre visibility and I have 3 metre visibiliy!

I clearly understand your point. And I can say partially I agree. It could be a management issue, and bad choices were made from the getgo. But let's not forget that even with 40 meter viz, it doesn't change the outcome of the choices this instructor made. Really, what difference would viz make on direct supervision and the ability to maintain contact of uncertified divers in a DSD situation with a ratio of 3:1? None really. The only difference is you might be able to maintain some visual contact. But that is not considered direct supervision by the standards either.

So, do you really think a 4:1 DSD ratio is valid in 40m viz but it's not valid in 3m viz? Sorry, to me the 4:1 DSD ratio is not valid in ANY viz situation, it's a matter of basic physics as this case proves. My point is the same outcome could have resulted with near perfect viz. The viz is not the issue, I don't really understand why we are making the conditions the issue. It's unsafe to have 1 instructor for 4 NON CERTIFIED students that demand constant, contsct and direct supervision.

Under ANY viz, 4:1 is a ratio that opens a huge door to failure. 8:1 in basic OW does too. That is the issue I think we should be discussing.

 

[Diver0001]

So, do you really think a 4:1 DSD ratio is valid in 40m viz but it's not valid in 3m viz? Sorry, to me the 4:1 DSD ratio is not valid in ANY viz situation, it's a matter of basic physics as this case proves. My point is the same outcome could have resulted with near perfect viz. The viz is not the issue, I don't really understand why we are making the conditions the issue. It's unsafe to have 1 instructor for 4 NON CERTIFIED students that demand constant, contsct and direct supervision.

Under ANY viz, 4:1 is a ratio that opens a huge door to failure. 8:1 in basic OW does too. That is the issue I think we should be discussing.

My dear colleague... I *do* believe that 4:1 supervision is acceptable .... in a swimming pool.

I don't know how many DSD's world wide are done in a swimming pool but we do *all* of ours in the pool. We surround our divers/students with staff whose objective is to keep our "sardines" in a "can" .

If you asked me how many DSD's per instructor was acceptable in our local waters..... I would say 1:1

R..

 

[Omisson]

What if surface conditions had dramatically changed since you took the group underwater? What if you looked up to follow the bolter and you saw there were now 2-3 foot seas and white caps on the surface? Would you still make the choice to bring two uncertified children rapidly to the surface, where you would have to inflate their BCDs and ensure their safety, when you went to the assistance of the bolter? Why do so many people opine about what this instructor should or should not have done when they lack all of the facts of the case?

First, I thought this was a DSD in Bear Lake, Utah- are you now saying there were 2-3 foot seas and white caps?

And even if it were - the instructor would never use such conditions for a DSD right?

And third, so you recommend leaving two youth alone under water rather than surfacing them and knowing where they are?


Hope that's not going to be your argument to the jury... I'd love to close after you said that.

---------- Post added November 20th, 2014 at 02:09 PM ----------

There was no pool session first (violation one).

The DSD was done in open water in conditions that were not pool-like (violation 2).

There were three students and he left TWO under water unsupervised (youth) to follow an adult to the surface (violation 3).

He lost sight of the two underwater youth (violation 4).

He chose not to have an assistant instructor or divemaster (not a per se violation but violates the exercise reasonable judgment obligation).

And on the general liability side the parents who are suing lied on medical forms to both PADI and the Boy Scouts about a serious asthmatic condition which is ultimately a major contributing factor.

The TDI letter doesn't address any of these inconvenient truths and I would hope they as an Agency would not have stood by an instructor with so many serious standards violations that ended up causing the death of a young boy.

 

[Subfiend]

From the sworn testimony in the case: The lake was flat "like glass" when the divers went in, with 20-30 foot of visibility. All three of the divers were neutrally buoyant -- nobody was overweighted. While they were underwater, the winds picked up unexpectedly and were blowing hard, creating 2-3 foot seas with whitecaps while they were underwater. When the adult made a sudden, unexpected and uncontrolled ascent to the surface, the instructor looked up from 14 ft., saw the surface conditions (with waves that were over the divers head), and determined that it was unsafe to have three inexperienced divers on the surface in these conditions. So he signaled for the boys to stop and wait on the bottom, ascended 14 ft to the surface, asked the adult diver if he was okay and immediately took him back down. The whole thing took just 25 seconds from bottom to top and back down again.

However, shortly after the instructor went up, the boy that died gave the "up" signal to the other boy and started to ascend. Not wanting to be left alone, the other boy followed. They did not turn around to look to see where the instructor and other diver were. They ascended to the surface but one boy stopped a few feet short. The other boy looked back down, saw DT hovering below the surface within arm's reach, with his regulator out and bubbles escaping from his mouth. The boy tried to bring DT to the surface but he was non-responsive. Eventually, DT sank back down to the bottom. The waves were such that boy could not see shore, but he could see a flag on a flag pole on a platform near shore, so he swam to this and then he was helped back to the dock.

These are the facts according to the testimony of the witnesses who were there. Now, have at it.

 

[Omisson]

From the sworn testimony in the case: The lake was flat "like glass" when the divers went in, with 20-30 foot of visibility. While they were underwater, the winds picked up unexpectedly and were blowing hard, creating 2-3 foot seas with whitecaps while they were underwater. When the adult made a sudden, unexpected and uncontrolled ascent to the surface, the instructor looked up from 14 ft., saw the surface conditions (with waves that were over the divers head), and determined that it was unsafe to have three inexperienced divers on the surface in these conditions. So he signaled for the boys to stop and wait on the bottom, ascended 14 ft to the surface, asked the adult diver if he was okay and immediately took him back down. The whole thing took just 25 seconds from bottom to top and back down again.

However, shortly after the instructor went up, the boy that died gave the "up" signal to the other boy and started to ascend. Not wanting to be left alone, the other boy followed. They did not turn around to look to see where the instructor and other diver were. They ascended to the surface but one boy stopped a few feet short. The other boy looked back down, saw DT hovering below the surface within arm's reach, with his regulator out and bubbles escaping from his mouth. The boy tried to bring DT to the surface but he was non-responsive. Eventually, DT sank back down to the bottom. The waves were such that boy could not see shore, but he could see a flag on a flag pole on a platform near shore, so he swam to this and then he was helped back to the dock.

These are the facts according to the testimony of the witnesses who were there. Now, have at it.

What about the amount of weight on the boy and the BCD he used? Any FACTS about that?

 

[ElGaucho]

My dear colleague... I *do* believe that 4:1 supervision is acceptable .... in a swimming pool.
I don't know how many DSD's world wide are done in a swimming pool but we do *all* of ours in the pool. We surround our divers/students with staff whose objective is to keep our "sardines" in a "can" .

Agreed, 4:1 in a swimming pool I would feel comfortable, but not even confined water (as it is a broader definition), just a specific swimming pool. I should have specified I was thinking Open Water when making the aforementioned statements. A swimming pool provides "unlimited" viz, as well as clear spatial constraints. I do feel comfortable with a higher ratio there. Now tell me you would agree 4:1 is a perfectly valid ratio for 60m viz and warm open water, and then we can have another discussion