13 year old diver dies - Oahu, Hawaii

[yle]

Could the boy swim?

Hard to say. But the article in the link above says he was from Mongolia, visiting Hawaii with his parents and 8-yr old sister, and that he had "no ocean or scuba experience." It's quite possible this was his first experience with being in the ocean; the article said the family arrived in Hawaii on Tuesday Jan 1, and the accident occurred Saturday Jan 5.

First time in the ocean + first time in scuba gear + questionable conditions = ??

 

[yle]

Well this is interesting...

-- Article states the 13 yr old had no ocean experience.

-- Dive shop website offers two different DSD options:

1. From the dive op's website: during the morning, in confined water, "work on dive skills with an instructor to be more confident ", go diving in the afternoon. Cost is $175

2. From the dive op's website: "If you are comfortable in the water and just cannot wait to swim with the fish,"... DSD participant can skip the confined water, go out on the boat with the morning trip, do the skills on the anchor line and then go for a dive. Cost is $129

-- Initial report (i.e. post #1 of this thread) says the boy was missing at 11:45 am.

It would seem that, despite the qualification of "if you are comfortable in the water", the second option was chosen for the 13 yr old (maybe because it was cheaper?) and all parties involved agreed it was appropriate. Doesn't look good for the dive shop when it appears they may have disregarded their own advice as stated on their website.

 

[KevinNM]

The family has lawyered up. Company faces safety questions after dive accident leaves 13-year-old visitor dead

Well, they should. Unless the diver is actively trying to commit suicide there just isn't any excuse to have this sort of thing happen.

 

[CuzzA]

The family has lawyered up. Company faces safety questions after dive accident leaves 13-year-old visitor dead

That lawyer may want to clarify his statements, because there appears to be some double talk that contradicts his own words.

“We don’t know what happened under the water, but he was lost,” Livingston said. “The team members and the instructor surfaced without him. An emergency was called.”

“To put in him the water without the absolute one on one, close instruction that had been promised is just outrageous,” he said. “I just cannot overstate how devastating this has been to this family.”​

 

[DandyDon]

“To put in him the water without the absolute one on one, close instruction that had been promised is just outrageous,” he said. “I just cannot overstate how devastating this has been to this family.”

Wow, if they really promised one-on-one and didn't, that's horrible. If I trusted you with my grandkid, you broke a safety promise and lost him/her - things could get ugly.

 

[CuzzA]

Wow, if they really promised one-on-one and didn't, that's horrible. If I trusted you with my grandkid, you broke a safety promise and lost him/her - things could get ugly.

Don, I think you missed my point. The previous quote said he was with an instructor and team members.

So which is it? Was he alone without direct supervision or was he with an instructor and team members?

Let's get some facts straight first.

 

[Esprise Me]

Does "team members" refer to other employees, or other customers on the DSD? I assumed the latter.

 

[Ayisha]

That lawyer may want to clarify his statements, because there appears to be some double talk that contradicts his own words.

“We don’t know what happened under the water, but he was lost,” Livingston said. “The team members and the instructor surfaced without him. An emergency was called.”

“To put in him the water without the absolute one on one, close instruction that had been promised is just outrageous,” he said. “I just cannot overstate how devastating this has been to this family.”​

I don't see a contradiction at all. The use of the word "absolute" in "absolute one on one, close instruction" seems to refer to the victim possibly being in the charge of an instructor but not watched properly or kept close. Since he was lost, the instructor was clearly not in direct care and control of him. The instructor and others surfaced without him and the victim was found at depth, so the instructor was still not in direct care and control of him.

In other words, it seems to be a statement about the quality of care/instruction he received rather than whether the instructor was present.

 

[CuzzA]

Does "team members" refer to other employees, or other customers on the DSD? I assumed the latter.

Team members sounds like crew, not customers. The instructor's team members.

 

[CuzzA]

I don't see a contradiction at all. The use of the word "absolute" in "absolute one on one, close instruction" seems to refer to the victim possibly being in the charge of an instructor but not watched properly or kept close. Since he was lost, the instructor was clearly not in direct care and control of him. The instructor and others surfaced without him and the victim was found at depth, so the instructor was still not in direct care and control of him.

In other words, it seems to be a statement about the quality of care/instruction he received rather than whether the instructor was present.

But he said they don't know what happened under water. So, at this point it seems we know as much as the lawyer. Which appears to be not much. An instructor with team members were on a dive with the boy. That's about it. Everything else in this thread so far is speculation.

I am not defending the operators, just trying to get to the bottom of what really happened. And when a lawyer is talking, I tend to put my lawyer hat on. He contradicted himself.