In Coz: You, Your Buddy, Your Group and Your DM. Who should do what?

[boulderjohn]

Is it fords fault that the driver hit s telephone pole doing 90 and everyone in the car died?

It would be Ford's fault if a car malfunction led to that accident, and I believe that was his point. If Ford advertises that its cars are safe, they need to be safe. It is impossible for them to be 100% safe, so we understand that they are safe within accepted reasonable limits. The driver has an obligation to drive safely, and the car maker has an obligation to provide a safe car.

In diving, the diver must exercise the same kind of responsible behavior we expect of a safe diver. At the same time, if the dive operator lures customers with an assurance that its DMs lead safe dives within accepted reasonable limits, it needs to come through on that promise. I assure you that no agency that certifies DMs teaches them that they have no responsibility for the safety of the divers under their charge--it is just the opposite.

 

[Mike]

One thing that I've always found confusing is that dive shops, and since we are talking specifically location wise here, Cozumel... is that dive shops don't really in a business sense 'get it'. In fact they are almost all stone cold retarded in a sense in how badly they don't 'get it' when it comes to a business model. Specialization and uniqueness in business is the killer ap for being wildly successful, and the more generic your competition is, the more successful the technique is.

Only a couple of dive shops in Cozumel really stand apart as something different from the rest and I'll say in my experience it's Dive with Martin and Aldora. Those two target completely different divers and are almost on opposite ends of the spectrum in what they offer. Yet they are also I'd venture as a result of standing apart from the rest, wildly successful in Cozumel.

The point is, why in the world don't dive ops figure out a unique position to take instead of just being so generic? The perfect example of a missed opportunity is the newbie diver. Nobody in Cozumel dominates the market as 'the' dive shop for newbies to trust to go to. It's a gold mine on so many levels. The rest of the dive shops are almost all fighting over the same customers, and nobody has figured out how changing their focus to cater to newbies wouldn't benefit them. Become the newbie dive shop of choice, get a reputation as the shop that newbies can go to and be safe as kittens with a dive program and profile especially for them and watch the cash registers overflow. Newbie divers are so easy to cater to, if they see a turtle they would crap themselves. Just keep em safe, put extra dive masters in the water with them, give them special attention and watch your reputation spread like wild fire. Who are they going to come back for when it's time to do AOW and other training? Not to mention if you coupled that with a program that allowed newbies to flock to you and be able to stay with you as they progressed to better and more experienced divers you've built in a gold mine of repeat business. You catch em at their start and make em a customer for life.

 

[ScubaSteve1962]

It would be Ford's fault if a car malfunction led to that accident, and I believe that was his point. If Ford advertises that its cars are safe, they need to be safe. It is impossible for them to be 100% safe, so we understand that they are safe within accepted reasonable limits. The driver has an obligation to drive safely, and the car maker has an obligation to provide a safe car.

In diving, the diver must exercise the same kind of responsible behavior we expect of a safe diver. At the same time, if the dive operator lures customers with an assurance that its DMs lead safe dives within accepted reasonable limits, it needs to come through on that promise. I assure you that no agency that certifies DMs teaches them that they have no responsibility for the safety of the divers under their charge--it is just the opposite.

My point is don't assume that since Ford advertised it as safe that I can just go out a drive it and I'm safe from all conditions. Just as just because an op advertises safe dives that means I can be careless and depend on the DM to take care of me. Sometimes it is someone else's fault but we still have to take some responsibility for our actions. On dives that I've been on some stated in the brief about doing safety stops alone, if you don't feel comfortable with that then you should state this to the op. Do they make these statements during the briefs in Coz? If you're new and you're an air hog let the DM know, and this is something you should know unless these are your checkout dives.

 

[boulderjohn]

Here are some excerpts from the court ruling in the case of Tancredi V. Dive Makai Charters. In that dive, Tancredi died from an OOA emergency on a DM-led dive in which the DM himself also went OOA. Every word that follows is from the court ruling and is not my interpretation. There are no omitted sections from the start to the end of this quotation.

The evidence in this case established that defendants Dive Makai Charters, Lisa Choquette, Tom Shockley and Rich Westphal (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Dive Makai defendants") owed Tancredi a duty to provide a reasonably safe dive plan, to make sure prior to the dive that he was qualified to participate in the dive, to inform him prior to the dive of the risks associated with a deep dive and the fact that diving to a depth of 145 feet is not recommended by the national diving agencies, and to conduct the dive in a reasonably safe manner. Based on the evidence presented, the court finds that the Dive Makai defendants breached their duties as set forth above.

The risks involved in recreational scuba diving increase with the depth of the dive. As a diver goes deeper, his air consumption increases. His body absorbs more nitrogen, causing impaired judgment and an increased risk of decompression sickness. At depths below 100 feet, and at tank volumes below 1000 psi, divers start to experience a marked increase in breathing resistance. If a diver is under physical or mental stress, he may over-breath his regulator and increase breathing resistance even further. The national diving agencies, including the National Association of Underwater Instructors ("NAUI") and the Professional Association of Diving Instructors ("PADI"), recommend that sport divers not go below 100 feet and have established 130 feet as an absolute limit for recreational diving because of the hazards inherent in deep diving. NAUI and PADI also recommend against decompression diving for sport divers, citing the dangers associated with such dives.

The Dive Makai defendants in this case were negligent in planning a dive for Tancredi to 145 feet for 20 minutes, since Tancredi had inadequate experience. The margin of safety for the dive plan was narrow for even the most qualified divers. It was far too narrow for a diver such as Tancredi. Tancredi was not qualified and did not have the requisite experience to participate in the dive to the "Deep Reef".

The Dive Makai defendants were negligent in failing to fully inquire as to Tancredi's dive qualifications. The investigation of Tancredi's diving experience and qualifications fell below the average level of inquiry practiced by the recreational dive industry at the time of the dive in question.

The Dive Makai defendants were also negligent in failing to inform Tancredi of the NAUI and PADI recommendations against such deep diving and the risks and dangers involved in exceeding those recommendations.

The Dive Makai defendants were negligent in providing Tancredi an insufficient supply of air in light of his relative inexperience. Tancredi's inadequate air supply contributed to his breathing difficulty, which in turn caused him to consume his remaining air more rapidly.

The Dive Makai defendants were negligent in not assigning a "buddy" for Tancredi. The evidence indicated that it is a breach of the standard of care in the recreational dive industry for a dive charter company to conduct a dive without assigning "buddy" teams. A "buddy" assumes the responsibility for monitoring and assisting the other meter of the "buddy" team at all times during a dive. The court finds that it is probable that an assigned "buddy" would have assisted Tancredi by giving Tancredi additional air when he first indicated breathing difficulty and would have helped Tancredi to the surface at a time when his life could have been saved.

The Dive Makai defendants were negligent in planning and conducting a dive in which the dive master used up almost all of his reserve air to fill up an anchor lift bag when Dive Makai customers were still ascending. By filling up the anchor lift bag with his reserve air, Westphal was unable to provide appropriate assistance to Tancredi in an emergency situation, and he was negligent therefor. If Westphal had retained sufficient air, he could have provided air to Tancredi when he reached Tancredi at 120 feet, and he would have been in a position to immediately take Tancredi to the surface. Those actions would likely have saved Tancredi's life.

 

[ScubaSteve1962]

Here are some excerpts from the court ruling in the case of Tancredi V. Dive Makai Charters. In that dive, Tancredi died from an OOA emergency on a DM-led dive in which the DM himself also went OOA. Every word that follows is from the court ruling and is not my interpretation. There are no omitted sections from the start to the end of this quotation.

The evidence in this case established that defendants Dive Makai Charters, Lisa Choquette, Tom Shockley and Rich Westphal (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Dive Makai defendants") owed Tancredi a duty to provide a reasonably safe dive plan, to make sure prior to the dive that he was qualified to participate in the dive, to inform him prior to the dive of the risks associated with a deep dive and the fact that diving to a depth of 145 feet is not recommended by the national diving agencies, and to conduct the dive in a reasonably safe manner. Based on the evidence presented, the court finds that the Dive Makai defendants breached their duties as set forth above.

The risks involved in recreational scuba diving increase with the depth of the dive. As a diver goes deeper, his air consumption increases. His body absorbs more nitrogen, causing impaired judgment and an increased risk of decompression sickness. At depths below 100 feet, and at tank volumes below 1000 psi, divers start to experience a marked increase in breathing resistance. If a diver is under physical or mental stress, he may over-breath his regulator and increase breathing resistance even further. The national diving agencies, including the National Association of Underwater Instructors ("NAUI") and the Professional Association of Diving Instructors ("PADI"), recommend that sport divers not go below 100 feet and have established 130 feet as an absolute limit for recreational diving because of the hazards inherent in deep diving. NAUI and PADI also recommend against decompression diving for sport divers, citing the dangers associated with such dives.

The Dive Makai defendants in this case were negligent in planning a dive for Tancredi to 145 feet for 20 minutes, since Tancredi had inadequate experience. The margin of safety for the dive plan was narrow for even the most qualified divers. It was far too narrow for a diver such as Tancredi. Tancredi was not qualified and did not have the requisite experience to participate in the dive to the "Deep Reef".

The Dive Makai defendants were negligent in failing to fully inquire as to Tancredi's dive qualifications. The investigation of Tancredi's diving experience and qualifications fell below the average level of inquiry practiced by the recreational dive industry at the time of the dive in question.

The Dive Makai defendants were also negligent in failing to inform Tancredi of the NAUI and PADI recommendations against such deep diving and the risks and dangers involved in exceeding those recommendations.

The Dive Makai defendants were negligent in providing Tancredi an insufficient supply of air in light of his relative inexperience. Tancredi's inadequate air supply contributed to his breathing difficulty, which in turn caused him to consume his remaining air more rapidly.

The Dive Makai defendants were negligent in not assigning a "buddy" for Tancredi. The evidence indicated that it is a breach of the standard of care in the recreational dive industry for a dive charter company to conduct a dive without assigning "buddy" teams. A "buddy" assumes the responsibility for monitoring and assisting the other meter of the "buddy" team at all times during a dive. The court finds that it is probable that an assigned "buddy" would have assisted Tancredi by giving Tancredi additional air when he first indicated breathing difficulty and would have helped Tancredi to the surface at a time when his life could have been saved.

The Dive Makai defendants were negligent in planning and conducting a dive in which the dive master used up almost all of his reserve air to fill up an anchor lift bag when Dive Makai customers were still ascending. By filling up the anchor lift bag with his reserve air, Westphal was unable to provide appropriate assistance to Tancredi in an emergency situation, and he was negligent therefor. If Westphal had retained sufficient air, he could have provided air to Tancredi when he reached Tancredi at 120 feet, and he would have been in a position to immediately take Tancredi to the surface. Those actions would likely have saved Tancredi's life.

This just sounds like a Op with a bad DM, yes the op should be held responsible because this probably wasn't his first time doing this, but what really stands out to me is that buddy teams were not assigned and no one said anything about it, no one took it upon themselves to say will you be my buddy? They just once again blindly went along with the DM. Isn't this a good place for us to let newbies (including me) know that you can speak up, ask questions not just follow along because it's what everyone else is doing? I've seen people on here ask about dive ops with guides and people reply asking why do they want a guide, they should be able after OW training to go out on almost any dive as a buddy team. IMHO and just mine, no one should do something that they are uncomfortable with regardless what everyone else thinks.

Also as divers who are certified, does the dive op need to inform us of our certification agency recommendations IE PADI or NAUI as mentioned in the transcripts? Isn't this something that was taught in OW?

 

[Ron Lee]

All my responses are going on one post. Not sure why.

Ron,

I guess I don't like that tag idea, because it implies there is a problem in Cozumel. (And you more or less say that...) I mean I think if a diver starts to head for the surface, buddy or not the DM ought to try to figure out what is going on. If a diver is going up early some thing is wrong. If something is wrong, the diver may need help. Or just someone to calm their panic. Please though don't take this as a comment on a specific incident.

I will have to reread my tagline. I am not trying to suggest that Cozumel is for advanced divers only. Divers with just their checkout dives or a few more have only so much training and experience in an environment that can be deadly in some scenarios. You have beaucoup dive masters/instructors/dive op owners who see them all the time.

They can surely speak of the skills improvement and possibly "confidence" as a new diver makes multiple dives over a typical dive vacation. So a diver who gets stressed over something and starts towards the surface may be at higher risk of a bad outcome than a similar diver who is mentored and gains experience with a bit more hands on supervision than just following a DM.

Let's face it though, the common situation is a couple takes up diving and goes diving together. They are each others buddy and neither could rescue the other if it was serious. Sure they can share air and all that, but if the panic thing sets in, they probably aren't up to calming them and controlling the situation. Heck more likely the panic will spread to them as they watch their partner in trouble. It isn't like you can split them up. Who is going to leave their partner and pair with a stranger because someone you don't know says they are experienced? Which is again back to my DM has to be more than a tour guide. That seems to be the facts. Maybe the training for OW should be more rigorous. As I understand it, it is going the other way though so you have to deal with the facts on the ground.

Exactly. This is embodied in my tagline. Here is your comment:

"I mean I think if a diver starts to head for the surface, buddy or not the DM ought to try to figure out what is going on. If a diver is going up early some thing is wrong."

My opinion is that it should not take a lot of change or effort to assume that new divers are at higher risk. That means you watch them closer. You verify that they are ok. If it means holding their hands until they get back on the boat....DO IT.

I believe that Kevin made a post about how he tutored his newly certified wife. That is great. She gets the benefit of his experience. She gains experience with a competent buddy. Her safety is enhanced because of his "training." I will ask Kevin whether he would allow his wife to buddy with another newly certified diver with him nowhere near. I know that I would not. I don't care what dive op it is. I would be her buddy and help her progress in skills development, confidence and self-reliance.

The crux of my position is that some changes may well go a long way to minimizing non-medical scuba related deaths and missing divers.

PROTECT OUR NOVICE COZUMEL DIVERS - Improved oversight, guidance and training is cheaper than complacency.

GOAL: ZERO non-medical diver deaths. ZERO missing divers.


---------- Post added April 8th, 2012 at 11:22 AM ----------


---------- Post added April 8th, 2012 at 11:20 AM ----------

I've seen people on here ask about dive ops with guides and people reply asking why do they want a guide, they should be able after OW training to go out on almost any dive as a buddy team.

I cannot disagree with this more. Would you throw a newly certified buddy team out at Barracuda, Maracaibo, Devil's Throat, Pt Lobos or Monastery Beach in California or perhaps thousands of other dive sites globally?

---------- Post added April 8th, 2012 at 11:34 AM ----------

The point is, why in the world don't dive ops figure out a unique position to take instead of just being so generic? The perfect example of a missed opportunity is the newbie diver. Nobody in Cozumel dominates the market as 'the' dive shop for newbies to trust to go to. It's a gold mine on so many levels. The rest of the dive shops are almost all fighting over the same customers, and nobody has figured out how changing their focus to cater to newbies wouldn't benefit them. Become the newbie dive shop of choice, get a reputation as the shop that newbies can go to and be safe as kittens with a dive program and profile especially for them and watch the cash registers overflow. Newbie divers are so easy to cater to, if they see a turtle they would crap themselves. Just keep em safe, put extra dive masters in the water with them, give them special attention and watch your reputation spread like wild fire. Not to mention if you coupled that with a program that allowed newbies to flock to you and be able to stay with you as they progressed to better and more experienced divers you've built in a gold mine of repeat business. You catch em at their start and make em a customer for life.

As I read this my impression was that you are so right. I have often read that Aldora is more advanced/gonzo divers. Yet I see new divers all the time. I have been on boats with new divers. New divers seem to be treated very well. I cannot state that Aldora meets the intent that you suggest since I do not see everything that happens with new customers.

I do know that because Aldora, like many other dive ops, has multiple boats, that they are able to segregate divers by skill level likely better than a dive op with one boat. This is not to disparage one boat dive ops. There are beaucoup sites that will provide a great dive for new and experienced diver on the same boat.

Using your post as the starting idea, what if that program for newbie divers is marketed as providing comprehensive diver development with the end result that after a week of diving, they are more advanced than similar divers who just follow a DM. It is possible that such a program would involve another DM to help in skills development which provides an extra person who could respond to an event where a diver had to surface. That contributes to my goals below.

 

[boulderjohn]

All my responses are going on one post. Not sure why.

A new feature on ScubaBoard is that consecutive posts by the same person are combined. The purpose of this has to do with problems related to certain specific forums in which people post empty posts in order to promote an older thread to prominence. It really has no function in the other forums, but it cannot be limited to specific forums and so becomes global.

 

[Splitlip]

I hope you realize I was joking about the 3 hands, and I appended the word "easily."


It can be hard to find such a class. I first realized what a buoyancy chump I was--even though I was a Peak Performance Buoyancy instructor--when I took Intro to Tech. Becoming a cave diver was another big step. Other people take GUE Fundamentals or other similar classes to reach new levels. You are quite right that traditional recreational scuba does not go there. In our area, the shop with which I work is just now introducing such a class.

Actually I've used the "3 hand" comment often. In a perfect shoot, we would have 1 hand holding th reel or spool, 1 hand holding the bag and 1 hand using the 2nd stage or inflator hose. (not considering orally inflating) 1+1+1=3

 

[boulderjohn]

Actually I've used the "3 hand" comment often. In a perfect shoot, we would have 1 hand holding th reel or spool, 1 hand holding the bag and 1 hand using the 2nd stage or inflator hose. (not considering orally inflating) 1+1+1=3

I use the phrase when I teach. It usually gets a chuckle. I guess the humor was lost in a written medium.

 

[ScubaSteve1962]

I think I understand what you're disagreeing with.

I cannot disagree with this more. Would you throw a newly certified buddy team out at Barracuda, Maracaibo, Devil's Throat, Pt Lobos or Monastery Beach in California or perhaps thousands of other dive sites globally?

.

What are you disagreeing with? I'm saying if people are posting asking for recommendations of ops with dive guides, others shouldn't be posting telling them they shouldn't need guides. I wouldn't recommend throwing a newly certified team out anywhere unless they are comfortable with it. And if they're asking for ops with dive guides evidently they are not comfortable with it yet. I've asked this question on here before because most of the time I travel alone so I seek out ops with guides in the water. I get recommendations to just go jump in the water with anyone, I don't think that's going to happen right now.