Concerns raised about agency response to student fatality

[Marie13]

Pete, or anyone with more knowledge, would whistleblower laws apply in such a situation?

ETA: meant more knowledge than me! I wasn't saying Pete is a light weight.

 

[Wookie]

Pete, or anyone with more knowledge, would whistleblower laws apply in such a situation?

Who would the whistle blower be. This isn't whistle blowing, it's members of a club who don't like what the BoD are doing. No laws were broken except scuba laws. And the scuba police are resting today.

 

[Wookie]

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.

While I agree with you in theory, except for raising the level of a Scuba fatality to having citizenship revoked, the reality is that IANTD is a privately held corporation, and they can run it as tightly or loosely as they want. PADI runs a tight ship. Their rules are written down and followed, and if you don't like the outcome, you can do as you and I did, and leave. NAUI seems to be undergoing some angst in the BOD right now, and some members are not happy, and have a choice to make. SDI (I know you have your problems with them) is the straightest of all of them, as the president bought the company and although I'm sure he has a BoD, he pretty much runs it the way he wants. I would have said the same about IANTD (I am friends with many of their BoD) until about a year ago. Now, I don't know what to think, but I don't see this as the equivalent of losing your citizenship because you trash talked the government. I see why you do. I see it as a club, and there are other clubs that perform the same service, and you no longer agree with the direction the club is going in. Time to find a new club.

 

[The Chairman]

Pete, or anyone with more knowledge, would whistleblower laws apply in such a situation?

Someone with more knowledge than moi? Impossible!!! Ban them! [/self sarcasm] But that's how the agencies are coming across, n'est pas? It's as petty as it is unethical. unfortunately, I don't think pettiness, hypocrisy or crappy ethics are against any law. They just keep instructors like myself from crossing over.

 

[The Chairman]

(I know you have your problems with them)

I do? That's the one agency I've been associated with the longest. Have they effed up from time to time? Sure, and I've called them on it here. They haven't banned me for speaking my mind and I don't feel I have any "problems" with them.

I try to limit my remarks to the agencies I represent, so that would be both NASE and SDI/TDI. Neither are perfect by any means and should be criticized privately and publicly.

except for raising the level of a Scuba fatality to having citizenship revoked,

No, Frank. They are revoking the citizenship of the people who criticized them for how they responded to these situations. It's heavy handed and bassackwards. Better to learn from your critics than try to silence them. That's what i do. Mods aren't allowed to censor any criticisms of me, them or ScubaBoard. We encourage people to tell us how to do things better for them. We won't agree with them all, but we certainly listen. But, while it's OK to call me a name, I don't allow calling the staff names. Criticize them in the proper forum all you want, just keep it civil.

I see it as a club, and there are other clubs that perform the same service, and you no longer agree with the direction the club is going in. Time to find a new club.

On this we agree. Guilt by association or dissociation depending on your view point. As I last posted:

They just keep instructors like myself from crossing over.

 

[jerrwhy01]

Pete, or anyone with more knowledge, would whistleblower laws apply in such a situation?

Marie it really wouldn't as the instructor(s) writing the open letter weren't actual witnesses to the event, in so far as I know. Secondly, the accident took place outside the jurisdiction of the United States. 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.

Right now the whistle is being blown. It's just happening thru social media. There's a response on another forum from IANTD and I half heartedly skimmed thru it but I wasn't impressed by what I saw. That could be because of privacy liability, or it could be because of politics.

Thanks to Social Media the media has lost the ability to control the narrative. It's not different with any other company; they can no longer control or dictate the message.

I don't know how much of the Open Letter is true and factual and what's not. I do know that the writers and the people signing it put themselves on the line and were willing to take the hit. That says a lot.

 

[RainPilot]

Aside from other issues it seems that they certified an instructor off the back of a fatal dive.

The sheer poor taste and disrespect embodied in that tells me everything I need to know about the agency as far as my disposable dollars go.

As far as tarring and feathering the IT etc I don't have enough info to be certain of my case, there certainly is a LOT of smoke for what the management insists is no fire.

 

[Neilwood]

I think, that by the lack of transparency in the process, they will lose potential students and instructors in the future.

I would take it that, by virtue of those instructors putting their names to the open letter, they certainly believe there are culpability issues that remain to be addressed.

If an agency is seen to condone (or ignore) those safety concerns, I would (and I am sure others would as well) have serious issue with aligning myself with them. From what I see of the complaints (and taking them at face value), a number of them seem to be basic tenets of cave diving and instruction.

From a potential students point of view - would I ever trust an instructor from that agency completely? Would I feel my certificate is worth anything if they throw the caving safety rule book out the window? I doubt I will ever think about trying cave diving myself but I would certainly now have issues taking any training from this agency.

If I were an instructor I would also wonder about the agencies principles if they are willing to let these issues slide. Would I like my name associated with an agency that condones these issues?

 

[kelemvor]

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.

The agency owners must have recently taken a "business ethics" course. Which is basically the exact opposite of "regular" ethics.

 

[Darghu]

This story give a bad reputation to IANTD and I was told they were not bad at all specially for cave diving.
After all it all depend of instructors.

I follow also Neilwood as I am looking to get contact into instructors for a future course this is kinda hard to make a final choice.
This topic is really interesting : How to choose a Cave Instructor - My opinion
and more topics like that one must be popular. Thanks for having that one.