YD Scuba Diving Forums banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Imported post

..or am I?

I have just read a BBC news item about the prosecution by HSE of Stoney Cove Marine Trials regarding the fatality during a Technical course in the Lake District - -I am puzzled by the following

QUOTE

Sam Mainds, prosecuting, told the court: "Paul Gallacher was on a course with flawed safety documentation, diving at a depth substantially more than ever before, using a gas mix which was unknown to him.

"It is an undeniable truth that if the defendants had done their work correctly he would not have been allowed on the course."

Gerard Forlin, defending, said that although only around 85 of Mr Gallacher's dives had been recorded, he had carried out almost 100 dives and was fully competent to take the course.

A post mortem examination on Mr Gallacher, a sales director for a refrigeration company, found he died from oxygen toxicity.

UNQUOTE

Question: what relevance is "flawed safety documentation" to death caused by an O2 hit?

I assume the documentation referred to is the Project Plan, Risk assessment etc etc bla bla bla?

I suppose in these days of litigation somebody has got to be blamed!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Imported post

<font color='#810541'>I believe that he didn't have enough dives to qualify to start the Tri mix course, I think it is a minimum of 100 required to show experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Imported post

....so when you've logged 100 dives you become immune to the undesirable affects of O2 at high pressure?  Interesting!!
 

·
TDI Instructor Trainer
Joined
·
2,949 Posts
Imported post

Not having the correct documentation in itself is an infringement of HSE regulations and can lead to prosecution for an instructor at work (i.e. getting paid to instruct) whether there was an incident or not. Recreational instructors are a different matter.

There have been a number of cases recently where the HSE infingement did not have a direct bearing on the incident but the company was prosecuted for the infringement anyway.

We can dispute whether the Diving at Work Accepted Code of Practice is a good code of practice or not but we cannot dispute that it is compulsory for instructors at work. Basically if you are an instructor at work then it's madness not to have your paperwork in order.

Finally, as an instructor, I have to say that complying with the ACOP is not really that difficult and the burden of 'paperwork' is much lighter than many other jobs.

Stay safe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Imported post

[b said:
Quote[/b] (nikos @ Dec. 24 2003,08:21)]....so when you've logged 100 dives you become immune to the undesirable affects of O2 at high pressure?  Interesting!!
<font color='#810541'>I never said that, I was answering your question to the best of my ability.

There are times when I don't know why I bother!
 

·
A short fat well off crap cave diver. Likes wrecks
Joined
·
15,343 Posts
Imported post

[b said:
Quote[/b] (nikos @ Dec. 23 2003,22:34)]QUOTE

Sam Mainds, prosecuting, told the court: "Paul Gallacher was on a course with flawed safety documentation, diving at a depth substantially more than ever before, using a gas mix which was unknown to him.

"It is an undeniable truth that if the defendants had done their work correctly he would not have been allowed on the course."

Gerard Forlin, defending, said that although only around 85 of Mr Gallacher's dives had been recorded, he had carried out almost 100 dives and was fully competent to take the course.

A post mortem examination on Mr Gallacher, a sales director for a refrigeration company, found he died from oxygen toxicity.
What a daft thing to say. Of course he was diving deeper than ever before, of course he was on a gas he wasent used too, he was in training to do just that.

The realy strange thing is that if he was killed by 02 tox then that has nothing to do with the trimix diving course and every thing to do with nitrox training.

on the subject of 85dives. It depends on the dives and the confidance / abuility of the diver the magic number of 100 means nothing if they were all 20m blue water dives.

The truth is if you dont do the paperwork you get bitten in the ass by which ever authority requires it. Thats life and anyone running a buisness should know that.

Yet again we dont know all the facts so we cant make educated apraisels of the case.

Mark Chase
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
563 Posts
Imported post

Mark is spot on. However many dives the guy did, if he did`nt log them, they did`nt happen. As to the Instructor, if his paperwork was`nt in order, then it was worthless.

Thats the way of the world today.

I think the late Rob Palmer said `You get away with it until you don`t`

Rob Palmer ceased to `get away with it`, as did the diver who died, and the Instructor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,240 Posts
"You get away with it until you don't....."

Sage advice for all divers ;)
 

·
Nigel Hewitt
Joined
·
7,142 Posts
Basically Stoney got busted for not doing mandatory documentation.
The documentation was looked at because there was an incident.
If they had caused the customer's death somebody would be in jail now.

nigelH
 

·
Hopping Mad
Joined
·
134 Posts
Mark Powell said:
Finally, as an instructor, I have to say that complying with the ACOP is not really that difficult and the burden of 'paperwork' is much lighter than many other jobs.
That may be so, but the HSE move the goalposts with what seems monotonous regularity - even when you ring them on different days, you get different answers to the same question.

A lot of the time, the ACOP is to be "interpreted" and you can't get a straight answer from the guys who will eventually be looking at the paperwork to see if you have complied or not.

What irks me is that the ACOP does not apply to ALL recreational instruction as it should - do we want to keep students safe or not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Norbert said:
What irks me is that the ACOP does not apply to ALL recreational instruction as it should - do we want to keep students safe or not?
I'm VERY glad that it doesn't.

Of course I want to keep my students safe. But, ACOP is not the only way to instruct safely. IMO there are already too many regulations imposed on a recreational activity, let's not have any more. If you want to kill dive clubs; insisting that all recreational instructors complay with ACOP is the way to do it.

David
 

·
Nigel Hewitt
Joined
·
7,142 Posts
Norbert said:
What irks me is that the ACOP does not apply to ALL recreational instruction as it should - do we want to keep students safe or not?
Surely the HSE's remit is people at work and paying customers.
It would take a whole new legislative framework for them to put their hands on what I do with my spare time.

This evening I hope to dive a 28 year old rebreather. Not a CE stamp in sight, nor test nor cleaning stamps either, lovingly overhauled by untrained little me.

nigelH
 

·
more weaselly than a weaselly thing
Joined
·
3,628 Posts
David Martin said:
I'm VERY glad that it doesn't.

Of course I want to keep my students safe. But, ACOP is not the only way to instruct safely. IMO there are already too many regulations imposed on a recreational activity, let's not have any more. If you want to kill dive clubs; insisting that all recreational instructors complay with ACOP is the way to do it.

David
Doesnt this imply that there must be at least two systems running.

1. An ACOP compliant system, for those being rewarded.
2. A non ACOP compliant system (which apparently provides as safe an environment).

Wouldn't this warrant further study?

If the non ACOP system IS safe and less onerous, shouldn't there be a move afoot to revise the ACOP?



/Zak

(running out of cats to lob at pigeons)
 

·
Jesus don't want me for a sunbeam
Joined
·
13,407 Posts
I'm doing a post-grad degree in Offshore Engineering, last year the HSE had approached the department to do research into reviewing the DOAW regs and how it applies to different groups (commies, instructors, scientists, etc). I don't know if anything got done with it, it was on the list of thesiseseses (where's a pedant when you need one) for last year, I'm only there part time so don't know if any other students took it up. I'll see if I can find out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
862 Posts
From what i heard, he had done enough dives but the HSE will only accept hard written evidence of the dives, they will not accept the information on a dive computer as they believe it can be tampered with. So this caused a great deal of evidence in favour of stoney cove to be unusable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
did you survive..................?

nigelH said:
This evening I hope to dive a 28 year old rebreather. Not a CE stamp in sight, nor test nor cleaning stamps either, lovingly overhauled by untrained little me.

nigelH
I went in a Greek island bus once and I could have sworn there was garden hose in the braking system..................
 

·
Nigel Hewitt
Joined
·
7,142 Posts
nikos said:
did you survive..................?
I think so.
Lots of things to work on.

nigelH
 

·
ex diving instructor
Joined
·
524 Posts
HSE are going to get a lot tougher on ALL instructors, even club based instructors, such as Medicals, and risk assesments, they need to, a standard self assesed medical used by club based instructors is not sufficient to tell the state of fitness of them. If something happens underwater to the instructor the student is not any different from one who is with a school, so when the instructor who is on his own with the novice blacks out, what happens then, with diving at work regs, the backup/safety diver steps in and gets the instructor & novice out. The club instructor is not bound to have a backup diver, so it goes very wrong at this point.

Also in the eyes of the HSE the club has taken money to learn this student to dive, the instructor does not get paid (usually), but might get free air, but is usually told by the D.O. when & where to dive, so in the diving at work regs, the DO, is the contractor, or even the Club itself is, and the instructor is under his authority, therefore the regs apply, payment is not needed, to deem the diver to be working, just the instrution of the contractor as when and where to get in the water is enough.

Clubs will also need to start looking at risk assesments properly, they hold a duty of care to the student, the old " I am untouchable because its a hobby" are no longer acceptable arguments in the eyes of the law.

The HSE are serious about what needs to be done, they are looking and going to implement retraining for divers learning in warm water, and keeping uptodate with dave skills. ITDA are starting already, Tech divers need to prove they are diving regularly, and will be re-certified each year, upon providing a proper logged record, if insufficient dives of the required level are logged, then a skill check will be mandatory before re certs. are issued, Recreational divers are also under the same spotlight, although they have a three year grace for re- cert.
The HSE are working with the MCA and are going to insist that all charters are part of the PBA (proffesional boatmans association), and that cert cards are shown, or an agreement signed pror to commencement, that the diver has the qualifications to do the trip about to depart (like the states).

Why are these happening? Because this has been a very bad year, and if things dont improve, the regs. will get tighter, people will always do what they want, and flaunt the regs, but the time is fast approaching when doing that will result in more than a verbal dressing down.

The HSE are looking to hang an instructor out to dry, in the next year, so be aware, break the regs at your risk.

Andy Hayhurst
 

·
Proven ability to roll with it.
Joined
·
2,293 Posts
Not directly related but I dived in Dosthill last weekend. At the suggestion of the HSE they are now insisting that divers show certification prior to diving there.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top