Not exactly. I am pretty confident that I am not 'leading' in either scenario, that I am not 'in charge' in either scenario, just because I happen to be an Instructor. Even in the first case, where I assigned the mapping project, I am not 'in charge' of what they are doing independently while completing it (as long as I don't assign a project that requires them to dive in conditions that are clearly beyond any prior training or experience, or that are predictably hazardous beyond the level of recreational diving in general - which is definitely not the case). So, I actually have no real 'concern', although I used the term for the sake of discussion. Rather, I used these examples to illustrate that sometimes the situation can be misinterpreted, and perhaps an Instructor's responsibility is not altogether clear - to others.Abdullah:
In some cases an Instructor's responsibility is clear:
I fully agree. This part is fairly obvious. It is not clear to me, in the reported incident, that the divers were 'students', nor is it in any way clear that an Instructor or Divemaster was 'leading' a dive. What I was raising is the issue of when other divers are the 'charges' of an Instructor. And, I think, if I understand your comments, that you are agreeing with the distinction between 'leading' and 'accompanying'. And, that is what I was trying to address. Perhaps, I was too oblique is describing the issue as 'thought-provoking'. Let me try it a different way. It is not clear in this case that there was a 'class' or 'course' being conducted, irrespective of what the news reports may have asserted. It is not clear that a dive was being 'led', although maybe, I missed an important fact that made that clear. I used the example of the 'tank full of oxygen' to illustrate that news reports may contain factually inaccurate information. So, just because the news report (of the autopsy results) refers to 'diving classmates', I am not certain that is accurate, either. We also have second hand information from another poster (freewillie), suggesting that the dive was NOT a class. But, consider a hypothetical possibility. Let's say, that an Instructor was present in the group, that s/he was simply accompanying the group on a recreational dive. Let's say s/he was taking pictures as well, and not keeping track of buddy teams - it was, after all, a non-class, non-course recreational dive. But, let's say that some other divers decided to follow that Instructor, thinking that s/he might know where to find some interesting objects to photograph, and that s/he actually took time to point out some interesting things that they others might want to take pictures of. Is s/he now responsible for them?
Finally, the other 'tough-provoking' issue, for me at least, is whether such an incident reflects the quality of initial dive training, or somehow reflects a general deterioration of dive training, standards, etc. A diver a) dies in relatively shallow water, b) goes missing during a dive and that is not noticed until after other divers surface, c) is found to have drowned, d) that his cylinder was empty, and e) his weight belt was in place. I agree with a poster who stated this never should have happened. But, I have no basis for concluding this reflects some selective failure of initial instruction, a more general deterioration of dive instruction. I can certify a diver who meets and 'exceeds' (in my opinion) all training standards, adheres to the buddy system assiduously during class, drops their weight belt quickly and effortlessly when simulating a need to immediately establish positive buoyancy, etc., etc., etc. And, they can still get dead at a later time under circumstances that suggest failure to follow fundamental procedures. I don't know that I would use that as an indictment of dive training in the specific case, or in general.
Last edited:
