Training agency throws Instructor under the bus while misleading the court

[Ayisha]

I've seen the victim's asthmatic condition referenced several times, but it doesn't seem to have been a factor in the accident, does it? Or is it simply being referenced because if the condition was documented on the waiver, that child may never have participated in the DSD that day or might have needed a doctor's note to dive and lived to see another day?

 

[Roatan Joe]

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.

Well if that's what happened, it's really sad. Just goes to show that instructors really have to be attentive and ready to immediately act when the unexpected happens. He should have immediately grabbed the kids and ascended to the surface where the third person was headed. Yeah, I know it's really easy to Monday morning quarterback. It's a good lesson for all instructors. The sh*t can hit the fan in a matter of seconds. Regardless of surface conditions, if the instructor goes up, EVERYONE goes up.. Safer to follow the rules and be supervised by an instructor on the surface in high surf with BCDs inflated and regs. in, rather than unsupervised underwater doing who knows what.

I can certainly understand how an instructor could make that mistake, but it's one of many common things that should already been thought about and planned for before ever taking multiple uncertified students underwater. When there's one instructor, everybody stays down or everybody goes up. Pretty simple really. Instructor 101 kind of stuff... And yes, I'll probably brief this to my students an extra few times this weekend thanks to this thread. (2 OW students, NOT DSDs..)

 

[Diver0001]

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

Personally speaking, I wouldn't do a DSD alone with any more than 1 diver for the reasons I mentioned above. So, no. Speaking for myself, I don't believe that 4:1 is safe in any confined water that doesn't strongly resemble a swimming pool.

I'm sure that there are instructors who do that routinely, however. To my way of thinking about it, it's kind of like motorcycle riders. There are those who are reckless and those who have fallen off and survived. Instructors work the same way. An inexperienced instructor may suspend judgement (or judge poorly) because the standard says it's ok. A more experienced instructor would think it through for him/herself.

R..

 

[Zippsy]

If only they would take time to read the big paragraph that precedes those tiny little numbers that say 4:1, (the bold portion of the excerpt below was added by PADI, not me)

You must apply continuous and sound judgment before, during and after the dive. It’s your professional responsibility to conduct a risk assessment by evaluating variables such as water conditions, temperature, visibility, water movement, entries and exits, ability of participants, certified assistants available, your and your assistant’s personal limitations, etc., to determine what ratio will fit the situation — reducing the ratio from the maximum if needed. Take into account changing variables and your ability to directly supervise and observe participants. Reassess during the dive.​

 

[Hawkwood]

Further to Zippsy's quote: "Text appearing in boldface print denotes required standards that may not be deviated from while teaching the course."

Some folks seem to loose sight that a "standard" is not just a number or ratio.

If only they would take time to read the big paragraph that precedes those tiny little numbers that say 4:1, (the bold portion of the except below was added by PADI, not me)

You must apply continuous and sound judgment before, during and after the dive. It’s your professional responsibility to conduct a risk assessment by evaluating variables such as water conditions, temperature, visibility, water movement, entries and exits, ability of participants, certified assistants available, your and your assistant’s personal limitations, etc., to determine what ratio will fit the situation — reducing the ratio from the maximum if needed. Take into account changing variables and your ability to directly supervise and observe participants. Reassess during the dive.​

 

[flots am]

Further to Zippsy's quote: "Text appearing in boldface print denotes required standards that may not be deviated from while teaching the course."

Some folks seem to loose sight that a "standard" is not just a number or ratio.

These are all just traps that allow the agency to say "Well, you had an incident, so you must not have exercised sufficient judgement"

They're not actually useful for planning, except for those of us that already knew it was a trap, and refused to take the bait.

2:1 or greater can never be safe during an emergency. Someone is going to suffer or die because of it. Either the rescue is delayed for the first victim, or the other participant(s) are left alone, where they might die or be injured. There's no other way it can play out.

flots.

 

[Diver0001]

These are all just traps that allow the agency to say "Well, you had an incident, so you must not have exercised sufficient judgement"

They're not actually useful for planning, except for those of us that already knew it was a trap, and refused to take the bait.

With all due respect, you're talking out of your ass.

The standards (and if you were an instructor you would know this) are specifically written in order to make it absolutely clear which things are required and which things are recommendations. You seem to want to cast PADI as some kind of "evil establishment" but frankly, that's a personal agenda. The actual facts would not support this opinion.

2:1 or greater can never be safe during an emergency. Someone is going to suffer or die because of it. Either the rescue is delayed for the first victim, or the other participant(s) are left alone, where they might die or be injured. There's no other way it can play out.

I thought I had offered a perspective on this above. The standards make it clear that it's a management issue. PADI wants every instructor to take responsibility and adjust ratios to correspond to local needs. Some instructors, including the one involved in this case, would prefer to NOT take personal responsibility and will try to blame PADI for their own lapses in judgement.

I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about whether or not ratios should be a matter of standards or a matter of management. Personally, as I said above, I'm happy to have the agency define the boundaries (in ideal conditions) and to decide for myself if my conditions are ideal or not.

R..

 

[flots am]

With all due respect, you're talking out of your ass.

The standards (and if you were an instructor you would know this) are specifically written in order to make it absolutely clear which things are required and which things are recommendations. You seem to want to cast PADI as some kind of "evil establishment" but frankly, that's a personal agenda. The actual facts would not support this opinion.

OK, I'll bite. So how do you safely handle multiple non-divers in open water, during an emergency where one bolts, with one instructor, without leaving any of the others alone?

Do you have superpowers that allow you to duplicate yourself underwater? Perhaps only in warm, clear, calm water?

Without this capability, someone is going to get your attention and the others aren't.

The standard allow up to 4:1. What "conditions" would make this possible to do safely? Is there some magic I'm unaware of?

Who do you chase and who do you leave? Or if by some miracle, you grab the bolting participant and stop his ascent, you're still ignoring the others while you try to handle the current problem, and may have just drowned the bolting participant.

Since I'm apparently missing some procedure that allows this, please be specific.

FWIW, I have no more issue with PADI than I do with any other agency that publishes standards that simply aren't possible to comply with, as written.

flots.

 

[boulderjohn]

As someone who has been through these agency comparison wars on ScubaBoard for a decade now, I find this latest portion of the discussion interesting.

One of the most common attacks on PADI and thus one of the reasons other agencies are usually praised is in exactly this area. PADI is criticized for being too specific in its standards. Other agencies are praised for allowing instructors to exercise more judgment about what to teach and how to teach it. Instructors, we are told, are wise enough to exercise good judgment in all such matters and should not be restrained by PADI's struct standards. Now we are seeing PADI criticized for allowing this level of judgment in their standards. It seems instructors are not wise enough to exercise this level of judgment.

 

[Huzzar]

I've seen the victim's asthmatic condition referenced several times, but it doesn't seem to have been a factor in the accident, does it? Or is it simply being referenced because if the condition was documented on the waiver, that child may never have participated in the DSD that day or might have needed a doctor's note to dive and lived to see another day?

It will probably be used when the apportionment of blame comes. I don't know if the kid had an asthma attack when the Scoutmaster and Instructor bolted for the surface. If the parents lied on the BSA medical forms then the defendant will be able to use that as a defense.

Here is BSA medical form for summer camp (parts A, B and C needed)

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/healthsafety/pdf/680-001_abc.pdf

Here is the additional form for SCUBA. I don't know if this is needed for DSD.

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/HealthSafety/pdf/padi.pdf