An example of why low PADI standards can be bad

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Mt9Eg.15021$0k4.1234@bignews1.bellsouth.net.. .
> Grumman-581 wrote
>
>>> PADI didn't kill any of them. PADI also didn't train them well enough
>>> to
>>> keep them from killing themselves.
>
>> Awh, come on, Lee... You're not suggesting that we interfere with
>> Darwin, are ya'?
>
> Good question. I'm not sure. I'm still hung up on getting what you paid
> for.
>
>
I paid fer a pice of plastic that helped me buy air. I had been diving,
quite happily (and actively) by myself for 2 or 3 years before that. Of
course, I wouldn't argue that padi ain't a rip off, but you know what ur
getting ahead of time, or at least you should.

LD.

dechucka wrote

>> Maybe not in Australia, where your operators keep leaving their customers
>> miles from shore.

> they were only septics so that doesn't really count

See my earlier comments, in another thread, about French Canadians.

BTW, even knowing the origin of the term "septic" it's not a term everyone
it applies to much appreciates.

> and PADI and NAUI have done OK with me but so what. IMHO
> stupidity/slackness will overcome any training.

You won't get an argument on this point from me.

> In fact your comment about the N Q'land operator highlights my point there
> were rules in place and the crew were trained to not allow this to happen
> but it did due to slackness and stupidity.

I won't argue that one either. My comments were a bit of a cheap shot.

As someone else pointed out, similar things have happened here. In one
similar case, the crew failed to conduct an effective diver count, the boat
returned to shore where the crew noticed gear and clothing left aboard and
should have noticed that the count of rental tanks was short, and still
nobody thought to report anything until the next day when relatives called
to check on the missing divers.

Lee

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0tiEg.16813$Nx4.14449@bignews8.bellsouth.net. ..
> Popeye wrote
>
> >> Maybe not in Australia, where your operators keep leaving their
> customers
>>> miles from shore.
>
>> Don't tell those two lawyers that got left in the Keys for 36 hours.
>
> 1. Are you sure you want to use lawyers to make your point?
> 2. The lawyers were recovered. The Lonagrins weren't.
> 3. I'll bet it was a PADI affiliated operator that left teh lawyers.

They were still left, and I didn't know PADI taught seamanship.

>> Popeye, PADI 3-day wonder.
>> Almost 10, and still 'a kickin.
>
> Perhaps you're the exception that proves the rule . . . or just maybe, you
> survived some mistakes that would fit well with those listed in the UK
> article.

Near as I can tell, they produce about 200,000 rule exceptions every year.

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:lfjEg.15067$0k4.14413@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..
> dechucka wrote
>
>>> Maybe not in Australia, where your operators keep leaving their
>>> customers miles from shore.
>
>> they were only septics so that doesn't really count
>
> See my earlier comments, in another thread, about French Canadians.
>
> BTW, even knowing the origin of the term "septic" it's not a term everyone
> it applies to much appreciates.

Well IF you do know the origin you know it is very innocent

sensitive aren't we what would you prefer to be called Yanks or citizens of
the USA

>
>> and PADI and NAUI have done OK with me but so what. IMHO
>> stupidity/slackness will overcome any training.
>
> You won't get an argument on this point from me.
>
>> In fact your comment about the N Q'land operator highlights my point
>> there were rules in place and the crew were trained to not allow this to
>> happen but it did due to slackness and stupidity.
>
> I won't argue that one either. My comments were a bit of a cheap shot.
>
> As someone else pointed out, similar things have happened here. In one
> similar case, the crew failed to conduct an effective diver count, the
> boat returned to shore where the crew noticed gear and clothing left
> aboard and should have noticed that the count of rental tanks was short,
> and still nobody thought to report anything until the next day when
> relatives called to check on the missing divers.

you may have got the incidents mixed up because this is exactly what
happened in FNQ.

My point remains that most deaths on SCUBA are caused by stupidity or
slackness, yes there are some when equipment failure or plain bad luck comes
into play but this is not the fault of the certifying agency. In fact if any
of these deaths /accidents could be blamed in any way on the certifying
agency than I am sure that in a litigious country like the US the law suits
would be flying. Downunder I haven't heard of this happening but maybe it
is.

Thus spake "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> :

>> PADI didn't kill that one.
>
>PADI didn't kill any of them. PADI also didn't train them well enough to
>keep them from killing themselves.
>
>Lee
>

Long story here. I've been sued before.

I had a class of four teens, the oldest was 17, the youngest 15. The
17 yo had some trouble with his ESAs, but after a few tries (oh, my
ears) he got it right. Twice. In a row. One of the few "rules" that
I still follow religiously is "look up, reach up, swim up". Well, try
as I might, he couldn't get that through his head, although in the end
he finally glommed on to it before I flunked him out.

His family goes out to CA 6 months for his first OW dives since the
class. Cut back to class. I always tell my students, multiple times,
that the OW C-card only qualifies them to do the most basic dives and
they should never dive beyond their training and that they should just
do plenty of basic dives until they're ready for AOW, but dive first.
Finally, I tell them that "you are not properly trained nor prepared
for deep diving or night diving". I even have this penciled into my
manual.

So kid goes on a boat with his family. First dive is on a wall, 60
foot max. DM spots him at 90 ft, goes down and gets him. By the time
they get back to 60 feet, his tank is dry and he has to ascend on the
(very pissed) DM's aux. Second dive is a hard bottom of 45 feet and
nothing "seems" to go wrong. This is all in the incident report and
depositions. Third dive is a night dive. Fifteen minutes into the
dive, kid goes missing. He's found the next day in 35 feet of water,
almost exactly under the boat. He has a head wound and drowned.
Theory is that he turned his light off and ascended, hitting the boat
with his head. Given the amount of trauma, the belief was that he
also ascended way too fast. The blow was apparently sufficient for
him to bite through his mouthpiece.

I was sued for being negligent in my instruction. Apparently I should
have taught him how to ascend at night. V&B told me to not sweat it,
as long as I taught "to the book" (see above rule). About two weeks
later I got a call from Lesser & Lesser, PADI's attornies (and mine,
in this matter, although I do have my own trained shark). They told
me to not sweat it and that they would "make it go away". Two months
after that I was informed that the suit had been dropped. I did find
out that the had sued me for $1 million, the DM for one million and
the boat for five million, all the extents of our insurance.

Did I do anything wrong? I went out of my way to make sure that he
learned his skills, but he was, quite literally, in over his head.
Kids forget lots of stuff in 6 months, look at what happens after
summer vacation. We all forget skills that we don't use for 6 months
right after we learn them. It's sad that he died, and I would have
sent a note or something if my lawyer hadn't told me not to.
--
dillon

How much power does it take to run a server farm?
A googlewatt.

Lee Bell wrote:
>
> What I have a problem with is an agency, any
> agency, that issues a card certifying someone to be competent when they are
> not, in fact, competent. When corporations failed because certified
> statements were not accurate, the CPA firms responsible for certifying those
> statements were held responsible. In many cases, they were bankrupted by
> the liability for their failure to provide the service they got paid for.
> When a diver dies because the agency that certified them failed to do its
> job well enough, it's not their fault. Suddenly, certified only means they
> received some training.


The Agency's leaders were raised in the "Duck and Cover" 1950's?


In the meantime, the Dive Destination at which this story happend...

<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.scuba/msg/d19c2b49e5bc5f56?dmode=source>

is getting a second Chamber installed later this year for treating DCS.


Gosh, just can't figure out why they would need it!


-hh

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1155691255.649848.281310@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...

> In the meantime, the Dive Destination at which this story happend...
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.scuba/msg/d19c2b49e5bc5f56?dmode=source>
>
> is getting a second Chamber installed later this year for treating DCS.
>
> Gosh, just can't figure out why they would need it!


http://www.smp-ltd.co.uk/news.php


"A Single Lock Hyperbaric Chamber is sold to Cayman Islands". This Chamber
was to be used in association with a Children's Group, treating Cerebral
Palsy.


http://www.caymannetnews.com/cgi-scr...036/003687.htm

On Grand Cayman, the chamber is used in particular for diabetic wounds that
won't heal, and also gangrene and carbon monoxide poisoning, said Mr
Elliott.

This last illness occurred fairly frequently after Hurricane Ivan, when some
people ran generators in closed areas, he added.

The Brac chamber will be smaller than the one in Grand Cayman, holding one
bed rather than two. It is expected to be on the Island in September, and
will then have to be put into operational order with all the ancillary
equipment attached before use.


Gangrene and carbon monoxide poisoning?

Must be PADI Master Diver specialties.





>
>
> -hh
>

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:27:27 +1200, Some Random Dude
<insane_at_large@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:04:44 -0700, "Popeye"
><popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
>
>> Gangrene and carbon monoxide poisoning?
>>
>> Must be PADI Master Diver specialties.
>>
>
>http://www.emedicine.com/plastic/topic526.htm
>
>about a third of the way down in the tables:
>
>Table 3, hyperoxygenation,
>
>table 4, Leukocyte oxidative killing,
>
>one means more oxygen available, helping with the CO poisining, the
>other helps with Necrotising Soft-Tissue Infections, which is exactly
>what gangrene is.


check out table ten for dosages. both CO and gangrene have 90 min @ 3
ATA oxygen.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:05:36 -0400, "Lee Bell"
<pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Knowing you have all your divers aboard before you leave the dive site is
> not seamanship.

I believe that might be classified as simple "inventory control"...
<grin>

Thus spake "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> :

>>> Long story here. I've been sued before.
>>> I had a class of four teens, the oldest was 17, the youngest 15. The
>>> 17 yo had some trouble with his ESAs, but after a few tries (oh, my
>>> ears) he got it right. Twice. In a row. One of the few "rules" that
>>> I still follow religiously is "look up, reach up, swim up". Well, try
>>> as I might, he couldn't get that through his head, although in the end
>>> he finally glommed on to it before I flunked him out.
>
>If we made that "Stop, Look and Listen" like we used to recommend when
>driving across railroad crossings, we'd probably save a few lives. Diver
>encounters with moving propellers are way too frequent.

Something I am ultra paranoid about in Cozumel. There are way too
many boats moving around out there and when you're the last one up,
nobody is looking at you.

>
>>> Did I do anything wrong?
>
>Depends on what you mean by wrong. The easy answer is yes, but that's not
>entirely fair. The more important question is whether you knowingly did
>something wrong. You'll have to answer that one for yourself.
>
>Several mistakes were made:
>
>The first was training someone not responsible enough to dive safely. In
>hindsight, it's pretty obvious this kid wasn't responsible enough. Only you
>can judge whether you knew, at the time, that he was not prepared for the
>responsibility of diving safely.

That I lay totally on the shop. I take secondary blame for taking
them on in the first place. I'm not a parent and have never had
direct dealings with the squirelliness of teens. That's the only
class of teens I ever taught. And the only teens I'll ever teach.
Except maybe my neighbor, and I don't think her father would approve
of the look I give her when she's in her swimsuit.

>
>Passing him, if that's what you did, was another mistake. Again, however,
>the nature of the mistake depends on what you knew at the time. If you
>honestly believed he understood the concept of the ascent and would follow
>the training, you did your job, perhaps even beyond the level that your
>agency requires. If, on the other hand, you didn't believe he understood
>and would follow the training, you should not have issued a certification.

I "thought" he had it. He was the most attentive one in class, at the
pool and the lake. He did an excellent job with skills in the pool
and I, foolishly in retrospect, gave him multiple chances to
demonstrate/learn (they're not check out dives, they're
"instructional" dives).

>
>The point of this thread, however, is not what you did or didn't do, but the
>marketing, training standards and quality assurance of the agency you
>represent, whatever agency that may be. There are several items related to
>this:
>1. In hindsight, what do you now think of the standard for passing someone
>with an obvious problem performing a criticical skill? Do you now think
>performing it twice in a row is enough or do you, perhaps, think that it
>might be a good idea to give it a rest and retest it another day? Do you
>think standards that don't provide enough time to give it a rest and test
>another day may be trying to do a bit too much, a bit too fast? This, by
>the way, is one of the conclusions of the article that started this tread.

In retrospect, I should have put the whole bloody class in the pool
again and reviewed before we went back to the lake. But I let myself
be pressured by the shop owner (who was also my DM) and the parents.
That was MY primary mistake. One I will openly admit to.

>2. In hindsight, what do you think about agancy standards that issue any
>certification at all to a student who is not qualifed to dive below 60 feet,
>on a wall, or at night? Do you still consider the OW course to be adequate
>for issuing the student a card that says, to him and others, that he has the
>ability to dive safely without supervision, or do you think he should know a
>bit more than that before a card is issues? Again, do you think perhaps the
>training tries to do too much, too fast for some students?

It was a three week course. It worked in the past, but, not being a
parent, I was unprepared for a bunch of high schoolers. Yes, I
believe PADI puts emphasis on what the card is SUPPOSED to qualify the
diver for. But it's up to the diver to figure out what that means. My
second open water dive after class was a dive on Santa Rosa, which is
clearly a nontrivial dive. And my fourth dive was a night dive. I
was uncomfortable with both dives, because I knew I was in over my
head, litterally.

Do I think OW is adequate? Probably not. But do NAUI or SSI teach
deep and night in OW? I think the attitude that "OW is adequate" has
become endemic in the industry. I personally believe that a diver who
hasn't been in the water in the 6 months since OW needs a refresher. I
always offer to buddy up with my students if they want some additional
experience. I was in the shop when they booked the trip and asked how
much experience they had and offered to do a review for the whole
family "on the cheap".

>3. Do the standards of your agency include telling the student something
>more than "the OW C-card only qualifies you to do the most basic dives?" Do
>the standards include knowledge of the kind of dives that are not "most
>basic" and why? Do they include telling students that dives and night
>dives, even shallow ones, are advanced? Do they include training on
>recognizing and assessing risks not specifically mentioned in their
>training?

The standards do explicitly state that the diver is not qualified to
do advanced dives "such as night, deep or wreck".

There's no training beyond "don't go below 60". The third dive
(typically Sunday morning around here) takes the student to 60 ft as
an "experience". Most of the dives are in the 30-45 ft range.

>4. What agency was the dive operation and/or DM associated with?
>Presumably, they looked at the card, knew what it meant, and took the kid on
>three dives, all of which were beyond the level the agency sets for the OW
>card. What do the standards say about taking an OW certified kid who had to
>be rescued on an OOA dive to 30 feet beyond the depth he was certified for,
>on a night dive that also exceeds his certification level?

All PADI. I can't speak to the others, except to say that the judge
dismissed the case as having no merits.

As I said earlier, I don't teach OW anymore. Partly because of this,
partly because the pay isn't worth the hassle and partly because it
isn't any fun anymore. I found myself teaching defensively, and that
sucks.

I agree in general with the assessment that an OW cert is a basic card
and doesn't qualify a diver for much of anything. However, I stand by
my belief that a diver should dive before taking an "advanced" class.
As was pointed out, a diver with two cards and 9 dives under his/her
belt is hardly "advanced". Nor is a diver who's got 90 dives that
were all above 60 feet in the Caribbean. I also believe that someone
who hasn't been in the water in 6 months needs to do some review.
Whether it's just books or some time with someone more experienced (a
good friend or an instructor) is totally up to the comfort level of
the individual.

>
>Lee
>
--
dillon

How much power does it take to run a server farm?
A googlewatt.