POINTING FINGERS AFTER A DIVER’S DEATH (rant & discussion)

[Ken Kurtis]

Not trying start a big back-and-forth here but . . .

. . . the dive industry has made certification in a variety of 'specialties" a formal thing. You don't just have "divers" aboard, you have OW Divers, AOW divers, Nitrox divers, AN/DP divers, solo etc.

Yes and no. The training agencies had made it VERY clear that they are just that: TRAINING agencies. By that, I mean they set standards for training divers, but they do NOT set standards for how those divers dive once they are certified at any given level. You may see phrases like "recommended depth following certification" or something like that, but they all make it pretty clear that once you're certified, it's out of their hands unless it's a training issue.

. . . a boat captain/charter op isn't just a taxi, they have a responsibility to exercise due diligence and judgement.

I hope you don't think that's what I'm saying because I'm not at all remotely suggesting that. But I AM saying they get blamed for things outside of their influence (as do shops & instructors). From a boat standpoint, I would say they certainly have a duty to you while you're on the boat and on the way out to the dive site, on the way back, as well as on the surface either pre-submerge or post-surfacing. But how can they possibly have a duty to monitor your dive and prevent you from doing dangerous things when you're underwater and out of their influence? Since you brought up skydiving, does the airplane pilot who took you up have a responsibility to make sure you pop your chute at the right time?

The analogy I sometimes use is you take the 9AM ferry over to an island and get off. You fully intend to take the 11AM ferry back. While you're off the boat and on the island walking around, at 10AM you step off a curb without looking and are hit and killed by a truck. Is that the fault of the boat captain? Because he took you to the island and if he hadn't, this wouldn't have happened. Would you hold him/her negligent? And if the answer is no, what's the difference between that and willingly jumping off the boat with the intention of coming back but doing something underwater that's the equivalent of stepping in front of a moving truck?

That means if you are going deeper than 60, a AOW or higher card, if you are going over 100 a Deep diver card, it could be argued that any diver that is going on a boat should be "boat specialty diver" certified as well.

If that's the route you want to go, then you should add "Oil Rig" certified, "Low Visibility" certified, "Current" certified, "Saturday dive" certified, "Holiday" certified, etc. Where would you suggest we draw the line?

I'm not trying to goad or troll you here but suppose the boat goes to a site that has a moderate slope to it. The boat anchors in 30 feet of water. The slope goes up to the surface as you go shallower, and exceeds recreational depths as you go deeper. But it can be easily dove (dived?? diven???) at any depth. There are no currents, visibility, or other issues, only depth. You have a mix of OW, Advanced, Master, and other divers on board. There is no training going on. The boat captain briefs the site and even says, "If you are only OW-certified, please stay above 60 feet. If you are Advanced, please stay above 100 feet. And everyone should remember the maximum recreational dive depth is 130 feet for any qualified diver on any dive." So two questions:

1. Does that briefing meet your standard of due diligence?
2. Whether it does or doesn't, how would you suggest the boat captain ensure that no diver exceeds their qualified depth?

And this whole line of discussion totally ignores something that's more of a west coast thing than an east coast thing which is a boat that's chartered as opposed to "open". In other words, many (most??) east coast boats have you sign up directly with the boat and they provide the DMs, choose the dives sites, etc. Many west coast boats - especially SoCal - run as open boats but also charter to dive shops where the shop solicits the divers, provides the DMs, and sets the dive location. How does that change things, if at all?

I think what it simply comes down to is we live in a society where people don't like to take responsibility for their own actions or inactions. They tend to want to blame someone else. Divers screw up. Boats screw up. DMs screw up. Instructors screw up. But a lot of times, we seem not to make any distinction and simply say, "Blame the boat guy because he/she took them there."

(Which begs the other questions: Who do you blame for a shore-entry dive where the OW diver exceeds their depth limit and then dies? Should a suit be filed against the lifeguard? Or against the city where the beach is located if no lifeguard was on duty? Again, where do you draw the line?)

- Ken

 

[ams511]

It's interesting that you begin an emotional and baseless attack on me with that verbiage. Maybe ironic is a better word.

I am not being emotional nor attacking you. I am sorry you feel that way. I see this as a friendly disagreement.

What excuse did I make? You seem to want to keep this emotional, but I would rather find the real culprit. You want to assign greed where incompetence is a far better descriptor. How are you going to help these people change? Tell them to not worry about their profits? If they were really worried about profits they would do everything they could to avoid accidents. Let's leave the vilifying people you don't like to American politics. There's just no need for that in accident analysis. I think this is the attitude that has rankled Ken so much. Take the emotions out!

You are the one being emotional not me. You are excusing their greed for incompetence. Incompetence is not knowing the bilge pumps are not working. Greed is making the decision to go out with non-working bilge pumps. I do not want these people to change, I want them out of business so that they 1) Kill or injure no one again and 2) Allow good operations to flourish. Accidents and the resulting bad publicity hurts the diving industry.

The "operator" was merely an owner. Here is where emotions cause problems. You want to assign blame somewhere. I know a captain quit that outfit due to the condition of the "Get We". In fact, the replacement captain chose to leave the dock that morning without a working bilge pump. You have to be an American Citizen to be a captain. Obviously, neither of the Brits could fulfil that role. Were they negligent? I think so, but not as much as the captain who lost his license over this. But for every death caused by a dive op, I'll show you a hundred more caused by the diver.

I was almost left by a boat in Florida's Panhandle. They had pulled anchor and were in the process of leaving the site when my sausage broke the surface and was spotted by the other divers. They did a roll call and someone else answered for us. Do I blame the boat captain and crew? Sure, but I don't think it had anything to do with greed. This is one reason why my AOW students learn to shoot a sausage from depth. My actions resulted in me surfacing to see smiling faces from the captain and crew instead of drifting aimlessly in the Gulf. Stack the deck in your favor. Mistakes are going to be made and I'm not going to limit my diving to going out only with Frank. Know and honor your limits. Learn how to dive in a way that makes your survival a foregone conclusion.

Again you are making excuses. "The "operator" was merely an owner." The owner is responsible for his business and his employees. This idea goes back to English common law. Something two Brits should understand. The fact that one captain quit over the condition of the boat should have been enough for them to repair it. The fact that they decided to hire a new captain rather than repair the boat is greed not incompetence. I do not understand how you can logically argue otherwise.

As far as you being almost left by the boat in the Panhandle, I do not know the circumstances. However, from my limited understanding of dive operations, a verbal roll call is not sufficient for the boat to leave the site. There must be a physical head count or some other system in place to account for the divers. For example, I heard some ops give divers a token upon leaving the boat which they then put on a peg board on returning to the boat. If the token is not there then they know who is missing.

If there are too many divers for one DM to keep track of, then there should be two or more on the boat. After all they work for next to nothing.

You can call this incompetence if you want, but if a dive op cannot keep qualified people because they pay so low is this greed or incompetence?

 

[The Chairman]

You are excusing their greed for incompetence.

Please. You keep saying that I'm excusing them, and I haven't done any such thing. You ascribe these accidents to malfeasance, aka greed and I attribute them to simple incompetence. How would you feel if I said you were excusing their incompetence? You wouldn't want anyone to accuse of excusing bad behaviour because you haven't done that. It's nothing but an emotional attempt to win your argument and I find it intellectually bankrupt. Just stop accusing me of anything but disagreeing with you. There's no need to attack me like that.

I do not know the circumstances.

Obviously, you don't. Counting was actually replaced by a verbal roll call because miscounting is so stinking easy and common. You should never, ever answer for someone else. Counts fail when the boat is chaotic and there are MORE than one deck hand. Frank takes an amazingly simple and effective approach. After his deck hands give the all clear, he physically greets every diver and asks if they are fine. He looks at their eyes, and makes sure that there are asymptomatic. The boat doesn't move until Frank is satisfied. He's the only one who can make that decision. He's the only captain I know who does this. Why? He's ultra competent and the most conscientious captain I know.

 

[ams511]

Please. You keep saying that I'm excusing them, and I haven't done any such thing. You ascribe these accidents to malfeasance, aka greed and I attribute them to simple incompetence. How would you feel if I said you were excusing their incompetence? You wouldn't want anyone to accuse of excusing bad behaviour because you haven't done that. It's nothing but an emotional attempt to win your argument and I find it intellectually bankrupt. Just stop accusing me of anything but disagreeing with you. There's no need to attack me like that.

Again I am not attacking you. My argument is logical, not emotional. The facts as you put forth are as follows: A dive boat was owned by two Brits. The old Captain of the dive boat mentions the boat needs repairs. The owners choose not to repair the boat. The old Captain resigns over the boat not being seaworthy. Rather than trust the judgement of a seasoned professional and repair the boat they hire a new Captain. The new Captain takes the boat out and it sinks from non-working bilge pumps, killing one and injuring others. Now the question is why did the boat leave the dock that day? Because the boat was carrying paying passengers, it is safe to say the trip was profit-motivated, what you call greed and malfeasance. Both the Captain and the owners knew the boat was in need of repairs yet disregarded that information in order to make money. If they never checked the pumps then I would agree with you that they are just incompetent, but they did know and chose to disregard that information. Please tell me where my argument relies on emotion.

Obviously, you don't. Counting was actually replaced by a verbal roll call because miscounting is so stinking easy and common. You should never, ever answer for someone else. Counts fail when the boat is chaotic and there are MORE than one deck hand. Frank takes an amazingly simple and effective approach. After his deck hands give the all clear, he physically greets every diver and asks if they are fine. He looks at their eyes, and makes sure that there are asymptomatic. The boat doesn't move until Frank is satisfied. He's the only one who can make that decision. He's the only captain I know who does this. Why? He's ultra competent and the most conscientious captain I know.

Do you think Captain Frank would knowing take out a boat that he knew was in disrepair?

 

[cerich]

Again I am not attacking you. My argument is logical, not emotional. The facts as you put forth are as follows: A dive boat was owned by two Brits. The old Captain of the dive boat mentions the boat needs repairs. The owners choose not to repair the boat. The old Captain resigns over the boat not being seaworthy. Rather than trust the judgement of a seasoned professional and repair the boat they hire a new Captain. The new Captain takes the boat out and it sinks from non-working bilge pumps, killing one and injuring others. Now the question is why did the boat leave the dock that day? Because the boat was carrying paying passengers, it is safe to say the trip was profit-motivated, what you call greed and malfeasance. Both the Captain and the owners knew the boat was in need of repairs yet disregarded that information in order to make money. If they never checked the pumps then I would agree with you that they are just incompetent, but they did know and chose to disregard that information. Please tell me where my argument relies on emotion.



Do you think Captain Frank would knowing take out a boat that he knew was in disrepair?

a grand jury agreed with you, thus the arrest warrant. While not definitive, i suspect the great efforts said brits have made to escape having to present their side makes me feel they were POS scum bags that indeed did care less about the consequences of not running a safe operation and in fact made the conscious decision to run a unsafe one for money reasons.

I can't help but wonder if these folks are still instructors for some agency...

 

[Basking Ridge Diver]

And if the answer is no, what's the difference between that and willingly jumping off the boat with the intention of coming back but doing something underwater that's the equivalent of stepping in front of a moving truck?

Most if not all people were not trained and given a certification that says they know a truck is dangerous when they step off the curb.

In scuba you get a certification that says at least at the point the card was given to you - you understand the dangers...
In the general public's eye that certification allows the leeway to go after the training agency and boat... Since once you are certified you must know what you are doing - and if you do - it must be someone else's fault... No?

BTW I am just making the argument - I am not advocating no responsibility of the diver...

 

[Trailboss123]

But it can be easily dove (dived?? diven???) at any depth.

Dived
Great post Ken-- This has been a very entertaining and educational read. Thanks for posting.

 

[ams511]

Most if not all people were not trained and given a certification that says they know a truck is dangerous when they step off the curb.

In scuba you get a certification that says at least at the point the card was given to you - you understand the dangers...
In the general public's eye that certification allows the leeway to go after the training agency and boat... Since once you are certified you must know what you are doing - and if you do - it must be someone else's fault... No?

BTW I am just making the argument - I am not advocating no responsibility of the diver...

Part of the problem is the certification agencies portraying that scuba is safe for the whole family including the elderly and children. They gloss over the fact that open water is an inherently dangerous environment. Talking to a non-diver they think the biggest risk underwater is sharks, they don't understand OxTox, DCS, or other problems with diving under pressure. With such a public perception it is not difficult for attorneys to find a sympathetic jury. The agencies make their money on certifications, membership fees, book and materials, etc. The more divers and dive professionals the better. When things go bad they are not the ones getting sued.

 

[FinnMom]

Part of the problem is the certification agencies portraying that scuba is safe for the whole family including the elderly and children. They gloss over the fact that open water is an inherently dangerous environment. Talking to a non-diver they think the biggest risk underwater is sharks, they don't understand OxTox, DCS, or other problems with diving under pressure. With such a public perception it is not difficult for attorneys to find a sympathetic jury. The agencies make their money on certifications, membership fees, book and materials, etc. The more divers and dive professionals the better. When things go bad they are not the ones getting sued.

Neither the agency nor the boat can be responsible for what OW divers do when they ignore what they were taught. They are taught about DCS, they are taught a depth limit 15-20m (OxTox not a factor for air divers, which these all are or they have extra training for Nx use ). They are also taught not to exceed their training or experience - not meaning that they necessarily need a class and instructor present the 1st time they carry a flashlight or dive at night, but that all changes require some thought, preparation and possibly assistance. The numbers of newly certified divers making safe dives seems to indicate this is not being handled too badly. Could be done better of course, always could, but I don't think the benefits of "beefing up" the minimums are worth the cost to the average student.

Most of what goes wrong isn't from the teaching, it's from ignoring what they were taught. I don't know how to teach attitude, I'm sure many professional educators have fought that battle for years.
I am no expert, but I have a suspicion that divers who have taken only basic OW might not be as big a risk group as more educated divers suffering from complacency.

 

[The Chairman]

Again I am not attacking you.

Suggesting that I excuse or even tolerate poor behaviour is an attack on my character and credibility.

My argument is logical, not emotional.

Negative, ghost rider. Your argument is speculative based on assumptions which you have no evidence to support. We only have proof of their negligence, not avarice. There are multiple reasons why the captain might have been ignored and greed is a poor one.

Rather than trust the judgement of a seasoned professional

You post out of ignorance. That "seasoned professional" had less than six months as a captain at that point and died in a boating accident a couple of years later. I was a personal friend of his and mourned his death. Nevertheless, I saw him make a few poor decisions as a captain. He was no Capt Frank! Perhaps the owners did not feel they could trust his judgement? As an aside, the captain on the Get We when the accident happened lost his captain's privileges. Perhaps you think he left the dock without a working bilge pump because he was greedy? Why not? His actions caused someone to die. He even posted about the bilge not working on Facebook. Yet, he went out.

This is the very point Ken was making: people posting crap about a situation they have NO effing clue about. You've made horrible and horribly wrong assumptions based on your emotions, not facts. You claim they didn't fix the boat out of greed and yet you provide nothing to support this conclusion. You've assigned nefarious intent where none has been demonstrated. Hell, I could start assuming why you would make such an assumption: you're a troll, you're a pot stirrer, you hate the owners, you delight in the demeaning of others, you excuse their incompetence, etc. etc. I haven't and I won't because I have no evidence to support them and I don't want the discussion to devolve into an emotional abyss. Just because you want to point fingers willy nilly, doesn't mean I have to.

The accident and incidents forum would be more useful if people stopped assigning intent. We call that blamestorming and it's wrong. "X happened, so the boat is run by greedy people who put profits ahead of safety" is nothing more than an emotional outburst that helps no one and gives us no insights. No lessons can be gleaned from this, so why post anything like it? All you're doing is jumping on the blamestorming band wagon and giving the internet, as well as ScubaBoard, a bad name. It's like the people who want to blame the agencies for every accident. Agencies don't train divers: individual instructors do. Maybe the instructor didn't follow the agency's guidelines? Don't blame X agency because Instructor bonehead doesn't do his job. I guarantee he followed them when he passed his IDC. Is it laziness? Is he simply greedy? Maybe he's just burned the eff out? Maybe it's because those stingy OW students won't pay him a living wage? Who knows and who cares? Let's stick to what we DO know. FWIW, most instructors do a bang up job. OW divers often forget what they were taught in OW. I guess it's easier to blame someone else for your mistakes. That seems to be the American way.

FWIW, I've been diving since 1969 and I have never seen this kind of emphasis on neutral buoyancy. It's great. Instructors seem to be spending more effort to get students off their knees and I applaud them. Let's keep evolving training to the point where PPB will never be needed.