Sotis vs. IANTD

[tbone1004]

@Wookie if you aren't a member of IANTD, you can't be bound by their S&P regardless of whatever certification levels you hold or have previously held. I think it gets blurry because he's an ITT

@cerich that's a great point and is what seems to be referenced in several of the points from Mark for standards violations. It appears there were a couple points in evidence that went to paperwork violations as well as Sotis retorting about going deeper than he was certified

 

[Sevenrider860]

He is an ITT, he was acting in a professional role, ergo was representing them because he was acting as a safety diver. No different than acting as a divemaster binds you to the S&P of whatever organization you are representing when working in that role. IANTD has a technical divermaster certification, Sotis is an ITT and is able to teach that course. He was acting as a technical divermaster because he was a paid safety diver.

Where is the confusion?

Is that truly the case? The IANTD Standards & Procedures has a definition for Commercial Diver: "A form of diving, excluding instruction, where the diver works for hire and his/her employment depends on a willingness to dive."

I would say a safety diver is work for hire without instruction. So, is an ITT really representing IANTD when working as a commercial diver? There is also a section in the standards that states: "All IANTD Instructors and Divemasters involved in Diver Training Programs and Dive Leadership Programs/Qualifications are considered as representatives of IANTD, regardless of Agency Affiliation or Program."

Again...the text states "dive training" or "dive leadership programs". It would be my opinion that a safety diver for a film expedition (commercial diver by IANTD's own definition) is not acting as a representative of IANTD when in that role.

I guess this is what the lawsuit will help determine.

 

[tbone1004]

Is that truly the case? The IANTD Standards & Procedures has a definition for Commercial Diver: "A form of diving, excluding instruction, where the diver works for hire and his/her employment depends on a willingness to dive."

I would say a safety diver is work for hire without instruction. So, is an ITT really representing IANTD when working as a commercial diver? There is also a section in the standards that states: "All IANTD Instructors and Divemasters involved in Diver Training Programs and Dive Leadership Programs/Qualifications are considered as representatives of IANTD, regardless of Agency Affiliation or Program."

Again...the text states "dive training" or "dive leadership programs". It would be my opinion that a safety diver for a film expedition (commercial diver by IANTD's own definition) is not acting as a representative of IANTD when in that role.

I guess this is what the lawsuit will help determine.

and that may be where @cerich is right in that the suspension was done based on the S&P violations for training that are also outlined in the exhibits

 

[Doc Ben]

Since he was a paid safety diver, he is bound by IANTD's S&P and he knowingly allowed a person who's safety he was responsible for to violate their training standards. He admitted to this in the incident report and readmitted it in the lawsuit which is binding unless he admits to perjury.

You keep saying he was paid? How do you know this? Have an invoice to show us? Better look again at the form he filled out...NO training was listed. And where exactly did he readmit this in the lawsuit as I may have missed it?

 

[tbone1004]

You keep saying he was paid? How do you know this? Have an invoice to show us? Better look again at the form he filled out...NO training was listed. And where exactly did he readmit this in the lawsuit as I may have missed it?

I don't know for a fact that he was paid, however he was acting as a formal safety diver and I would frankly be shocked if he wasn't being compensated for being on that boat.

Training was listed, Sotis reported Rob Stewarts cert level as CCR Normoxic Diver

Check Exhibit C.
"Violations"
.. Sotis states they were not CCR Trimix Divers"
"Acting as a Safety Diver"

Regarding admission of training level.
Please see paragraph 14
"Stewart and Cahill had copmleted their IANTD CCR Normixic Trimix Diver Certifications in September 2016"

 

[kafkaland]

This case points to a broader question: When should agencies step in and discipline one of their instructors. Only when standards in a course taught under the agency's imprimatur are broken, or when things go bad even the course is taught under the auspices of a different agency, or when generally accepted rules are broken when the instructor acted in a different professional capacity (guide, safety diver, etc.) or even when the instructor did the same when not acting in a professional capacity (for instance, a cave instructor pulling jumps in a lost-diver situation when it was just a dive with a less-experienced buddy).

I'm personally a bit conflicted about this. In one way I don't think training agencies should not insert themselves into situations where they are not directly involved, but as someone who occasionally uses the services of diving professionals for training or guiding, I want agencies to serve as some kind of quality control by expelling those who have demonstrated poor judgment, be it in a training situation or not.

 

[LandonL]

Are we sure he wasn't in a teaching role? The Add Helium Facebook post says "First dive for the Trimix class" and is dated January 27th, 2017.

By the evidence on the incident filing, Rob was certified as normoxic in 2016, so one would surmise that this was the hypoxic CCR (full Trimix) training.

Based on the incident report, he had not yet completed full trimix certification. So this leaves us with a few options... either A) He was still in training for the Trimix course with Peter Sotis, or B) Peter decided to 'pause' training before completion and dive with them beyond their certification.

Can you really be the guy who teaches someone at all levels of their CCR training, then dive with them beyond their certification, and/or possibly pause their training in the middle of it, and somehow claim you don't have any responsibility?

 

[luscioman]

Attached is the latest on the case. As of today I did not see any attorney retained by IANTD for the lawsuit.

A few assumptions here.
IANTD will no go down without a fight. They may try and delay this until the other trial is done which will be difficult to do because this one is much more simple. The first thing the defense will do is a motion to change the case to Lake City area from Broward County.

I also assume that the Sotis defense team is taking a gamble with this lawsuit. They are thinking that they will win and he will be reinstated or at least will show he didnt violate the standards. They will use this information in the other suit saying that even if he was "acting" as an instructor (which he denies) he didnt violate standards. But this is a double edge sword because things will become public record. Though I am sure that in the Rob Stewart case the family will retain multiple Tier 1 expert witnesses for the case.

What certifications is Add Helium still able to offer at this point and with whom are they doing it with?

 

[tbone1004]

so if Add Helium and Sotis are saying their business will go under if they can't teach for IANTD, and as of right now they can't teach for IANTD< why did I get an email from them this morning saying "Are You Ready to be Trained?" with class signups and what not? What agency are they teaching for for these classes, but more importantly, if they can teach for whoever is being used as the cert agency, would that not make the main point of this lawsuit null and void?

 

[The Chairman]

I wonder how many others on this SB feel the same way?

I trained under Sotis as well and also know many, many others who have little or no respect for his training. I respected him a lot until I trained under another instructor for a cross over to another unit. The difference in intensity and thoroughness was incredible. I learned more in my crossover than I did in my initial class. That should never be the case. His attempts to hurt friends ability to teach on the rEvo detracted from my eroding opinion of him as well. I found it ironic that he started Add Helium to get out from under businesses who were trying to force people to buy only from them and then did the very same thing to others. So, as an industry insider, I would agree with the contention that Sotis is not well respected in our industry.