Mark Michaud SELAUSAR
Contributor
Kinda makes me ill to see how many people have to have someone to blame for everything. Sometimes things just happen which appears to be the case here. If you are an instructor, you are there to impart information, train, and help your students understand how to do things and possible issues that may result in harm, injury and / or death.
No one has yet proven how sharing air, or buddy breathing has had anything to do with this incident but are sure quick to try and find fault in the instructor. In fact it looks more like a medical issue that was not known (or maybe was) and any ascent may have caused a change in the pressure gradient to cause injury.
If profiles are right than Mitsu, you have been diving for three years total. That is no where near enough time to have a mature understanding and real experience about diving and what can happen. Thousands of dives in nice clear water can't prepare you for quarry issues, rig diving in the Gulf of Mexico, of Deep wreck diving in the Atlantic or Great Lakes, or river diving in zero vis. How do you even point a finger on something you have no first hand knowledge of? There were only a handful of people actually there and it is almost assuredly a medical issue and had nothing to do with buddy breathing, sharing air or wearing a snorkel that is too large for the diver.
Having said this, instructors are here to give their students training and as many options as possible to be used underwater. There are minimum standards set so that there is a defining line of training that students all must achieve. Giving students more information and options is not negligent. In the Navy (basic training) seaman recruits fire a few rounds out of a shotgun and a pistol and that is it. They only get exposure to firearm in the begining. In the Marine Corps every Marine is a rifleman. By this line of thinking the Marine Instructors would be negligent as they give more options and training since all are part of the military...............can you see where this is going? Teaching more is not necessarily a violation. Violating established training standards is, but as Rob has shown, June 2010 is the date that is set.
If an instructor is motivated by liability than he, or she, will not be a very effective instructor. As with anything liability is a monster in this country and we have to be aware of it. Basing everything we do on it is poor motivation....................remember one of the first rules in scuba diving is self responsibility. Scuba Diving is potentially DANGEROUS. That is the way it is, no sugar coating, you can be injured, crippled or die doing this. You can also have the best and most relaxing fun you have ever had.
Please give the wild speculation about "bogus instructor violations" a rest. If there is first hand evidence of a real violation............then by all means lets discuss it. Let's find out what happened medically and discuss the medical issues (such as PFO's) that we need to be aware of so we don't get hurt by not knowing.
I guess I am tired of people getting behind a keyboard and talking about stuff with authority and in fact many have only read about things and have no first hand knowledge, or experience, of what they are commenting on.
No one has yet proven how sharing air, or buddy breathing has had anything to do with this incident but are sure quick to try and find fault in the instructor. In fact it looks more like a medical issue that was not known (or maybe was) and any ascent may have caused a change in the pressure gradient to cause injury.
If profiles are right than Mitsu, you have been diving for three years total. That is no where near enough time to have a mature understanding and real experience about diving and what can happen. Thousands of dives in nice clear water can't prepare you for quarry issues, rig diving in the Gulf of Mexico, of Deep wreck diving in the Atlantic or Great Lakes, or river diving in zero vis. How do you even point a finger on something you have no first hand knowledge of? There were only a handful of people actually there and it is almost assuredly a medical issue and had nothing to do with buddy breathing, sharing air or wearing a snorkel that is too large for the diver.
Having said this, instructors are here to give their students training and as many options as possible to be used underwater. There are minimum standards set so that there is a defining line of training that students all must achieve. Giving students more information and options is not negligent. In the Navy (basic training) seaman recruits fire a few rounds out of a shotgun and a pistol and that is it. They only get exposure to firearm in the begining. In the Marine Corps every Marine is a rifleman. By this line of thinking the Marine Instructors would be negligent as they give more options and training since all are part of the military...............can you see where this is going? Teaching more is not necessarily a violation. Violating established training standards is, but as Rob has shown, June 2010 is the date that is set.
If an instructor is motivated by liability than he, or she, will not be a very effective instructor. As with anything liability is a monster in this country and we have to be aware of it. Basing everything we do on it is poor motivation....................remember one of the first rules in scuba diving is self responsibility. Scuba Diving is potentially DANGEROUS. That is the way it is, no sugar coating, you can be injured, crippled or die doing this. You can also have the best and most relaxing fun you have ever had.
Please give the wild speculation about "bogus instructor violations" a rest. If there is first hand evidence of a real violation............then by all means lets discuss it. Let's find out what happened medically and discuss the medical issues (such as PFO's) that we need to be aware of so we don't get hurt by not knowing.
I guess I am tired of people getting behind a keyboard and talking about stuff with authority and in fact many have only read about things and have no first hand knowledge, or experience, of what they are commenting on.
