Will action to an Instructor from one agency prompt action from another?

[boulderjohn]

Is everyone aware of the fact that in the case being referred to here, the action was taken by PADI after a student died during an OW class? We are not talking about trash talking.

i must have missed it, all i've seen is a link to expelled members

The link was brought up earlier today in relation to this thread.

---------- Post added ----------

In addition, this is the PADI explanation of the expelled member list.

Expelled PADI Members This is a list of PADI Members (instructors, assistant instructors, and divemasters) expelled from the organization within the last six years. Those listed are no longer PADI Members and therefore cannot conduct PADI courses or represent themselves as PADI Members. If you have questions about an individual on the list, please contact PADI.

Expulsion only results after a PADI Member refuses to implement corrective measures, or when the nature of the complaint is so severe that expulsion is necessary to protect the public or to preserve the reputation of the PADI organization.

 

[darushin]

As others have mentioned this was originally posted as a response to the lake Rawlings thread in the accident section, but the mods thought it.important enough to make it it's own topic. So as others have mentioned for this thread, the instructor was expelled after an inccident that resulted in the death of a student.

Daru

 

[japan-diver]

As the agencies do not do a good job of talking to one another getting expelled from one will not necessarily get any action from another. I know many instructors that have been expelled from one agency and just switched to another. Expulsions are not always safety issues but can be business issues also- you do not pay your bill at an agency you will get expelled from that agency.
A few years back we had an instructor get expelled for a safety issue locally and I actually received an email from the local rep from that agency (which I am not a member of) to tell us that the instructor was expelled for cause in case he came looking for a crossover which he did, we did not do the crossover but within a week he had found an agency/course director that would and he was teaching again.
There is very little sharing of info between agencies about bad/unsafe instructors so I would doubt that getting expelled from one would automatically get a review or sanction from another agency.

 

[t4e]

As the agencies do not do a good job of talking to one another getting expelled from one will not necessarily get any action from another. I know many instructors that have been expelled from one agency and just switched to another.

looks to me that in such a case the "another" agency failed

how does an Instructor switch to another agency, he just shows his card and gets switched over?
nobody checks his/her credentials and status, same as a new employer calling previous employers for references?

 

[Jim Lapenta]

I have done a total of four crossovers starting with DM. Each had a question or statement on the ap regarding status and if disciplinary action had ever been taken against me. It was up to me to.disclose if it ever had. So I suppose one could lie about it but what would happen if they did and then something else happened under the new agency. And again my insurance company would know and if you went with a new one they ask as well. On the renewal ap you have to state if you know of any claims against you. Now agency may be one thing but with insurance it'd be fraud.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Wookie]

The gross (and wrong) assumption you are making is that you all think that the certification agencies exist for the benefit and safety of the student. You are wrong. The certification agencies, at least the large commercial ones exist for the benefit of the shareholders, to support the members, and the safety of the public has very very little to do with it. As was said earlier, the way to get suspended is to bring discredit upon the training agency, the other is to not pay the agency in a timely fashion. The fastest way is to not respond to an inquiry from the agency, or refuse to participate in corrective action following a standards violation.

What you are failing to understand here is that scuba is not a government entity. There is no big brother watching out for the unsuspecting public. The closest we have is the Coast Guard and dive charter boats. If (and it appears that they did) PADI pulled the Lake Rawlins instructors credentials, it is because he violated standards, or refused to answer an inquiry from PADI, perhaps on advice of his council. THIS WASN'T TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. It was to protect the reputation of PADI.

NO ONE PROTECTS THE PUBLIC except the public. There is no central database of bad instructors, there is no clearing house for expelled members, and there is no blacklist except in places with a large number of shops like the Keys or Cozumel. There is no standard resume that must be submitted before becoming an instructor.

When crossing over from one agency to another, you must show your credentials of your active agency to the new agency, you must buy all of the instructor materials, and you must take some sort of class from an instructor trainer. I have been blown off by an instructor trainer who needed the cert, and didn't have to do anything except buy the books and tick the boxes. I have been blown off as an instructor by a person desiring to be an instructor trainer for a certain agency, so I have every specialty card offered by that agency, to get the number of certs up for the candidate.

Let me speak plainly. The agency exists for the agency, some for it's members, not for the public.

 

[boulderjohn]

There is an "instructor" in Arizona who shows up once or twice a year on ScubaBoard. He was expelled from NAUI. I don't know the degree to which he tried to cross over to another agency, if he did at all, but in any event, he solved the problem by forming his own agency--Scuba Divers of America. He is the only instructor in that agency. Even though he has been reported as a scam many times, he has apparently been successful with it for years. The Arizona Attorney General has been notified and has elected to do nothing about it, so apparently the government has no problem with this.

 

[HIGHwing]

The gross (and wrong) assumption you are making is that you all think that the certification agencies exist for the benefit and safety of the student...If (and it appears that they did) PADI pulled the Lake Rawlins instructors credentials, it is because he violated standards, or refused to answer an inquiry from PADI, perhaps on advice of his council. THIS WASN'T TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. It was to protect the reputation of PADI.

I agree. I think the reaction you see from PADI on this issue is very clear cut. It's my opinion PADI can [correctly] say, our training program did not fail the student diver. The instructor lost count, left a diver behind = standards violation. That standards violation preceeded a fatality? You're expelled.

Regarding the issue of instructor crossover, the subject is already a NAUI Instructor Trainer. While this is interesting, I think it's more important to discuss the insurability of this guy. Where he's going to get insurance is going to be a large issue if he chooses to teach at all. In fact, the entire subject of insurance is going to be a bit of sticky issue. Abandoning a student is listed as an exclusion on the professional liabiltiy policy, and that means the insurer is may well deny coverage as disclosed in the contract as it pertains to the accident.

Even worse, Virginia appears to recognize pre-injury waivers as "Against Public Policy" according to my understanding of two Virginia Supreme Court Cases, Johnson Adm’x v. R. & D.R.R. Co. (1890) and Heitt v. Lake Barcoft (1992). These lawsuits open the door for the Plaintiff to recover damages. These two cases establish and reaffirm the long-standing Virginia rule voiding an agreement entered into prior to an injury releasing a tortfeasor from liability for negligence resulting in personal injury, which dates back more than one hundred years.

I think we're all about to learn a lot from this accident.

 

[Wookie]

Regarding the issue of instructor crossover, the subject is already a NAUI Instructor Trainer. While this is interesting, I think it's more important to discuss the insurability of this guy. Where he's going to get insurance is going to be a large issue if he chooses to teach at all. In fact, the entire subject of insurance is going to be a bit of sticky issue. Abandoning a student is listed as an exclusion on the professional liabiltiy policy, and that means the insurer is may well deny coverage as disclosed in the contract as it pertains to the accident.

I have been on the "defense" side of 2 different insurance companies following a fatality. The laywer/investigator for one of the insurance companies (not mine) advised me that he was representing me (not the full truth) and to withhold evidence from the Coast Guard, who are my primary regulator. I recorded the advice and immediately called my insurance company. My insurance company sent a cease and desist email to the other insurance companies lawyer and told me to cooperate fully with the Coast Guard (of course). My corporate lawyer was involved in the incident, as was my technical diving instructor.

I have no idea what happened at Lake Rawlins, but I'd guess tha the instructor who was expelled by PADI was because he refused to cooperate with PADI's investigation, probably on the advice of his other training agency, who it seems that he was a course director, therefore was carrying their affiliated insurance, and not V&B. I don't see this as a conflict by PADI, By the way, they were following their procedures, and washing their hands of a potential problem. That is, getting out of the litigation line of fire as fast as possible. Maybe a standard was broken, maybe it was just bad luck, but it's clear to me that PADI was trying to get away from the situation as cleanly as possible.

 

[HIGHwing]

Maybe a standard was broken, maybe it was just bad luck, but it's clear to me that PADI was trying to get away from the situation as cleanly as possible.

No doubt in my mind, either.