Accident at Lake Rawlings Sunday 05/27/2012

[Sorrows]

How many students, or even certified divers struggle to tell their buddies, friends, even family members apart in a group of divers.... Someone could be right behind or right above you and for a new diver, or even a somewhat experienced diver could struggle to find them. ...A lot of this seems odd, the actions of the buddy do not.

It's a big sea of mostly black wetsuits, and if it weren't for different-colored/shaped fins, I'd be in a heap of trouble. And surely even the dive gods will admit to times--perhaps just seconds long--when your "lost" buddy is right above you.

I really don't like this "blame the victim" mentality--and I don't see how these people would not be considered victims of negligence and incompetence.

 

[t-mac]

Finally, if the viz was 10-15 feet, it's not great, but he certainly should have been within that range as her dive buddy. They say the viz was terrible at the bottom, but that was a result of kicking up silt. I have to wonder what transpired from the time the husband/wife team were together, to the time he lost her, and finally why he didn't immediately notify the instructor of his missing buddy, instead of lagging behind the group, looking for her himself.

I've taught other husband/wife dive buddy teams during Open Water classes, and normally have to pry them apart.

I dont' know, just seems rather odd.

Anyone have any info on this?

First of all, irrespective of the actions of the dive buddy, presumably also only on the third OW dive of their life, this is the instructor's responsibility. Buddy or no buddy, this is 100% clear to me. Second, you are not the first person to suggest this and I know a lot of people are wondering about it. Unless I missed something, we do not, in fact, know whether her husband was even her buddy. My wife and I did OW together and we were intentionally separated and paired with other people. Yes, we watched each other, but it was quite difficult when everyone is in the same black marshmallow man uniform. You really don't know who is who. Unfortunately, we still know very little about the facts here. All we know for certain is that the instructor is no longer with PADI and that says a lot to me. From people who claim to have been there, we have heard nothing but defense of her husband and until we have further facts, I accept those views. If it were me and my wife, yes, I would have been laser-focused and I like to believe this would not have happened, but I simply do not know enough about what REALLY happened. I feel terrible for him and I think we have no reason whatsoever to consider his involvement, whether complicit or negligent. I suggest that we focus on obtaining objective facts and not building conspiracies that are simply hurtful to innocent people who are suffering from this tragedy more than any of us can imagine.

 

[hypertech]

For the record, I can't see how discussing written text, freely available, written by the high court for public consumption is more scary dangerous than people offering opinions about a fatal accident they did not see.

Because people talking about an accident probably isn't going to do harm. People publishing conclusions of law that others might rely on can do harm. A lot of harm. Consider that someone might read comments like yours and decide they don't need a waiver and then get into trouble and it turns out the waiver may have helped their situation. They could be put in financial ruin.

No matter how well you think you understand the situation you very well could be missing the boat. As an immediate example, you seem to be assuming all the waiver does is protect against negligence. The critical issue might be whether there even was negligence and that decision you keep citing very well may be irrelevant.

 

[AwkwardSwimmer]

Hypertech,

Where did he say that you don't need a waiver. As far as I read it, the only thing trying to be conveyed was that a waiver will not be valid if negligence is involved.

I take this as "You are going skydiving, skydiving is dangerous. There will be an expert tandem jumping with you that will watch out for your safety. However there are risks and strain on the body, be aware of this and sign here" If I have a heart attack because I was so scared, I could not sue. However if we jump out of the plane and I break away from my "expert" because he just forgot to hook me in correctly. We'll then my family would sue them because that waiver would not hold up. Just like the various SCUBA waivers that say there are risks but you will be under the supervision of a trained professional. I'd say a student being left behind AND that professional not noticing might just maybe count as negligence.

I don't see where anyone has said not to use a waiver or where anyone has tried to make statements that they would try to apply to every diving situation or incident.

 

[BDSC]

I know that there are folks on this thread that were there that day. Several. I was just wondering if anyone overheard what, if anything, the instructor had to say about what happened.

 

[boulderjohn]

Where did he say that you don't need a waiver. As far as I read it, the only thing trying to be conveyed was that a waiver will not be valid if negligence is involved.

After rereading the posts, i honestly don't know what he is saying.

On post 304 I said pretty much what you just said he said. But on post 305 he seemed to say I was wrong in the case of Virginia. He seemed to be saying before that it is not valid for anything in Virginia. I got that message from other previous posts as well.

But, as I said, I'm not sure.

 

[HIGHwing]

Consider that someone might read comments like yours and decide they don't need a waiver and then get into trouble and it turns out the waiver may have helped their situation. They could be put in financial ruin.

As you pointed out I never said don't bother with the Liability and Assumption of Risk Form for any reason, that's a conclusion you reached. I didn't walk the dog to a new dog park, you did.

Clearly there's really only one way to find out just how well that form works. I know this much, I formally asked PADI legal to get me a response about how that form holds up nearly two weeks ago, and they're currently 10-days overdue on their promised three-day turn around. I pointed out the relevant decisions, and how Virginia has repeatedly said in decision after decision that the percentages of Liability and Risk must be openly bartered for aren't present on the form.

 

[hypertech]

As you pointed out I never said don't bother with the Liability and Assumption of Risk Form for any reason, that's a conclusion you reached. I didn't walk the dog to a new dog park, you did.

It seems that I wasn't the only one that got that impression from your many references to case law in this thread. All I did was urge caution when drawing legal conclusions - especially since you admit you are not a lawyer.

 

[HIGHwing]

It seems that I wasn't the only one that got that impression from your many references to case law in this thread. All I did was urge caution when drawing legal conclusions - especially since you admit you are not a lawyer.

Isn't it interesting? We ask non-attorneys to read and understand forms, letters, and documents written by exclusively by attorneys all the time. Upon issuance we then immediately presume those instruments and the documents that serve as the founding materials, ideas, and concepts are so complicated that the common man is just signing everything in the blind with no understanding or basis. In fact, we even believe it would be heinous to even speak about our understanding of the laws, forms, and legal instruments such that we could further our understanding in a relevant conversation.

If an instructor is taking legal advice from ScubaBoard.com, that's a problem unto itself.

I think we covered it.

 

[Diveva]

Heading to the memorial platform, witnesses pass a group of divers heading in the opposite direction, the group is spread out in a "follow the leader" formation. The group disappears due to the viz, then the witnesses see a single diver heading in the same general direction as the group that passed, based on position, the witness notices that the single diver can't see the group. (the single diver is to the witnesses left and the group disappeared is to the right, the witness is between the two and can't see the group.) witnesses notice that the single diver seems to be stressed and looking for someone or something, One of the witnesses begins to head over to offer assistance but before the witness can get there the single diver finds the group and re joins, the witness turns and rejoins his group. This ladies and gentlemen is factual.

So the question remains why didn't the instructor notice TWO divers missing from his class? Yes ladies and gentlemen, two divers. If the witnesses couldn't see the last of the group when they saw the single diver, how could the instructor see him? The victim isn't in the group either because the husband told the instructor on the surface that his buddy was missing. Gills Would Be Better wants to know what was going on with the buddy team, it's easy, the husband is looking for his wife while trying not to lose the group. The Instructor doesn't see this because he is setting the pace of the dive, not the slowest diver.