Diver dies trapped in wreck in Gran Canaria

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

@brgold @boulderjohn

Why would you hire a DM when an instructor will often work for the same pay, and you have the flexibility to use them as instructors?
I would guess that in by far most of the dive operations in resort areas around the world, the people leading the dives are actually instructors. If you check the many threads over the years in which people are thinking about becoming DMs, you will see that advice given to them.
 
Yes, I think it is mainly instructors who lead dives, and I would EXPECT if I signed up for a more 'extreme' dive somewhere to be led by an Instructor or very experienced Dive guide. The term Divemaster is not used as much in Spain where the official denominations are 'Instructor, Monitor and Guia (guide)'. In the UK it is normal to do buddy dives with a 'Dive Leader' (the BSAC term), and I am sure there will be other local variations. In Europe the term 'Divemaster' in itself is not held in such high esteem as may be the case in the Americas... although I am sure many DM's are equally deserving of the same level of esteem.

Remember also that the main focus of the PADI DM course is to prepare the Divemaster to become a teaching assistant on PADI courses, where they can help the instructor with logistics and supervision, and there is significantly less formal training or testing of dive leadership skills in the practical training elements.

I concur that the small difference in salaries between Instructors and DM's mean that my first choice is always an Instructor.

Finally, one point I missed .. While I am a PADI Instructor and can comment on PADI training, I have no knowledge of whether or not the poor lady had been trained to the PADI syllabus, as much of the training in Spain follows ACUC, SSI and FEDAS standards - another reason to be careful about projecting your own training, knowledge and experiences in this particular case. Most systems follow very similar standards at the core but may vary more at the edges.
 
Yes, I think it is mainly instructors who lead dives, and I would EXPECT if I signed up for a more 'extreme' dive somewhere to be led by an Instructor or very experienced Dive guide. The term Divemaster is not used as much in Spain where the official denominations are 'Instructor, Monitor and Guia (guide)'.

A question I have along the line of names and usage, would a guide be referred to by their function (guide) or by their highest certification (instructor)? Our usage would refer to the job they are doing at the time, divemaster or guide for those leading the dive, and instructor when instructing. What we use for common usage here can be quite different elsewhere, and then there is also translation.
 
Wow, this thread is really going off topic! Then again, it's important to clarify the distinction between credential and role on a dive.

Here is a quick real life story that I was told first hand from the "instructor" in it:

An instructor that I knew in New Hampshire went on a pleasure dive with a buddy in Lake Winnipesaukee. When they arrived, there was a large class setting up for a checkout dive at the site. One of the students was trying to move a heavy weight-belt from her car to the entry point. She somehow managed to drop her weightbelt on her leg and screamed. My friend was nearby and went to check on her. Embarrassed, she waved him off insisting she were ok and didn't need assistance.

A year passed when my friend got summoned in court as defendant in a gross negligence lawsuit. At first he had no idea what was going on. Then he found out...

The open water student that had dropper her weightbelt on her leg had completed her checkout dives, but then gotten a bad infection in her injured leg that required hospitalization and surgery. She was suing her instructor and dive shop for damages, negligence, etc. Her lawyer had learned about my friend being on site, identified him somehow, learned that he held instructor credentials (and liability insurance) and dragged him into the lawsuit as defendant.

So, why was my friend accused of gross negligence? It went like this: Because he were an instructor, he should have known diving after the wieight belt injury would have resulted in severe complications for the woman. It were his duty to tell her that and advise her to discontinue her checkout dives. Because he didn't do this, he had contributory negligence towards her consequent complication. Never mind that he had no relation whatsoever with the class, was at the site in private diver capacity, and never advertised his credentials to the lady or got in her way.

Incredibly, the judge felt that the lawyer's reasoning had merit and allowed for my friend to get dragged through the mud. He was eventually acquitted, but not after he got gray hair from the experience and racked in a ton of expenses. As far as I know his professional liability insurance did not pay anything for his defense because they only insure him when he is teaching, and he clearly was not teaching at the time.


So, there! You now know why many divers with professional credentials don't advertise their standing when they go on pleasure dives. Sometimes, when their credentials are known, they will explicitly declare that they are pleasure diving and won't be assuming any instructor/guide responsibility. This is because somehow people tend to disregard the role of the diver and judge him by his credentials. They often times assume that because he/she is an instructor, he/she should be taking care of them somehow and making their dive safer.

This is why credentials and role are two very different things and recognized as such in many jurisdictions. Then again, there are still a number of backwards jurisdictions that don't make a clear distinction between credential and role, which puts instructors in a very tough spot when they are pleasure diving. We should not assume much about the "instructor" in this accident to mean much beyond than there was somebody present on the boat who had professional credentials of sorts.
 
I promised a more factual update when it became available and here it is.

Before I include the report some explanation...

Scuba diving is a 'Controlled Activity' in Spain meaning it is controlled by LAW. In the UK and the US it is mainly 'Self-regulated' by the main qualification bodies .... Here, a Dive centre needs to meet the diving centre laws, and all divers need to follow a new law (from July this year) which introduced the 40m limit on 'recreational diving'. Put simply If you want to go deeper you need to follow the regulations for 'technical diving' and carry double air, computers etc. It would appear that the group crossed this invisible boundary and were using 'recreational gear' in a 'technical zone'.

The original post by the Guardia Civil can be found in Spanish on the following link ..

#GUARDIACIVIL DETIENE AL GUÍA DE UN... - Benemérita Las Palmas | Facebook

There are two further reports which add a little in the local newspapers, such as :

Detenido el guía de la buceadora que murió atrapada en un buque en La Luz

This is an abridged version of the Guardia Civil post .. I have highlighted some of the subheadings and key phrases..

#GUARDIACIVIL ARRESTS THE GUIDE OF A DIVE CENTER FOR A HOMICIDE FOR SERIOUS IMPRUDENCE IN #GRANCANARIA
• This is the diver who made a dive in the Soo Yang wreck in Puerto de la Luz, which was rescued dead by the Group of Underwater Activities Specialists of the Civil Guard
• From the investigation they have identified several issues of professional malpractice on the part of the dive guide, who was the technical director of the diving company that carried out the activity .
The Civil Guard, within the framework of the NARCOTIS operation, have arrested a 45-year-old person as the alleged perpetrator of a crime of homicide due to gross negligence, thus clarifying the causes of the death of a 27-year-old woman who was trapped after dive in the outer area of the Reina Sofía dock in the ports of La Luz and Las Palmas, in an area or area of sunken wrecks called "narcotics".

Investigation, technical reports and detention The events occurred on October 10 when the Group of Underwater Activities Specialists (GEAS) of the Civil Guard were alerted to the rescue of a female diver who had disappeared inside the sunken Soo Yang wreck, in the area called "the narcotics", where a group of recreational divers, led by a guide, entered.
For this reason, the agents began an investigation in which they detected different illegalities, apart from verifying that the group of divers lacked specific mandatory planning according to the regulations, for conducting pre-dive diving that included a risk assessment; in which, among other things, the place, depth, time, air consumption and above all the experience and qualifications of the diver should have been taken into account.

Even so, the dive was carried out exceeding the depth greater than that allowed and inside a wreck, which due to its technical characteristics carries extreme risks that require experience, training, skill and specific equipment.
On the other hand, the agents were able to verify that the corresponding evacuation plan was not activated according to the manifestations made in the investigation, specifically when they had ascended to the surface the rest of the group did not make the corresponding security stop, being aware of their professional career that if they ascended without stopping, it endangered the lives of the other divers.
For this reason, the agents proceeded to arrest the guide and technical director of a diving training center in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, as well as the local police precinct for the corresponding expert opinion for the alleged responsibility of a homicide due to serious negligence .
Complex and dangerous rescue
The GEAS components carried out a very complicated and dangerous maneuver when they had to access the interior of the ship, in which on the first day they located the body of the deceased diver located in an area of difficult access with narrow passages.
To all this, we must add the amount of silt that was raised by the passage of any diver, a circumstance that caused extreme disorientation causing the loss of the exit even if it was a few centimeters away.
Even with this, the GEAS components in the second dive carried out, located the lifeless body inside the wreck sunk more than 30 years ago, which rests on a seabed 41 meters deep, keel position in the sun where in Inside there are only rusty and sharp metal structures.
With this location, the agents made two more dives the next day to recover and extract the body and all its diving equipment that were in an area of difficult access. A complex maneuver in which the GEAS agents advanced to the outside on their backs to minimize the continuous hookups and obstacles in narrow passages.
Likewise, the same diving specialists from the Civil Guard who had to act to search, locate and recover the body of the diver, witnessed the risks implicit in this dive, which was absolutely outside the parameters of recreational diving.
------------------------------------------------

The newspaper report also confirmed that the lady who lost her life was a doctorate-student in the marine sciences department of the University of Las Palmas, and suggested there were a total of 5 divers.

The video on the GC page shows them inspecting tanks, and then Sealing the dive centre to prevent anyone entering until improvements have been carried out.

I think the last sentence sums up the situation most clearly.
 
Wow, this thread is really going off topic! Then again, it's important to clarify the distinction between credential and role on a dive.

Here is a quick real life story that I was told first hand from the "instructor" in it:
An instructor that I knew in New Hampshire went on a pleasure dive with a buddy in Lake Winnipesaukee. When they arrived, there was a large class setting up for a checkout dive at the site. One of the students was trying to move a heavy weight-belt from her car to the entry point. She somehow managed to drop her weightbelt on her leg and screamed. My friend was nearby and went to check on her. Embarrassed, she waved him off insisting she were ok and didn't need assistance.

A year passed when my friend got summoned in court as defendant in a gross negligence lawsuit. At first he had no idea what was going on. Then he found out...

The open water student that had dropper her weightbelt on her leg had completed her checkout dives, but then gotten a bad infection in her injured leg that required hospitalization and surgery. She was suing her instructor and dive shop for damages, negligence, etc. Her lawyer had learned about my friend being on site, identified him somehow, learned that he held instructor credentials (and liability insurance) and dragged him into the lawsuit as defendant.

So, why was my friend accused of gross negligence? It went like this: Because he were an instructor, he should have known diving after the wieight belt injury would have resulted in severe complications for the woman. It were his duty to tell her that and advise her to discontinue her checkout dives. Because he didn't do this, he had contributory negligence towards her consequent complication. Never mind that he had no relation whatsoever with the class, was at the site in private diver capacity, and never advertised his credentials to the lady or got in her way.

Incredibly, the judge felt that the lawyer's reasoning had merit and allowed for my friend to get dragged through the mud. He was eventually acquitted, but not after he got gray hair from the experience and racked in a ton of expenses. As far as I know his professional liability insurance did not pay anything for his defense because they only insure him when he is teaching, and he clearly was not teaching at the time.


So, there! You now know why many divers with professional credentials don't advertise their standing when they go on pleasure dives. Sometimes, when their credentials are known, they will explicitly declare that they are pleasure diving and won't be assuming any instructor/guide responsibility. This is because somehow people tend to disregard the role of the diver and judge him by his credentials. They often times assume that because he/she is an instructor, he/she should be taking care of them somehow and making their dive safer.

This is why credentials and role are two very different things and recognized as such in many jurisdictions. Then again, there are still a number of backwards jurisdictions that don't make a clear distinction between credential and role, which puts instructors in a very tough spot when they are pleasure diving. We should not assume much about the "instructor" in this accident to mean much beyond than there was somebody present on the boat who had professional credentials of sorts.

@oceancurrent

Nice story, diving lore?

Was this a New Hampshire or federal case?

Do you have the caption of the case?
The case reference number?
The approximate year the case was filed?
The name of any of the parties?
I am bored today, are you able to direct me to any of the jurisdictions referenced in the quote from your post? Better yet, the appellate ruling that supports your claim? Just one of those 'backward jurisdictions' - a case reference would be nice.

"Then again, there are still a number of backwards jurisdictions that don't make a clear distinction between credential and role, which puts instructors in a very tough spot when they are pleasure diving."
Gross Negligence in New Hampshire?

James Moss, JD, seemingly a Colorado guy

New Hampshire does not recognize more than one type of negligence, simple or ordinary negligence. Claims for gross negligence, say to void a release, do not exist.

Barnes and a. v. New Hampshire Karting Association, Inc, 128 N.H. 102; 509 A.2d 151; 1986 N.H. LEXIS 254

"There is only one claim in New Hampshire for negligence no matter egregious the defendants’ actions."

Me? I like sea-tales as much as any other diver - all the better when fueled by a strong drink.

Let's take a look at your case and get the facts.

**************************

Acquittal

Definition
At the end of a criminal trial, a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not guilty. An acquittal signifies that a prosecutor failed to prove his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that a defendant is innocent. Thus, a person may be acquitted of a crime but found civilly liable in a civil case <<>>.
 
@brgold Thank you for sharing this story. It certainly helps shed light on the Guardia Civil take on the accident. It was a commercially guided dive, so clearly the dive leader has to answer for what happened. Then again, there is something to be said as well about the recklessness of divers who agree to participate in a technical dive that is clearly beyond their qualifications.

@Cert1967 Thanks you for reading the story and correcting my terminology. Sure, I understand that you are mighty bored, COVID and all. If it will make you happy to label it "sea tales", I am not going to loose any sleep over it! Cheers!
 
Cert1967 Thanks you for reading the story and correcting my terminology. Sure, I understand that you are mighty bored, COVID and all. If it will make you happy to label it "sea tales", I am not going to loose any sleep over it! Cheers!
I personally do not wish to have this issue put to bed so easily.

The issue you describe is one you often see debated on ScubaBoard, and it is an issue of great importance to instructors like me. You frequently see instructors claim that they never reveal their actual dive status because of 1) fears of liability and 2) fears that they will be asked to chaperone a beginning diver rather than dive at their own ability. In response, you see instructors (including me) scoff at such stories. I always show my professional status, and I have never been asked to chaperone a beginning diver; in fact, it is pretty much the opposite. As for being sued just for being on the boat, the usual response is to ask people to produce one case--any case--in which it has actually happened.

There was a close case a couple of years ago in which a British dive instructor on a trip in Malta was charged in a dive in which people died simply because he was the most senior diver in the group and supposedly should have called off a dive that was deemed to be too dangerous. That case was dismissed pretty quickly, I would guess in large part because all the dive operators in Malta knew that if the case were to proceed, they would all go out of business quickly because no one would risk diving in Malta. (The details are in a ScubaBoard thread in the court case section.)

So your are citing a case in which something like that happened, something that should make all instructors tremble in fear. @Cert1967 has asked you for details. So am I, because it will affect my future decisions.

When my older son graduated from high school, one of his best friends took a summer job as a river rafting guide, and we took a trip with him. During the bus ride to the put-in spot, a guide gave us instructions for the coming trip, instructions with lurid warning tales of rafters who did not follow instructions. Our son's friend later told us that all the stories were fake, made up to drive the points home. People do that. They tell those tales to others, and those others repeat them in full confidence that they were true. It goes on and on and on, often with even more lurid details added, with none of the people repeating the stories knowing they have no basis in fact.

So is your story one of those, a story you repeated in good faith after hearing it from someone who repeated it in good faith? Or is it an actual case we need to know about? Inquiring minds really do want to know.
 
Recreational diver @ 40M... then entering a wreck... what was that instructor/DM thinking...

At 40M, I'd argue, even a swim through is too dangerous for a recreationally equipped diver. NDL is way to short for any problem, everyone should be prepared to deco as worst case...

RIP. Best wishes to her family.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom