Instructor on Enriched Air

[pipedope]

And the movement by OSHA toward making nitrox OK under the instruction exemption there is lots of room to argue that it is ok to use nitrox for instruction.

People teaching decompression and mixes containing He are still at great risk because the rules are clear and expensive to follow.

Remember that lawyers go after deep pockets, if you have none then your exposure is low.

 

[rmediver2002]

Re-print of an article on this from last spring...

Changes in the Air…


The United States Occupational Safety and Heath Administration has proposed a change to 29 CFR 1910 subpart T, the regulation governing commercial diving operations.

Enacted in 1977 the regulation governs by definition all employees who are exposed to hyperbaric environments as a condition of employment. In the early 1980’s several exemptions to these standards were placed into effect. Exemptions to the standard include those for scientific, public safety and recreational dive training.

The recreational diving exemption – “Performed solely for instructional purposes, using open-circuit, compressed-air SCUBA and conducted within the no-decompression limits”

One of the fundamental items within this exemption was the specificity that diving was conducted using AIR as the breathing medium.

In 1997 Dixie divers applied for and was approved variance from the commercial diving standard allowing employees of Dixie divers to conduct instructional dives while using mixed gas (NITROX) without the necessity of an on-site recompression chamber. Until this time any dives conducted as a condition of employment using any mixture containing less than 19.5% oxygen or more than 23.5% oxygen were considered to be mixed gas dives and would be outside the recreational exemption. The variation was approved in large part due to the thorough documentation supporting the advantages of NITROX over air as a breathing medium for prevention of symptoms of decompression sickness.

After Dixie Divers was granted the variance clarification was requested regarding employees and instructors for other diving operations not affiliated with Dixie Divers. The agency responded and stated such employers would be in “de-minimis violation of the decompression chamber requirements specified in the commercial diving regulation” de-minimis violations carry no penalties, do not require abatement, and no citations are issued.

The agency has now proposed to amend the commercial diving standard to allow all diving instructors and diving guides to benefit from the exemption providing all requirements of the exemption are met.

The requirements include specifications for training of divers, training of gas blending personnel, and equipment requirements relevant to compressor and filtration system certifications.

The proposal is available for review on the OSHA web site, the federal register number for the proposal is 68:1399-1414 the proposal is open to public comments until April 10 2003; comments will be posted after review.

Jeffrey M. Lane, Florida State University Marine Lab – Academic Diving Program

 

[perpet1]

So what about Trimix and extended range instructors?

It sounds to me anytime you are beyond the NDL's or using mixed gas other then nitrox you are still not covered by the exemption. So are ALL (ok I will give some the benifit of the doubt "MOST") Tech instructors violating OSHA requirements?

I am NOT a Tech Instructor and I am just asking because I know a lot of tech instructors who, as you can imagine, do not meet the OSHA requirements.

 

[pipedope]

There are very few people following the rules when doing mix and deco.

 

[rmediver2002]

It sounds to me anytime you are beyond the NDL's or using mixed gas other then nitrox you are still not covered by the exemption. So are ALL (ok I will give some the benifit of the doubt "MOST") Tech instructors violating OSHA requirements?

Decompression diving and gasses other than air (OSHA defines as greater than 23.5 % O2 or less than 19.5% O2) require that the commercial diving standards are followed. These include among others having a recompression chamber available at the dive site.


There are several additional factors involved:

OSHA does not perform random inspections of companies with less than 10 personnel.

Accidents involving instructional personnel if reported may be reported as recreational diving accidents.

The violations (as an example the Nitrox) are classified as de-minimis violations and are not recorded or investigated.

All this could change if OSHA modifies the existing regulations. This proposed change might be the first in a series.

A diver diving on his or her own (when no employer employee relationship has been established) is not subject to OSHA regulation.

Another item to consider is OSHA will be looking for the employer, in some cases this has been the captain of a ship who hired "subcontractor" commercial divers.

There are many areas (commercial fishing, videography, ships husbandry, etc.) that would be unsustainable if conducted in accordance with the regulations at the current rates. So commercial diver do not pursue them and often divers ignorant of the regulations are hired for less money to take their place.

I am sure we have all seen adds in the local dive shop for hull cleaning, golf balling, fishing vessel support (untangling nets...)

Part of the reason OSHA pursues the employer is that this type of thing can occur deliberately with some unscrupulous employers...


Jeff Lane

 

[pipedope]

If anyone in the chain gets money then there is.

The agency that issues the card, the dive shop, the boat, anyone in the loop that benefits from the transaction.

Fortunately there are few accidents and we are still under the radar.

 

[IndigoBlue]

pipedope once bubbled...
If anyone in the chain gets money then there is.

The agency that issues the card, the dive shop, the boat, anyone in the loop that benefits from the transaction.

Fortunately there are few accidents and we are still under the radar.

A store owner who teaches would not be an employee.

An instructor who is a contractor would also not be defined as an employee. The nice thing about being a contractor is that you can agree or refuse to teach any class the store offers you.

Instructors on the store payroll would be contrued as employees however.

Once gain, with EANx there really is no issue here. But with technical deco-related instruction, the issue would be related to employee status of the instructor, if he or she is not a contractor.

 

[pipedope]

if you ever have to try and use those arguements.
You better have every little thing exactly right.
Example, does the shop publish a schedule of classes? Do they provide the location and/or any of the equipment?
Do you have all of the proper federal, state and local business licenses that are or may be required.
Are you paying all of your taxes as an independent business?
Are you an employee of a dive shop in *any* capacity?
If you work at the shop at all, the argument that you are an independent instructor will fall flat.

Remember that OSHA is a lot like the IRS, you are guilty until proven innocent. I know the cute little theory that says the opposite but the reality is this. They also have unlimited resources to come after you. How much money, time, and access to world class lawyers do you have to fight back?


BTW If the store owner is teaching he is not an employee but if he has any employees then he will have a hard time defending different standards for employees and for himself.

Hey, you can get away with a lot but if it comes down to it then it will be what OSHA, or the Coast Guard decide, and your pretty little arguements will do little to help you.

BTW OSHA can inforce safety regulations even when no direct employee exists. I know lots of contractors that have been cited for equipment violations (mostly ladders oddly enough) even though they were one man contractors. All it took was for them to be on a job site when the general contractor was inspected.
Do you think the GC stepped in to help them out?
Yeh right.

 

[rmediver2002]

In making a determination of employer/employee relationships, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has held that the test to be used must consider the following factors: who is responsible for controlling the employee's activities; who has the power, as opposed to the responsibility, to control the employee; who has the power to fire the employee or to modify the employee's employment conditions; whom the employee considers to be his/her employer; and who pays the employee's wages

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21454

Commercial salvage, kind of...
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=286

 

[sharkmasterbc]

I too teach OW on EANx, usually 40%, this is to lessen my risk while bouncing around chasing students. As already stated...less N2 is better...
I think if the s*** were to hit the fan...any gas is better than no gas...but again why was there an OOA emergency in the first place.
If you look into PADI materials and risk management, there may be grounds to find you as the instructor negligent if you are using a "mixeds gas" during an OW training dive. The RPSI would plan for every possible emergency, but if while breathing (the student) 40% there is a problem I would think you would definetly be found as negligent.
One thought is to wear a sidemount with normal AIR in it, if there was a problem you could just donate the reg from your sidemount, make a safe ascent and go from there.
As for the Nitrox training during OW, PADI has recently changed their standards to allow this type of training to occur during the last 2 check out dives.
Ragadalf - I don't think we have anything to worry about, after all we definetly drill proper buoyency and proper ascent procedures to our students...