Concerns raised about agency response to student fatality

[boulderjohn]

The only conclusion I can draw from the IANTD response is that their investigation indicated that the supposed facts in the case as we know them are not accurate. If their investigation showed that this information is inaccurate and what happened was fine, then I can very much see their point of view. In such a case, though, I wonder why a simple statement saying that the facts are not as they seem was not included.

In the case of the drowning at a Boy Scout camp a couple years ago, SDI/TDI made a public statement saying that the PADI instructor involved had not violated any standards whatsoever, and so PADI was not justified in expelling him and failing to support him in the trial. That statement was widely and repeatedly distributed. In response, PADI took the unusual step of issuing a public statement listing the standards that were violated. (IMO, they left some out.) If IANTD is saying that the facts being distributed by these instructors are not accurate, then perhaps IANTD needs to take a similar step.

 

[boulderjohn]

Thirdly, I'm not sure that instructors are considered employees of a training agency, an agent certainly, but I don't think they're employees.

Not so certain.

PADI has stated plainly that they are NOT an agency by the normal definition, and its instructors are NOT agents. On the liability waiver, students must sign a statement saying they are aware that the instructor (or DM) is not an agent of PADI.

I do not know if IANTD has taken any similar steps.

The reason for this came about when two DMs who were not employed by either PADI or the dive boat from which they were diving took the roll for their dive club (who also did not "employ" them for this purpose) and missed a diver at the end of the first dive. The ensuing lawsuit included PADI on the theory that the DMs were 'agents" of PADI due to the fact that they were PADI members, even though PADI itself had nothing to do with that dive experience. That lawsuit was successful, and PADI took the aforementioned steps for that reason. PADI was also included in the Boy Scout case mentioned above on the "agent" theory. If it becomes a standard concept that instructors and DMs are "agents," then the dive organization that certifies them will automatically be included in all cases in which a professional becomes liable for his or her actions. That would pretty much put all diving organizations out of business.

 

[The Chairman]

This meme expresses my thoughts on this fairly accurately:

 

[kelemvor]

This meme expresses my thoughts on this fairly accurately:

View attachment 407108​

You are a power mad satrap of a moderator!

 

[Wookie]

I don't think the issue of information dissemination after an accident is nearly as cut and dry as you guys make it out to be. Clearly the agency has an interest in protecting themselves and therefore cannot be blindly trusted. The agency did the analysis, therefore the result must be considered suspect. Since we don't have an impartial third party with funding to do the analysis, the next best thing is information dissemination.

Accident voyeurism is real, after all - we are humans. That does not mean that there is not also real value in the details. That people are interested due to voyeurism and therefore we don't need the details is a non sequitur.

Future students are going to put their lives in the hands of instructors. Trust is critical there, because as students we are doing trust me dives until we get certified. Even after certification, we're trusting that the instructor, as an extension of the agency, trained us in a way that will help us to survive in the environment we choose to dive.

The scenario described in the first post could have been easily avoided by having an additional instructor already in the cave or by using another cave or at least by having someone run a darn guideline for the student in advance. It all just sounds like such a massive amount of stupid that the agency not finding the instructor at fault is hard to fathom. I'm no instructor, but there's several violations to what I was taught on day1 of cave1 that it definitely makes me wonder about the quality of IANTD's cave curriculum.

Maybe we need a kickstarter to fund a nonprofit accident analysis organization. Or an endowment from a wealthy widow or something like that. I know there was an awful attempt at such a thing once, which was then ruined by the organization using analysis to try and sell their own rebreathers. Don't let the idea die because some jerk got greedy! Surely if $20 million can be raised to fund a smart watch project, sufficient funds could be raised to start such a nonprofit organization. The Californians managed to fund a nonprofit chamber when it was needed. It CAN be done!

My opinion, and just that is that the more we talk about these things, the more other folks notice. I can assure you, in the USA the Coast Guard is having another look at charter dive boats. In the UK, health and Safety regulates dive instructors. The US dive industry has a pretty good record of policing their own. If you don't understand how they do what they do, find an agency you like better, or don't teach.

 

[Wookie]

Indeed. People want the whole dope when we ban people here on SB. That's a violation of their privacy. You can see that they have been disciplined, but you'll never know how we arrived at that decision. However, you can criticize our decision all you want. You can even call me a "power mad satrap of a moderator" and can expect no repercussions.

BS. There are boat loads of lessons being learned in our accidents and incidents forum every day. The very act of speculating helps to make divers aware of how they can be injured or even killed. If we don't get the facts, we're going to do our best to recreate as much of the scenario as possible. This whole issue with threatening litigation works against the public's interest in knowing what happened and how to prevent it. It ensures that the "loved one" has died in vain. Sorry if it shows the dark side of diving and the darker side of covering it all up, but that's not our problem. I want to learn from the mistakes of others.

Ditto!

if there were a process to learn lessons, I would agree with you, but back to Rob Stewart, you and I have been fed just enough facts to tittilate folks and draw conclusions. As expected, our conclusions kind of jibe, up to a point where we wildly diverge. When I say that there are no lessons to be learned, I mean that we will never get an objective answer because the process is flawed and could result in litigation if the truth ever got out. When I took my IDC, there was a chapter called Diving and the Law. I was taught to hold my cards close to the vest. That was a PADI course by the way. The entire industry is geared to hide the truth away.

 

[kensuf]

There is no doubt that we do not have the right to know, legally speaking. What I was saying is that if IANTD is concerned about its public perception, discussing its findings of the accident could be much more productive than just stating that the only wrongdoing it found was that of one of its instructors publicly voicing his dissatisfaction with the QA procedure. I do not think any new significant information came out of that statement.

One of the problems with discussing the findings of a QA board, especially in outlining the events that transpired which ultimately led to a fatality, is that there may be innocent bystanders that get creamed in the court of public opinion. Additionally, in the case of a fatality that can be summarized as "diver error" on the part of the deceased, it's likely the surviving family do not want those events to be made public.

I'll give you an example of how this could play out. There was a very public lawsuit against a CCR manufacturer that happened after the death of a world famous underwater photographer. During the trial, the defense offered evidence that the deceased was on strong narcotic painkillers that may very well have impacted his judgment underwater. The drugs probably contributed to the death of the photographer.

I bet that the family of the deceased did not wish that evidence to be public information.

 

[The Chairman]

When I say that there are no lessons to be learned, I mean that we will never get an objective answer because the process is flawed and could result in litigation if the truth ever got out.

And yet, divers learned plenty from the discussion. Many had no clue that there was a huge buoyancy swing with the DSV out of the diver's mouth. It was a graphic reminder for those of us that did.

I was taught to hold my cards close to the vest.

I agree. If you are the instructor/mate/captain in a situation like this you should shut up. I've shut them up by deleting their posts here on SB and let them think about it.

I bet that the family of the deceased did not wish that evidence to be public information.

Yet is is, and it's a good lesson for those wanting to dive on medications. It certainly doesn't make the deceased any deader. If I ef up and cause my own death: TALK ABOUT IT. Call me a fool. Call me an idiot. I certainly won't care and if anyone learns from my mistake, then my death wasn't a complete loss for the world.

 

[JohnnyC]

I wish I were a fly on the wall at IANTD when Protec, who owned the IANTD Central America license for one of the largest certifying regions in the world in terms of cave diving, told IANTD to kick rocks, separated themselves from IANTD, and became a full PSAI shop. I'm curious to see if something similar to this happens in Poland.

They did so due to the response, or rather lack thereof, by IANTD following the death of Amy Arriaga in Tulum.

Interestingly enough, Kim and Matt are still listed as IANTD instructors, Rob is still listed on the iantd.mx site, and Patrick is no longer listed at all. Matt is still listed as the license holder along with Scott Carnahan.

 

[boulderjohn]

When I took my IDC, there was a chapter called Diving and the Law. I was taught to hold my cards close to the vest. That was a PADI course by the way. The entire industry is geared to hide the truth away.

I have done a number of investigations of cave diving accidents on behalf of the NSS. In one case, the police asked for statements from those who were present. The people stated what they thought happened, and the police summarized what they had said. They then had the people sign the summaries that the police had written in the words of the police. That became a problem later on when the wording of the police was interpreted in a way other than the speaker had intended. The words were ambiguous enough to be taken a couple of ways, one intended by the witness and one very different from what was intended. When the witness tried to correct that interpretation he was accused of changing his story, and his supposed changing of the story was taken as a sign of guilt.