Concerns raised about agency response to student fatality

[Wookie]

I have a procedural question regarding this scenario. Not specific to cave diving. If an allegation of wrong-doing is made against an agency, and the agency investigates and clears the accused of wrong-doing (doesn't mean he was or wasn't innocent, but officially, he's been cleared), and one or more others in the agency publicly 'protest' that decision, is that normally grounds for potential disciplinary action?

I'm asking with these points in mind:

1.) Remember the double-jeopardy laws that prevent a person from being tried twice for the same crime in the U.S., even if new evidence turns up? Well, here we're talking about agency regulations, and not a U.S.-specific event, but is there anything like this to consider? Do agencies 're-try' people?

2.) If not, was it feasible the decision might be over-turned?

3.) If a member is cleared by the agency, and another member publicly accuses him of wrong-doing in regard to the incident, does that tend to be viewed as harassment or slander of some sort?

Richard.

I can only answer from the perspective of a PADI instructor, as I was one the longest.

If a QA is filed against an instructor, by another instructor, the other instructor must see the standards violation. That likely did not happen here.

The agency, IANTD in this case, probably considers this to be a dogpile on the other instructor. None of us were there, none of us saw what may be extenuating circumstances, therefore, dogpiling is frowned on, as it is here on ScubaBoard.

No one knows what happened except the instructor, and he may not know. To all appearances he lost student control, which just isn't cricket. But no one else knows the story, except presumably IANTD, who cleared the instructor. They know something we don't. Maybe it was something trying to prevent future litigation. Think of the Rob Stewart case happening right here. There is a ton of information that has not come out in that case.

Bring disrepute on an agency is cause for counseling and/or expulsion. Sounds like the folks who dogpiled on were expelled, which is just what IANTD said would happen.

 

[The Chairman]

Double jeopardy only applies to criminal law in the US. Civil law, and that would include anything an agency would do, is wide open in that regard. Is IANTD in the US separate from IANTD in other countries? I'm not sure I would fault the US organization for something done by another synod elsewhere.

Bring disrepute on an agency is cause for counseling and/or expulsion.

This is nothing but censorship in my eye. It's unhealthy for the agency, the industry and the sport. It smacks of cover up and that only breeds distrust.

 

[KevinNM]

IANTD also cleared the instructor who abandoned a student inside a cave by pulling the jumps as he exited without her. This suggests something about the organization to me.

 

[boulderjohn]

IANTD also cleared the instructor who abandoned a student inside a cave by pulling the jumps as he exited without her. This suggests something about the organization to me.

FYI
Another accident in Tulum Cave Diving

 

[Jack Hammer]

I can get over training at a questionable site if there are extenuating circumstances and the students are prequalified, reasonable precautions taken, and it's somewhat progressive (though I'd likely disagree with it on principle). That said, I have a huge issue with (if reports are accurate) no guideline, an intro cave student left alone, and no other instructor bringing up the rear.

I also have difficulty seeing how the instructor trainee passed.

 

[Nirvana]

I have a procedural question regarding this scenario. Not specific to cave diving. If an allegation of wrong-doing is made against an agency, and the agency investigates and clears the accused of wrong-doing (doesn't mean he was or wasn't innocent, but officially, he's been cleared), and one or more others in the agency publicly 'protest' that decision, is that normally grounds for potential disciplinary action?

I'm asking with these points in mind:

1.) Remember the double-jeopardy laws that prevent a person from being tried twice for the same crime in the U.S., even if new evidence turns up? Well, here we're talking about agency regulations, and not a U.S.-specific event, but is there anything like this to consider? Do agencies 're-try' people?

2.) If not, was it feasible the decision might be over-turned?

3.) If a member is cleared by the agency, and another member publicly accuses him of wrong-doing in regard to the incident, does that tend to be viewed as harassment or slander of some sort?

Richard.

1.) The rule prohibiting a second trial for the same offence is, in most countries, a guarantee of the individual against the State. It does not apply automatically to relationships between private individuals or to disciplinary procedures in a private corporation or association. Local laws may, however, set general rules for exclusion of a member of different types of societies.

2.) Depends on the bylaws governing the society they belonged to (e.g. IANTD Europe).

3.) What I see are IANTD members accusing the agency of doing a poor job of thoroughly looking into the causes of a fatal incident. It seems to me that, at the very least, IANTD has failed to address the concerns of its body of instructors and of certified divers that it is interested in upholding a high standard of instruction and that it is seriously invested in assuring that students are not exposed to unnecessary and grave risk.

 

[Darghu]

A man died, why the penal/criminal laws didn't (?) put a nose into it? I'm kinda surprise that no justice with jail possible future is not here.

 

[Patoux01]

There's this one as well. Krzysztof Starnawski

IANTD did some obscure things recently I have to say. And the people that speak up against it definitely are not the worst instructors I know.

 

[Oldbear]

Sad...just sad.

But could you imagine the out cry within the industry if PADI or NAUI did this?

 

[The Chairman]

I know the agencies as a norm don't like Social Media because they can't control us. So, they try to control the message with naked intimidation instead. If they don't like what you posted, they kick you out or suspend you in the name of "professional ethics".

ETHICS!​

Is it ethical for instructors to remain silent when they see a problem? Is it ethical for them to not try to change a situation where an instructor gets rewarded for contributing to a student's death? Most reading this would give a "Hell No!" to either question, but I can tell you the agencies don't like such openness. It's my opinion that the agencies need a class in professional ethics for the information age. These instructors are whistle blowers and expulsion of them might be expedient, but it certainly isn't ethical. Ethics is changing the corporate environment so that bad instructors are exposed instead of simply turning a blind eye to them. Could you imagine loosing your citizenship because you openly criticized your government? That's what's happening here. It's like living in North Korea and who would ever suggest that they are ethical? It's the height of hypocrisy to cite ethics to oust an instructor over their criticisms. They need to stop trying to suppress discussion and truth with these draconian methods. It's not healthy! They should be listening to these criticisms, answering them and not trying to suppress them. You don't win on the internet by intimidating your instructors into silence. That will always backlash on you like it's doing here. No, you win it by holding your instructors who injure students accountable and being open about it.