Poor judgement encouraged by poor standards? I'm asking.
Training agency throws Instructor under the bus while misleading the court
- Thread starter cerich
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
flots am
Contributor
- Messages
- 3,226
- Reaction score
- 1,859
- # of dives
- I just don't log dives
> They become impossible when the instructor exercises the bad judgment to place himself and his students in an environment he can't hope to correct in case of an emergency.
Absolutely. That's exactly my point. However the standards allow this and they shouldn't.
What environmental conditions would have made any instructor capable of maintaining control of two (or up to 4) non-divers while one of them was bolting, and from what I read here, possibly having an asthma attack? When would 2:1 or greater be safe?
This doesn't apply just to PADI, it applies to any agency that allows more than 1:1 for non-divers in open water. More than 1:1 is just a setup for failure. In fact, any number of non-divers in open water is an astonishing risk. I can't see any reason for this program to exist.
In any case, this has certainly been interesting, and if nothing else, has made me absolutely certain that I will never take any number of non-certified people into open water, regardless of ratio.
One of the nice things about a real Open Water class is that you get a pretty good shot at finding out who lied on the medical form, while you're still in the shallow end of the pool, relatively safe and more than likely are not too far from O2 and a call to EMS.
flots.
I'm with Jim and flots am on this. PADI should not have a standard that allows parents to lie on their son's medical forms. That is just criminal of them. Also, any PADI course taught under water is just a recipe for disaster. Fatalities would be much less if all classes where conducted poolside, with one three-armed instructor and two certified assistants per student. That would be safe enough.
BTW, when an instructor breaks some standards but not other ones (whether the other ones were faulty in your opinion or not), he has still broken standards. It really is that simple.
BTW, when an instructor breaks some standards but not other ones (whether the other ones were faulty in your opinion or not), he has still broken standards. It really is that simple.
I really love it when people interpret the standards any way they want it. Being at arm's length to control their bouyancy has nothing to do with "grabbing and holding" a bolter. Who says grabbing and holding a bolter makes anything any safer? Holding a person underwater against their will could actually be dangerous, quite dangerous to that person, the instructor and anyone else around them. 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.
If he allowed the scoutmaster to surface without going after him, he would be at fault of breaking the standards too. It's just IMPOSSIBLE not to break the standards. You see? It's just "easy" to say he broke them because he left the two kids. But leaving the scoutmaster unattended would have yielded the same result in terms of breaking standards. He made a choice he considered in that split second the best one. It wasn't, and in hindsight it was the wrong call. But as a split microsecond decision he probably followed his instinct: one panicked diver on his own, bolting to the surface, vs maybe two calm divers who could just a minute. Again, bad call, but even if he took them both to the surface to go get the scout, he would have been breaking standards until he got to the surface with them. If he had done that, and the scoutmaster were dead, he would still be in the same scenario. You see?
The whole he broke standards because he was not at arm's length to stop the scoutmaster from bolting is NOT WRITTEN ON ANY STANDARD. Im sorry to let you down here. But the standard talk about being close enough to provide assistance with bouyancy, not to grab and hold and impede people from bolting. That's something YOUR training brought to light, not the standards. And again, I seriously question that line of training itself.
The standards need to be revised. Period. PADI expelled a member without any due process, and then left him to his own devices to defend himself. That's bad. Period. PADI should be reflecting from this case what needs improvement, instead of just defending themselves. They are not. I like that another agency put the pressure on. Because otherwise, who is?
If he allowed the scoutmaster to surface without going after him, he would be at fault of breaking the standards too. It's just IMPOSSIBLE not to break the standards. You see? It's just "easy" to say he broke them because he left the two kids. But leaving the scoutmaster unattended would have yielded the same result in terms of breaking standards. He made a choice he considered in that split second the best one. It wasn't, and in hindsight it was the wrong call. But as a split microsecond decision he probably followed his instinct: one panicked diver on his own, bolting to the surface, vs maybe two calm divers who could just a minute. Again, bad call, but even if he took them both to the surface to go get the scout, he would have been breaking standards until he got to the surface with them. If he had done that, and the scoutmaster were dead, he would still be in the same scenario. You see?
The whole he broke standards because he was not at arm's length to stop the scoutmaster from bolting is NOT WRITTEN ON ANY STANDARD. Im sorry to let you down here. But the standard talk about being close enough to provide assistance with bouyancy, not to grab and hold and impede people from bolting. That's something YOUR training brought to light, not the standards. And again, I seriously question that line of training itself.
The standards need to be revised. Period. PADI expelled a member without any due process, and then left him to his own devices to defend himself. That's bad. Period. PADI should be reflecting from this case what needs improvement, instead of just defending themselves. They are not. I like that another agency put the pressure on. Because otherwise, who is?
I am considering not paying my PADI Dive Master fees and my insurance and letting it go as it would seem (on the basis of this court case) to me PADI will offer me no support should something untoward happen while I am working as a PADI Dive Master. I have paid them in the past on the basis that I have the full support of PADI as long as I follow the standard they set, it would appear from this court case, this is not correct and I am living in dream land?
Well... what seems to be the main issue under discussion is this:
- Is the course defective as a product?
- Was the delivery of the course done in an unsafe manner?
The instructor tired to defend himself by pointing at PADI and claiming that their product is unsafe. This seemed to be supported by PADI settling, which is a decision they regretted once the instructor's defense became clear. At that point it would appear that PADI suspended the instructor to lend credence to the claim that delivery was the problem and not the course.
If you ask me, I think PADI was justified in this since the standard clearly states: "Do not leave participants unattended, either at the surface or underwater." That is exactly what the instructor did if I believe the reports about it and it was the direct cause of the accident.
This leaves the obvious question of how one instructor can possibly maintain direct supervision over multiple students in the case that something goes wrong. At the shop where I used to work there was a big discussion about this based on a near miss and we decided that in order to deliver the course safely, any dive requiring direct supervision would be done with a 2:1 ratio with a minimum of 2 staff if there was more than one diver in the group.
Blue Water could have implemented a rule like that to ensure safe delivery, but they did not. The standard does not prohibit one instructor with multiple divers in this course but it does prohibit leaving people alone.... so any idiot can do that math and come to the conclusion that 1 instructor is not enough to maintain direct supervision over an entire group.
R..
- Is the course defective as a product?
- Was the delivery of the course done in an unsafe manner?
The instructor tired to defend himself by pointing at PADI and claiming that their product is unsafe. This seemed to be supported by PADI settling, which is a decision they regretted once the instructor's defense became clear. At that point it would appear that PADI suspended the instructor to lend credence to the claim that delivery was the problem and not the course.
If you ask me, I think PADI was justified in this since the standard clearly states: "Do not leave participants unattended, either at the surface or underwater." That is exactly what the instructor did if I believe the reports about it and it was the direct cause of the accident.
This leaves the obvious question of how one instructor can possibly maintain direct supervision over multiple students in the case that something goes wrong. At the shop where I used to work there was a big discussion about this based on a near miss and we decided that in order to deliver the course safely, any dive requiring direct supervision would be done with a 2:1 ratio with a minimum of 2 staff if there was more than one diver in the group.
Blue Water could have implemented a rule like that to ensure safe delivery, but they did not. The standard does not prohibit one instructor with multiple divers in this course but it does prohibit leaving people alone.... so any idiot can do that math and come to the conclusion that 1 instructor is not enough to maintain direct supervision over an entire group.
R..
Why are PADI (and the RSTC) not doing that math? We are all idiots, but wouldn't they (agencies) be the bigger idiots then? This and other ratios are a setup to fail at some point. We SHOULD be discussing this, and the sad part is PADI shows no interest in discussing it. Very bad on them. There is no real forum to discuss this stuff with any agency. And we as instructors, in the end, carry the weight of responsibility. And then, we have little or no say in how "the standards" are setup. This needs to change I think.
I think you'll find, as we did after calling them about the measures we needed to take after the incident I mentioned, that PADI is more than willing to discuss it with you and support your activities as an instructor.
When they stop discussing and start defending is when you try to play out these kinds of discussion in a court case.
I suspect that they don't prescribe the kind of supervision I mentioned in the standards on the belief that the question of how to maintain direct supervision is a management issue, not a standards issue. I'm not sure that make 100% sense to me. However, I'm an instructor and PADI's customers include instructors AND dive centers. There is obviously a (potential) conflict of interest between these two parties and I'm guessing that PADI just decided to stay out of it.
R..
When they stop discussing and start defending is when you try to play out these kinds of discussion in a court case.
I suspect that they don't prescribe the kind of supervision I mentioned in the standards on the belief that the question of how to maintain direct supervision is a management issue, not a standards issue. I'm not sure that make 100% sense to me. However, I'm an instructor and PADI's customers include instructors AND dive centers. There is obviously a (potential) conflict of interest between these two parties and I'm guessing that PADI just decided to stay out of it.
R..
That's weird, Diver0001. Flots Am I both liked your post. Either one of us misunderstood or misinterpreted your post or you have performed a miracle. Congratulations! 
---------- Post added November 20th, 2014 at 10:24 AM ----------
Did he keep the two kids within a distance where he could give immediate assistance? Did he reduce the ratio to a level that he knew he could reasonably do that? There are your breaks in standards.
---------- Post added November 20th, 2014 at 10:24 AM ----------
Did he keep the two kids within a distance where he could give immediate assistance? Did he reduce the ratio to a level that he knew he could reasonably do that? There are your breaks in standards.
Re One instructor -- two students -- one going to the surface -- what can just one instructor do?
Well, one bolts, the instructor grabs and brings the non-bolting student to the surface to be with the bolting one. Can't be done you say? I was the non-bolting student once -- in doubles, one post turned off and no mask! -- and then found myself going to the surface and not understanding why. The other student had been given another failure, lost control and corked and the instructor grabbed my manifold and pulled me to the surface so that he could stay with both of us.
Complied with standards! (Well, actually, I won't get into whether he complied with standards but THAT is another story.)
The moral of the story is a REALLY GOOD instructor can keep control of two students.
Well, one bolts, the instructor grabs and brings the non-bolting student to the surface to be with the bolting one. Can't be done you say? I was the non-bolting student once -- in doubles, one post turned off and no mask! -- and then found myself going to the surface and not understanding why. The other student had been given another failure, lost control and corked and the instructor grabbed my manifold and pulled me to the surface so that he could stay with both of us.
Complied with standards! (Well, actually, I won't get into whether he complied with standards but THAT is another story.)
The moral of the story is a REALLY GOOD instructor can keep control of two students.
Similar threads
