Thailand is home to three of the top 50 dive sites in the world-CNN

[lord khram]

LK, a check dive isn't necessary as long as you are using all of your own facilities, equipment, boat, emergency medical materials and so on. When you contract with a dive operator to use its facilities, boats, equipment, medical materials, etc., the contract may stipulate that you meet certain requirements, among which a check dive. If you don't like the terms of the operator's contract, don't enter into it. Simple as that! But don't be miffed if you are refused service because you won't comply with the terms.

Just because certain shops chose to operate in this fashion, it doesn't necesarilly mean it is the best way for all of their customers. As you suggest, on numerous occasions I have indeed declined to dive with operators that have made such stipulations and will do so again in the future should I find myself in that situation again. Generaly speaking I only have to walk up the road to find another operator who does not find it necessary for me to waste my time and money on futile exercises. Each dive operator has its free choice to stipulate their terms and conditions as indeed each customer is not compelled to subscribe to their nonsense.

---------- Post added May 7th, 2012 at 02:23 PM ----------

Yes, but in these cases common sense requires that somebody in the diveshop knows what they are talking about

I would agree, this can be a problem.

 

[supergaijin]

And this is exactly the sort of thing to what I was refering in my last post. Why as a matter of course should you insist on a check dive? I was always under the opinion that your diving qualifications and your log book were there to demonstrate your general competence as a diver? If this is not sufficient I feel this would bring the whole certification system into question!
Yes I would agree for instance, a diver on an open water certificate with a low number of dives and / or infrequent dives, it would be prudent of any dive centre to insist on a check dive / review. But such instances are not always the case, and common sense on the part of dive centres should determine when such checks are necessary, rather than it being normal practice.

a) Divers often do not keep up to date logbooks. A logbook telling me that they saw a pink fish in Thailand or a yellow one in Sharm el Sheikh tells me nothing about a diver's ability to cope with conditions.

b) Certificates alone mean nothing- an Advanced OW cert does not make one an advanced diver. I regularly see Rescue divers who couldn't rescue themselves out of a paper bag.

c) experience counts but experience 'back in the day' means nothing.

When divers regularly come in to our shop without 'proof' of recent diving experience, they are essentially asking me to 'trust them'. Where is there a difference between this and doing 'trust me' dives with an instabuddy?

I operate a professional and safe diving operation. I see many many divers who can talk the talk but can't walk the walk- I see them every week. I need to know that they are safe divers before I give them access to the potential dangers of the Indian Ocean, because if there is an incident, the emotional and financial repercussions will fall directly to me and my partner.

How can I know that a diver is a safe and conscientious divers? There is no fail-safe way but with a check dive I can view them and scrutinize them (in a professional capacity) in a controlled environment and make a professional judgement as to their ability to conduct safe dives. If I (as a professional) believe that they are not ready to handle strong drift dives, I have the option to be prudent and deny access to certain sites, because as a professional I have more information and local experience to weigh the potential dangers vs the perceived ability of a guest on vacation.

I insist on a check dive because I do not trust divers. If divers can show me proof that they have the skills and experience to dive in any condition that the Indian Ocean can throw at them, then I am willing to take them without demonstrating their skills. In my day to day experience, 99% of divers cannot prove it and so I will continue to insist on check dives before I allow them access to certain sites.

 

[Taliena]

Ok, so I can show a lot of certificates (and not just AOW), and normally my last dive is only a couple of days ago, I dove on the Northsea, I know what strong currents are, I know to dive in bad visibility (<1m) and I need to do a checkdive too?
Ok, sometimes you have divers with 200+ dives and that divers don't know how a compass work. And I have seen as a DM some people with about 75 dives and the battery of the divingcomputer (and pressure gauge) was empty and they said: Oh, I can dive, I know how many air I need. Or someone with no alternative air source: I don't need it. In this cases, yes, a checkdive is ok.

But you ask money for a checkdive, you earn money with every checkdive, so it it strange that people ask to trust you and not to do that checkdive, it can be a waste of time? I understand that people ask not to do a checkdive. It's not free.
If a diver can show some more certificates than only OW or AOW and can proof in a logbook his experience, why not trust them and look a little bit extra on them when they are setting up their equipment? (yes of course you set up your equipment yourself).

 

[supergaijin]

I guess you didn't read my post.... (last paragraph)

If divers can show me proof that they have the skills and experience to dive in any condition that the Indian Ocean can throw at them, then I am willing to take them without demonstrating their skills.​

I will repeat that most of the divers that come to my neck of the woods can't show proof of diving experience- thus I ask them to do a check dive. They are most welcome to decline, and I will not feel bad about it.

I guess that today's diving climate has changed. I know that I am not willing to take a risk on divers being able or unable to handle potentially challenging conditions. Finally regarding the price of a check dive- it's cheaper than a 'normal' dive. I do charge for the check dive; after the skill demonstration we continue to dive the reef. If divers are as good as they say.. well the basic skills take what... 3mins? 5mins at the most?.

Again, I don't think that's much to ask- do you Taliena?

 

[lord khram]

Ok, so I can show a lot of certificates (and not just AOW), and normally my last dive is only a couple of days ago, I dove on the Northsea, I know what strong currents are, I know to dive in bad visibility (<1m) and I need to do a checkdive too?
Ok, sometimes you have divers with 200+ dives and that divers don't know how a compass work. And I have seen as a DM some people with about 75 dives and the battery of the divingcomputer (and pressure gauge) was empty and they said: Oh, I can dive, I know how many air I need. Or someone with no alternative air source: I don't need it. In this cases, yes, a checkdive is ok.

But you ask money for a checkdive, you earn money with every checkdive, so it it strange that people ask to trust you and not to do that checkdive, it can be a waste of time? I understand that people ask not to do a checkdive. It's not free.
If a diver can show some more certificates than only OW or AOW and can proof in a logbook his experience, why not trust them and look a little bit extra on them when they are setting up their equipment? (yes of course you set up your equipment yourself).

I would agree entirely, all it takes is a little common sense to be aplied to the situation. I was on holiday last year with my friend and we were asked to do a check dive before we went onto a 25m reef in clear water and little current, my buddy is a tech / trimix instructor and dives several times per week I seldom go more than 1 week without diving, and both of us have logged dives into the 1000's. I dare say both of us far more experienced than the guy that wanted to do the checks. We declined and went to another shop who made us most welcome and over the following 2 weeks dived with them 8 days. Business that the first guy turned away, seems a little foolish to me.

 

[supergaijin]

I totally agree with what you did. If you could prove via logbooks that you are diving that often, you shouldn't have to prove yourself. You went down the road and found another dive center that allowed you to dive without a check dive.

If OTOH you didn't bring logbooks, you're asking the DC to trust you. Some DCs are more trusting than others.

 

[Taliena]

I totally agree with what you did. If you could prove via logbooks that you are diving that often, you shouldn't have to prove yourself. You went down the road and found another dive center that allowed you to dive without a check dive.

If OTOH you didn't bring logbooks, you're asking the DC to trust you. Some DCs are more trusting than others.

So a checkdive is not necessairly for some divers. If I had to do checkdive, I went to another divingcenter too. 3 minutes of an unteresting dive on an uninteresting place, sorry, I won't do that. I can proof my dives, I can show certificates.

 

[supergaijin]

Please try to read what I have been saying all along.... ah forget it.

There is another recent thread debating check dives- let's move it over there?

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba...ot-refused-boat-dives-due-12-month-break.html

 

[Taliena]

And this only because I said that the Similans is not one of the best places in the world to dive (someone turned it into everything was wrong, but that are not my words), and that I said a guide is not necessairly here.
Happely we could dive without a guide. And yes, we saw a lot of dead coral, and fishingnets. We made some nice dives (Richelieu rock, Koh Tachai Pinnacle, Boon sung Wreck), but most places are not one of the best in the world.

 

[lord khram]

If OTOH you didn't bring logbooks, you're asking the DC to trust you. Some DCs are more trusting than others.

The trust thing works 2 ways, you mention in an earlier post about divers that can 'talk the talk but not walk the walk'. the same aplies to some dive centres / professionals I have met over my years of diving, fortunately it is a small minority, but the guy I refered to in my last post, to me was demonstrating traits of someone who is inexperienced at what he is doing or just plain stupid. So we opted for another DC and had a great time with them.