Vortex Incident

[SuPrBuGmAn]

have a talk with the RSTC, not PADI... as far as I understand, it has been eliminated from all of the RSTC programs...

I don't need to talk to anyone.

I'm just glad there are STILL some good instructors that will go above and beyond whatever alphabet soup agencies standards and teach more, as opposed to as little as possible.

I find it sad that people have any issue with this and want to hold an instructor liable.

 

[zaberman1]

I think this is misleading...

Because something is removed from RSTC doesn't mean that it shouldn't or can't be taught. It also doesn't mean they advocate or discourage it. RSTC establishes minimum standards that must be met for an accredited certification course. GUE, for instance, covers things not listed in RSTC, doesn't make them bad nor does it mean they are teaching against RSTC.

How does this relate?

If the AGENCY (not RSTC) removed it from their training standards and assert that nothing beyond the standards can be taught, then the instructor is in trouble. Whether or not I agree with it is a different story, but the conditional is legally important.

Whether or not it is RSTC does not, directly or indirectly, relate to the cause of the accident (rather, it attributes to legal negligence). Because this is a forum not intended to assign blame or legal advice, I don't think further discussion is really necessary (for this thread). That being said, I am interested in hearing the details of the skill being performed and the circumstances contributing to the incident, that is what is most important (at least here).

 

[SuPrBuGmAn]

I have no problem with the RSTC, I have an issue with people thinking its wrong to teach more than that minimum.

I'd never recommend an instructor that teaches the minimum, especially one that is against teaching more...

 

[zaberman1]

I do agree and it does scare me that if anything went wrong in my open water class and it were found that I taught additional things, there is a good chance that I could be sewed. Of course I support the instructor and am terribly sorry this occurred but I am not interested with what is legally appropriate, rather what actually happened. Sure, we need agency and tort reform.

We have no idea what skill was actually performed nor do we know the details of it or where in the spring it occurred...

Obviously, though, the response was critical and I am thoroughly impressed with Shane and the staff at vortex. This is a great example for everyone's rescue/dm/instructor class on how important a well planned and thought out EAP can save a life...

 

[mike_s]

I know he was in an OW class and was ascending during a buddy breathing exercise

he is still in ICU and is recovering after having an emergency surgery to remove part of his lung.

so just a curious question. (to everyone, just quoting shane above).

This question also does not only pertain to the diver injured, but any diver in general.



I've never heard of a "diving injury" being the reason for removing part of a lung (in trauma situation like this).

is this more likely because of some already pre-existing condition? or is it more likely that the lung over-expanded during the ascent and was severely damaged?

again...... answers don't have to necessarily pertain to the above incident. (so I don't want to speculate that is what happened above at this time. but just curious what could have caused that).

 

[bamamedic]

maybe there was a bleb that caused part of the lung to have an overexpansion injury? And the damage necessitated removal of that part of lung tissue? (just speculating here)

 

[Web Monkey]

I have no problem with the RSTC, I have an issue with people thinking its wrong to teach more than that minimum.

I'd never recommend an instructor that teaches the minimum, especially one that is against teaching more...

I'm all for teaching "more than the minimum" but some old practices need to go away.

When it was still taught, and you could assume that everybody knew how to do it, it was a reasonable option. Now that everybody has (or should have) and alternate second stage and BB hasn't been widely taught in the last 20 years or so, attempting it will likely result in panic or least one drowning.

In fact, the reason it was discontinued is because the OOA diver wasn't always so keen on giving back the working regulator to the donor.

Terry

 

[Tom Smedley]

Speculation run wild!

None of us know the exact exercise that was being carried out nor the certification agency involved. You can download a copy of the excellent Vortex Accident Management Plan on their web site. Once again it proved its worth. We have adopted the plan to our training program for checkout dives there.

The fact is that a student was injured and required air evacuation and emergency surgery. My first student with an overexpansion injury was in Guam and the flight surgeon had missed the congenital abnormality that caused it. The anticipation of this type of injury is why we ensure that all open water students are enrolled in the DAN Student Insurance Program. And on all trips insist that divers carry DAN Accident Insurance.

As an interesting side note. One of my Bonaire Travelers is from India and is required to get a Netherlands Antilles visa to visit Bonaire. In addition to the round trip airline ticket he was required by the NA to purchase DAN insurance.

But - let's please stick to the facts and leave speculation about this accident to the investigators while we wish the diver a safe and speedy recovery and we include him and his family in our prayers.

 

[SuPrBuGmAn]

I'm all for teaching "more than the minimum" but some old practices need to go away.

When it was still taught, and you could assume that everybody knew how to do it, it was a reasonable option. Now that everybody has (or should have) and alternate second stage and BB hasn't been widely taught in the last 20 years or so, attempting it will likely result in panic or least one drowning.

In fact, the reason it was discontinued is because the OOA diver wasn't always so keen on giving back the working regulator to the donor.

Terry

Its still taught and if you look around enough you'll find stories where the method is still being used. Especially usefully when there ISN'T a second, second stage - ie, a stage or deco bottle.

An OOA diver probably would have less a chance to panic if he had the training. :mooner:

 

[ktomlinson]

I was certified naui ow in mid 2008 and we were taught buddy breathing. We were also taught that an Ooa may panic and try to keep your reg. This is one reason for octos. Personally I am willing to assume risk to help save another person, and would hope by buddy feels the same way.