A ScubaBoard Staff Message...
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
A ScubaBoard Staff Message...
There's a big difference between skirting a swim-thru or foregoing wreck penetration and aborting a dive early. I'd have no problem making the first two compromises, though I would take it up with the DM back on the boat as to why a diver was left alone. And if it were a clearly dangerous scenario, such as an unbuddied diver making a panicky ascent without communicating such to the DM, then yes, I would assist the diver or at least keep a good eye on him or her until I saw a boat approach. But a buddy pair making a measured ascent to the surface, or even a solo that seems in control, I figure they know what they're doing and I'll continue on with my dive.The only case I recall where my dive was impacted was Devil's Throat. I usually go through last. On one dive, two divers elected to not go down the throat part. I had two options:
One example: The woman on the C53 dive last November. What if someone else had noticed that she was not going to enter the ship and decided to stay with her? Fact is that the other diver would have missed out on a dive that they purchased. It is possible that the woman would be alive today (barring a medical issue). Sounds like a good trade-off to me.
I agree that there should be some consistent objective means of gauging dive site difficulty. Many dive ops and guidebooks classify sites all over the world as easy, intermediate, or advanced, but there's not much uniformity to those classifications. Lonely Planet has a rating system for its "Diving and Snorkeling" series, but I feel it's arbitrary. For instance, Advanced is described as "advanced certification; has been diving for more than two years; logged over 100 dives; has been diving in similar waters and conditions within the last six months." But that's redundant. You can't dive an Advanced dive unless you've done a similar Advanced dive within the last six months? The 100 dives is more relevant, but not a guarantee of surviving a truly advanced dive if the 100 dives were done in more basic conditions, and we all know what value the "advanced certification" has.This would be a good topic for its own thread. I participated in a thread about a situation related to a situation in the Philippines in which a diver was on a dive that was much beyond his ability. I was very surprised by the breadth of opinions. Some believed that the responsibility lay directly with the diver, meaning that a relatively inexperienced diver should be able to make a realistic appraisal of his ore her ability and also know the relative difficulty of a site he or she has never visited. I did not concur.
Bad example. I have a very hard head and am a very self-sufficient drinker. Also I wouldn't be drinking in Wet Wendy's unless they can make a normal margarita, on the rocks!Isn't that just being a decent human being, no matter the activity? If I was in Wet Wendy's and Moss tripped over his bar stool and took a header, I would stop and allow my delicious frozen cilantro and pineapple margarita to melt while I checked him and possible injuries and helped him up. Do I want to let my delicious margarita melt? No, but it would be the decent thing to do. I guess I could pick a bar with hard core drinkers to minimize the chance of needing to help, but the principle still applies.
How many cruise ship passengers are mountaineering and back country skiing on their excursions, even somewhere more appropriate like Alaska? You're comparing apples to string beans.
Sure, I take the risk that my day of diving might be cut short by an accident. That's one thing. But that's a far cry from volunteering to accompany to the surface every newbie that aborts a dive.
I'm honestly amazed at how Cozumel is so often pushed as a great place to dive right after getting open-water certification. But I'd imagine revenue would slip a bit if 100 dives and advanced certification were required in order to dive the island. Money trumps safety and common sense. Cozumel will continue to be popular with newbies and newbies will continue go missing.
H! A little late for that. Over 200 posts, most off topic.As the originator of the thread, I would be great if MMM or someone wanted to move a lot of this into a thread called "You, your buddy, your DM and your group, who should do what?" I think the discussion is educational and perhaps the discussion with all its meandering might do us all some good and help us dive 'safer'. I think that might serve to bring something of value out of this tragedy.
H! A little late for that. Over 200 posts, most off topic.
Let's see, at the discount an operator gets, it might cost $100 to outfit a 6-pack boat with enough spare SMBs to outfit every diver who might not come equipped with one. Kept on board and rarely needed, they would last for years. Maybe it's because I am not a retailer, but I just find it hard to believe that an investment like that would force an operator into bankruptcy. If they were to charge a $1 rental fee, I think they would pay for the whole lot in no time without driving customers away with such an exorbitant increase in costs. If they require them and offer them for sale as an option, the profits from just a couple such sales would take care of the overhead for the rentals.
The operator I use in Cozumel requires a computer, and they have expensive parkas on board to keep guests warm. The last time I checked, they were still in business.
As for knowing how to deploy one, if you are on the surface, it is pretty darn simple. It only becomes problematic if you feel a need to deploy it at depth with a spool or reel.