Training fatality after Instructor held student down - Stoney Cove, UK

[Chris Stock]

To reply to your previous post before the edit, he is an instructor (not a mere divemaster)

He also teaches EFR …

http://www.divemiltonkeynes.co.uk/staff.html[/URL

Convicted or not, I can't believe he's still employed there or for that matter working in the industry in that location.

 

[Celt]

I think “Golden Balls” says it all.

 

[DandyDon]

Convicted or not, I can't believe he's still employed there or for that matter working in the industry in that location.

I have to wonder why he still has a Padi license to teach?

 

[BlueTrin]

I have to wonder why he still has a Padi license to teach?

I guess even though that looks very suspicious from the article, organisations should wait for the result of the lawsuit or that the investigation is complete and public?

Seems to have happened years ago though.

 

[wgw04024]

Did he get convicted? Or is this still ongoing?

 

[Esprise Me]

The trial is still ongoing.

 

[jlcnuke]

Whill I don't know the legal semantics I would think that forcibly holding a person underwater until the person is dead is the textbook definition of murder by drowning.

From what I read in the article, the instructor grabbed him and indicated the need to do a safety stop, but did not "forcibly hold" him underwater after that.

As I wasn't there, I'm not in the court getting the testimony, etc., I'll reserve judgement.

A student that was out of air twice, but currently with air at 5m and a working regulator, after doing a deep dive, should generally conduct the safety stop. What precisely the instructor did or did not witness, and their reaction to the situation they saw, could very well have been "appropriate" or "reckless" depending on the details. Details we don't see in such an article as was linked.

That's my thoughts on the matter anyway, based on what I read.

 

[Esprise Me]

From what I read in the article, the instructor grabbed him and indicated the need to do a safety stop, but did not "forcibly hold" him underwater after that.

As I wasn't there, I'm not in the court getting the testimony, etc., I'll reserve judgement.

A student that was out of air twice, but currently with air at 5m and a working regulator, after doing a deep dive, should generally conduct the safety stop. What precisely the instructor did or did not witness, and their reaction to the situation they saw, could very well have been "appropriate" or "reckless" depending on the details. Details we don't see in such an article as was linked.

That's my thoughts on the matter anyway, based on what I read.

Perfect A&I topic. We have two sides to the story-- one in which the instructor held him under and physically prevented him from surfacing, and the other in which he merely communicated to the student that he shouldn't surface-- but both accounts agree that the instructor felt completing the safety stop was more important than getting to the surface where the student had already run out of air twice on a deep dive. Now this is something we can argue about, whether or not we ever get all the facts!

Personally, I respectfully disagree with your position. Given a diver who had already run out of air even once, even if I were sure there was plenty left for us to share, I would skip the safety stop. And in fact I have made exactly that decision in a real-world situation. My instabuddy and I had both just signaled to each other that we each had a little over 1,000 psi left at 70 feet and we were ready to ascend. As we began our ascent, she suddenly signaled that she was out of air and grabbed my octo. I helped her get the hose out of the D-ring and we ascended at a normal rate but with no safety stop. On the surface, her regulator started working again. We never did figure out for sure exactly what the problem was; she was using rental gear and was only here on vacation. I surfaced with plenty of air still; we could've done a safety stop, but I stand by my decision not to and would do the same again. Granted, 70 feet is not a deep dive, but I'd also do the same if we'd been deeper. And I always do safety stops absent a problem this serious, and I even do at least 5 minute stops on deep dives or dives where my NDL has gotten below 5 minutes.

But this is a great what-if to discuss!

 

[jlcnuke]

I like what-if scenarios as well myself..

Personally, I believe that safety stops should be skipped only if there is a compelling reason "at that time" to believe there is an "on-going, urgent issue" that needs to be addressed at the surface and which cannot wait a few minutes. If I have plenty of gas for us both to do a safety stop after one of us runs out of air, then I see no reason to skip the safety stop, causing both of us to be closer to a potential DCS hit, when our equipment needed to safely finish the dive, including the safety stop, is working fine at that time.

Additionally, depending on your training, a safety stop is both a "suggested" thing (for most dives) and a "required" item for other dives (for PADI, this includes rules that state a safety stop for 3 minutes at 15ft is required any time the diver comes up to or within 3 pressure groups of a no decompression limit and for any dive to a depth of 100ft or deeper). This implies that the theory used to develop those tables says that skipping the safety stop in such situations could put you into significant risk of a DCS hit. If we have air, and working regulators to breath from with that air, why skip the stop if there isn't another reason compelling such an increase in our risk levels for DCS hits?

 

[DandyDon]

From what I read in the article, the instructor grabbed him and indicated the need to do a safety stop, but did not "forcibly hold" him underwater after that.

As I wasn't there, I'm not in the court getting the testimony, etc., I'll reserve judgement.

A student that was out of air twice, but currently with air at 5m and a working regulator, after doing a deep dive, should generally conduct the safety stop. What precisely the instructor did or did not witness, and their reaction to the situation they saw, could very well have been "appropriate" or "reckless" depending on the details. Details we don't see in such an article as was linked.

That's my thoughts on the matter anyway, based on what I read.

I read it differently. I read that the Inst held him down and he drowned.

If we have air, and working regulators to breath from with that air, why skip the stop if there isn't another reason compelling such an increase in our risk levels for DCS hits?

Since he drowned, then I think he lacked one of those. Skipping a safety stop to avoid drowning is preferable, I think. We can fix bent easier than a drowning.