An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc

[Jim Lapenta]

The other fact is that the instructor had the kids leading the ascent as a buddy pair and the instructor was following with the adult when the adult started to head to the surface. If standards required one to one with kids, and for me a kid is not anyone under 15 it's under 18. If the parent has to sign the form they are a minor.

Had this been in 15 ft of water with a two to one with adults and one to one with minors, this scenario would have been much different. If the depth restrictions were such that there was no opportunity to be more than a few feet away coupled with the ratios I noted and required the instructor be within arms reach this would not have happened.

Standards allowed this to take place in open water. There was a roped off area but they left that area. In a pool you can't just take off and head down to 40 feet. Unless you're at Nemo in France. Doing a resort course in some tropical location that includes pool and classroom is not a Discover or Intro. These are supposed to be nothing more than allowing a person, again not a student (yet), to experience being underwater on scuba.

DEMA's Be a Diver Program uses a portable pool about 4 feet deep. That's all that required for a discover. In my local area doing these is open water is impossible given our local conditions or someone taking one helluva risk.

Standards were broken. Damn right they were. But they also set the stage for this to happen. That's why they need to change. Some of us still do these intro's. Some have to. But dammit use common sense when doing them and short of a person having a heart attack, stroke, or aneurism these things don't even have to be an accident waiting to happen.

That program was going on for years. With some complaints by parents. But nothing happened. Until it did and illustrated how ineffective the current standards were in protecting the participants and the instructors, organizers, and camp staff. And not just scuba standards. The BSA standards are as much to blame as well.

 

[The Chairman]

Pete, what if the deceased were the guy going up, and the instructor had stayed at the bottom.

Why couldn't he ascend with all of them??? Why would you leave any of them below? It's only fifteen feet. Take them all up with you. That's the actual standard.

You see? This is exactly what many of us are trying to portray in this discussion. But you just don't want to hear anything about it and just claim that the "50%" decision the instructor made is breaking standard, but imply tacitly, that if he had chosen the other 50% he would not be breaking standards.

You're letting hysteria pull you away from the real problem. He didn't have to choose one or the other: he needed to choose both. In addition, the conditions were less than ideal. Way less than ideal. Consider speed limits set by various law enforcement agencies across the country. They are predicated on ideal conditions and with drivers driving prudently. Doing the speed limit on a wet road and following too close to the person in front of you could result in a fatal accident. Who's to blame? The standards or the driver? Of course, the driver.

Now, if you want to condemn the standards, show us deaths or injuries when the standards have been followed. You just can't legislate stupid or complacency. Do it right or don't do it. However, if you do cut corners as an instructor and your house of cards falls in on you: accept the blame.

But honestly, HONESTLY, if you believe a PADI IE proves anyone can be a half ass decent instructor, you need a new pair of glasses.

I've never seen a PADI IE to be able to have an intelligent decision. My NAUI ITC was intense. You either knew how to teach or you didn't get a C-card. My SDI/TDI crossover was just paper work. I couldn't do that with PADI. I would have to attend most of an ITC and then pass the IE. Which is more likely to identify a problem instructor, an IE or simply writing someone a check?

I couldn't care less if it was his initial intent or not. I couldn't care less if he is doing it for marketing reasons.

I care. The letter did not make a single mention of changing standards. Not one. The letter was designed to garner more business just before DEMA. The only call to action in that letter is to defect to SDI/TDI and he used the death of a Boy Scout to do that. That's questionable ethics no matter how you slice it.

There is a lot to evaluate regarding standards and how instructors are taught. The 30 pound dilemma is a direct descendent of the stupid way IDCs and IEs are setup for most recreational agencies. We NEED urgently to discuss all this. PADI is not intetested in discussing this stuff. We should.

There's a huge need for a dialog on this and it should be agency neutral. It's been taking place right here on ScubaBoard for years... at least 16. You won't find Carney here discussing it with you either. Why is that? Probably for the very same reasons you won't find PADI discussing these issues out in the open. I can tell you this though. PADI has shown that it listens to it's members. You don't have to look any further than the recent changes in buoyancy requirements to see that. Does that make them perfect? No. I still don't think I belong within the PADI program.

 

[tursiops]

Not only overweighted, but all that weight was in fresh water.

 

[The Chairman]

You say you dislike the whole short cutting DSD program, you don't participate in it, but feel that the training agency that TEACHES its' members (who have to have like 50? dives to be an instructor) how to implement a program that authorizes several (DSD) "students" to be paired up with one instructor -- is completely without any responsibility for the quality or the practicality (or safety) of the course?

I believe that PADI owned up to a portion of guilt and so it settled out of court. FWIW, I don't like the way you dive. You are way too cavalier in the way you dive and no, I won't participate in a dive with you because of that. I don't blame your instructor or your agency though. If you get hurt, the fault will be entirely yours.

Hey, I get that many, many people want to give PADI a poke in the eye. I could have joined in on that bandwagon and gotten pats on the back from any number of people. I could have simply remained quiet and let them take their lumps. I could have been a sheeple, but it wouldn't have been fair. I saw an agenda, an unholy agenda, that abused the death of a Boy Scout and twisted truths in order to smear a competitor. There are a number of industry leaders who first derided me for pointing this out who now believe that I am actually right. No, they aren't enlisting in a PADI ITC any time soon, but they see that the letter has numerous problems. You want to make this about standards. Fine. That's not what the letter was about, now was it? Not even close.

 

[The Chairman]

Not only overweighted, but all that weight was in fresh water.

... and a steel tank to boot!!! It simply boggles the mind.

 

[Lopez116]

To say that PADI/lawyers were only sanctioned because of their delay in disclosing the settlement is not only a misstatement, but is also really naive.

While I generally agree that the instructor has a greater effect on the safety of the specific course being taught on a given day, the agency also has an effect.

The test for liability is whether the defendant caused or contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Even if the agency didn't outright cause the accident, its standards, ratios, etc could certainly have contributed to it.

Did the instructor cause the accident? Probably. Did PADI contribute to it? Maybe.

 

[boulderjohn]

If you go through the accident reports here you will find a lot of divers died with their weights still on but you will be hard pressed to find one who died from an embolism.

What reports are you reading? The annual DAN reports always showed embolism as the number one cause of death after cardiac issues. The joint PADI/DAN study a few years ago showed that embolism is the number one training-related cause of fatalies.

Had this been in 15 ft of water with a two to one with adults and one to one with minors, this scenario would have been much different. If the depth restrictions were such that there was no opportunity to be more than a few feet away coupled with the ratios I noted and required the instructor be within arms reach this would not have happened.

Standards allowed this to take place in open water. There was a roped off area but they left that area. In a pool you can't just take off and head down to 40 feet. [/QUOTE ]

Sorry, Jim, but you are wrong on both counts. Standards do require the instructor to be in position such as you describe, and they do not allow it to be done in open water as was done here.

I know you are very, very desperate to make PADI the villain here, but making stuff up to make that happen does not become you.

 

[ElGaucho]

You're letting hysteria pull you away from the real problem. He didn't have to choose one or the other: he needed to choose both. In addition, the conditions were less than ideal. Way less than ideal.

Pete, I do understand your point, and partly agree. BUT, and there is a big BUT. Specially when dealing with DSDs, taking everyone up together is NOT an easy task. You generally have to manage your bouyancy plus two other people (as in this case). Going up if you feel the guy that went up is in trouble could be slow. It is a judgment call. I wasn't there, you weren't there, we DONT KNOW what that judgement call was. If you see someone bolting to the surface and are unsure wether he is breathing, do you believe you would stop grab two kids, manage their bouyancy and take them up with you. It's a tough call. It doesn't sound tough on paper, from the armchair. It is a tough cookie in the water. Again, we were not there, we don't know the whole picture.

 

[kr2y5]

Not asserting an opinion of any sort, just seeking clarification as a layman observer... after reading some of these threads, I am honestly somewhat confused as to what the scuba agencies are, and/or should be, actually liable for... for example, if an agency is not liable for setting inadequate standards, defective procedures, certifying incompetent instructors, etc., what exactly is a certifying agency accountable for? I think the answer to this question would help me, and other uninformed observers, better understand the discussion...

 

[The Chairman]

To say that PADI/lawyers were only sanctioned because of their delay in disclosing the settlement is not only a misstatement, but is also really naive.

We've must have read different accounts. Please post what you have up here so we can all see it.

Specially when dealing with DSDs, taking everyone up together is NOT an easy task.

It's not. It's one reason why I just don't do them. Each instructor must make a decision based on conditions, etc, just how many divers they can take on any given dive.

I think standards in general are in need of some serious overhaul. But standards weren't the culprit here. If we are going to make changes, we need to base those changes on facts and not on conjecture. Throwing PADI under the bus won't do us any good, if the standards already in place are being ignored. There is no doubt in my mind that PADI did all instructors everywhere a public service by expelling this one. No, I don't hate the man: I don't even know him. But perhaps it will make instructors everywhere take a second thought about their complacency and their culpability when they screw up this badly. Think about it: 30 pounds of lead and a steel tank on a 120 pound boy with a 5 mil Farmer John. That's at least 10-15 pounds more than he needed. It might be a full 20+ pounds more than he needed. It simply boggles my mind to no end. I read a letter from a parent whose boy took the same course the day before. He could not swim and could only walk on the bottom of the lake. Wow. I simply can't find any standard where PADI insists that their students be stupidly over weighted.