>Dan!
>
>While I am appauled by the instructors actions, I am highly
>concerned by what you are screaming for.
>
>You will in fact set a precedent for all diving to come under
>Goverment regulation. Are you CERTIAN that this is what you want?
>Are you speaking for every diver?
>
>Dan: these training deaths have got to stop, but i feel that
>this case is one that Mr. Mount has clearly stated will be
>handeled properly.
>
>I also feel that you are after Tom and not Derrick.  how you ask?
>How about the triple death ? Andre Smith: did Andre abandon his students?
>No! Were you after Andre? No! You were after Tom Mount.
>Derrick abandoned his student! Yes he is wrong.
>Tom Mount is taking action.
>
>Please remember this; diving is still in its early days just look at the
>changes in gear that have taken place over the past 10 years.
>
>How long has training been in place for Cave Diving.
>
>I see you make all kinds of post on what is wrong!
>
>I have also seen you Make some Brilliant! post on
>how to do things Right.
> I wish you would return to  your positive approaches to training.
> Perhaps you  would not put people in a defensive posture and
>they would in turn be more Apt. to listen to what you
>are saying and implement changes.
>ie.VO2 max.  Now those were excelent post.(keep up the good work).
>I believe you had Tom in aggrement if I recall correctly.
>
>Charlie
>


Charlie,
When the Jane Orenstein accident occurred, my first impulse was to want both
Derrick and Tom Mount to be accountable for the negligence.
After a great deal of thought, and many more conversations with the people I
respect in diving, I am inclined to believe Tom Mount is Not at fault for
this incident, but Derrick alone---Derrick's actions were far too deviant to
represent ANY agency position...I am also inclined to believe that  if the
needed  worldwide changes are to occur in technical diving, then Tom Mount
is one man who could pull this off.  I say "could". I hope he will attempt
this. The responsible position for me is to give him the chance, and the
benefit of the doubt, particularly in the light of his responsible reaction
to fitness parameters in tech diving. As aggressively as I went after the
responsibility issue just after Jane's death, I will now commit to
supporting IANTD changes, which I am optimistic Tom will soon make in areas
like bottle markings.

Still, these safety changes I am optimistic Tom will make, are not going to
directly address the Jane Orenstein death----Jane was unlucky enough to be
taught by a man who could pass for a normal instructor on the surface, but
who had  deep rooted failings, more common to the criminal element in
society. In other words, I do not believe a normal agency screening could
have easily excluded Derrick from tech instruction. Perhaps Jane would be
alive if students always had to fill out complete instructor questionnaires
prior to technical dives, and after graduation from each class, but the
level of deviance from the norm Derrick represents, appears to be far from
anything Tom Mount or IANTD could have imagined.
For the instructor with the degree of negligent conduct embodied in
Derrick's behavior in the Jane Orenstein incident, we need legal precedents
for instructor negligence.
This is NOT the same thing as asking for government regulation. Not even
close.
It is asking for an accident to be analyzed, and if it shows culpable
instructor negligence, then  the manslaughter conviction should be pursued.
This is both common sense, and it shows a respect for human life.

 To avoid Derrick's prosecution, with the idea that it endangers a self
regulating dive industry, is to totally misunderstand the effect of legal
precedent, and negligence, ....this has nothing to do with the creation of
some new regulatory body----the police and legal system have handled
manslaughter and negligence cases since long before diving came to be a
sport, and their absence in diving is too much like going back in time to
the days of the  wild West, where a lawless society was justified by
Manifest Destiny, and the lack of a local justice system was well enjoyed by
those with power. Just as the rights of the individual were well trampled in
those days, with no real "legal" system to protect them,  technical diving
today has its own "Manifest Destiny", and the dive industry wants no
encumbrance by any justice beyond their own perception of it. But the value
of human life, demands that we gain legal protection here in technical
diving, just as surely as we have it when we walk across the street.

From an insurance perspective,  a legal precedent for an  instructor to be
guilty of manslaughter by culpable negligence,   LOWERS the burden of
liability shouldered by current carriers, as an individual's criminal
conduct could  be used to remove certification agency liability----it
becomes an individual issue, not an agency one.  Responsible instructors
will not fear a legal precedent for negligence, they will embrace it, as it
will add to the security felt by the public.  If insurance carriers embrace
this concept, good instructors may be able to pay even lower premiums.  Bad
instructor behavior will become dangerous to the instructor, instead of only
dangerous to his insurance carrier. This should function to save more lives,
and to keep the money hungry and criminally negligent, out of technical
diving.

Regards,
Dan Volker
South Florida Dive Journal
www.sfdj.com

P.S..
Charlie sent this to me as a private e-mail, but it was too relevant to keep
private, and it in no way compromises Charlie, by my posting this to the
list.

-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie <cagraphics@mi*.co*>
To: Dan Volker <dlv@ga*.ne*>
Date: Sunday, May 31, 1998 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: IANTD and aftermth of latest dive death



>At 12:56 PM 5/31/98 -0400, you wrote:
>.
>>
>>4.   This issue should NOT be about civil liability---we should not allow
>>this to be a meaningless lawsuit which establishes only frivolous  income
>>for some attorneys.
>>This case must become a  CRIMINAL TRIAL. Certainly, if Derrick gets
>>convicted of  Manslaughter by culpable negligence, his chances of jail
time
>>are slim----the real NEED for this is to establish a legal  precedent on
>>instructor negligence for the first time.
>


--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.

Navigate by Author: [Previous] [Next] [Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject: [Previous] [Next] [Subject Search Index]

[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]

[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]