Sport diver dies doing commercial work NFLND

[pipedope]

OK I get it now.

This is a crusade against solo diving.

Evven though the thread is not about solo diving you see it as a place to blame all the troubles of the diving world on solo diving. Oh no, that is wrong, all the troubles in the diving world are the fault of solo diving and PADI.

He could have been doing lots of things underwater but what he WAS doing was WORKING on moorings and that is COMMERCIAL DIVING.

Aren't you the guy who says that people should be left alone to do what they want?
I guess in your world a dive is safe if you are not getting paid but somehow is much more dangerous if you are getting paid.

On a working diving being solo is a bad thing, but a buddy is not the answer. For working dives (this is about a person working on harbor moorings) the answer is using the proper commercial standards, procedures and equipment.

 

[MikeFerrara]

OK I get it now.

This is a crusade against solo diving.

Evven though the thread is not about solo diving you see it as a place to blame all the troubles of the diving world on solo diving. Oh no, that is wrong, all the troubles in the diving world are the fault of solo diving and PADI.

The only thing that makes the thread about solo diving is that the diver died solo diving. The fact that he was doing something that some municipality or government agency clasifies as commercial may or may not actually be relevant to any meaningful accident analysis.

What we do know is that he was alone, out of gas, surfaced rapidly and died. We don't even know if he even laid hands on the mooring during the dive and we sure have no evidence that the mooring or specific activity contributed in any way to the accident.

He could have been doing lots of things underwater but what he WAS doing was WORKING on moorings and that is COMMERCIAL DIVING.

Aren't you the guy who says that people should be left alone to do what they want?
I guess in your world a dive is safe if you are not getting paid but somehow is much more dangerous if you are getting paid.

I am against legislation that controls the way people dive. I am against our silly cert card driven system. I am, however in favor of training that helps prepare divers to make sensible decisions and conduct their dives with skill.

On a working diving being solo is a bad thing, but a buddy is not the answer. For working dives (this is about a person working on harbor moorings) the answer is using the proper commercial standards, procedures and equipment.

You are only looking at this from the prospective of a commercial diver. As I've tried to explain to you, there are many activities that do not fall under the legal definition of commercial diving that envolve many of the same risks/distractions. I think your point of view is tainted by your limited experience with non-commercial training.

There are many many examples of common recreational activities that seem like they would fall under your definition of work. We do them and our training covers it.

you have repeatedly stated that no recreational training prepares a divcer for a working dive. I have repeatedly asked you for a definition of work and pointed out that it simply isn't true and given examples.

Being paid doesn't make it more dangerous than not getting paid and the fact that an activity falls under the legal deffinition of commercial does not make it more dangerous or complex than an activity that doesn't.

You have not provided any reason why what this diver was doing envolves any more or different risk than non-commercial things we do UW every day and you certainly have not shown how it had anything to do with the accident.

In your opinion how did the mooring contribute to the accident?

 

[wolf eel]

[ "Bailey says if people aren't aware of the rules, there will be more tragedies.The provincial government hasn't done a good job of advertising new, stricter regulations for commercial divers and companies that require commercial level work, he says. Occupational Health and Safety is still investigating. If your not a registerd commercial diver, please don't try taking on underwater jobs that may kill you, there's allot more to it than just sport diving skills.]

Hi
Does the east coast have a occupational diver certs ?

Please do not think you should have to take a course just to move some mooring lines around. We on the west coast have an Occupational diving certs from WCB without it you can not work. It is a complete WASTE OF TIME. what you do is spend money and waste your time and effort taking a course that has no real merit nor does the course show anything to anybody all it does is put people who can not afford to take a month off and dive out of the game. Real good divers that are being replaced by real crapy dudes that have bucks does not make the system better at all.

A CD course is not what you need to move mooring lines but experience in diving. Your log book should be more then enough. Why can we not be able to do as we see fit. If I die doing something I should not have being doing why is it everybodys fault but my own. I choose what I am doing and if I am doing something out of my league that is not the fault of anybody but me.

I do feel bad for the family. A guide neads a course a trimix diver needs a course but a guy moving mooring lines does not.

Being paid does make it commercial and makes it a bit more dangerous as you will try harder to complete the task as you have agreed to do something and that does change the game but not the diving rules that we all have to go by.

Cheers
Derek

 

[TN Diver]

Hi folks,

Here's a link to check out regarding commercial in Canada

http://www.divercertification.com

 

[rmediver2002]

Legislation was not written specific to installing or moving a mooring, so using that as the basis for dropping legislation is unrealistic.

The fact is that just having a certification to commercial dive proves nothing (the same applies to any diving) if you do not know how to do a task, especially when personal, environmental, or property damage is going to be an issue then you should not be conducting the task.

Since these tasks have been accomplished in the past by divers without the experience to perform the job correctly and an accident occured many times the divers had no insurance to cover the damage they caused.

If the damage was to the contractor who hired an uninsured and untrained diver then my personal opinion is good... They should not make the same mistake next time, but what if the damage is to the environment or another person who was not even involved in the project?

Bottom line, without some training (validated by certification) in the basics of commercial diving, no matter how experienced or skilled you think you are as a diver, I am not going to hire you on. Commercial diving is a hard enough business without having to conduct on the job training at the same time...

 

[MikeFerrara]

Legislation was not written specific to installing or moving a mooring, so using that as the basis for dropping legislation is unrealistic.

The fact is that just having a certification to commercial dive proves nothing (the same applies to any diving) if you do not know how to do a task, especially when personal, environmental, or property damage is going to be an issue then you should not be conducting the task.

Since these tasks have been accomplished in the past by divers without the experience to perform the job correctly and an accident occured many times the divers had no insurance to cover the damage they caused.

If the damage was to the contractor who hired an uninsured and untrained diver then my personal opinion is good... They should not make the same mistake next time, but what if the damage is to the environment or another person who was not even involved in the project?

Bottom line, without some training (validated by certification) in the basics of commercial diving, no matter how experienced or skilled you think you are as a diver, I am not going to hire you on. Commercial diving is a hard enough business without having to conduct on the job training at the same time...

Absolutely no arguement with anything that you said. However I still don't see any indication that the objective of this divers dive had any direct bearing on the accident. Maybe it did but it doesn't look like it.

 

[rmediver2002]

No it would not appear (entanglement, mechanical injury, pinned under weight) the task was the direct cause of the fatality.

I may be wrong but I think one of the things Pipedope was trying to bring to light was that if the task was performed by a commercial company there would have been a minimum manning of three (diver, tender, supervisor for surface supplied) or four for SCUBA (diver #1, diver #2 or standby diver on surface, tender, and supervisor)

Your correct in stating that "solo diving" the most likely cause of this casualty, but it is also correct to state it was from not meeting the minimum manning requirements for commercial diving.



Some of the other comments we have seen in this thread though convey a more dangerous message or perhaps lack of understanding. When someone makes assumptions that they can complete a paticular dive (depth, current, decompression, task being performed, cave diving, commercial diving...) based on what they think will be encountered without having the training or experience to accurately consider all factors accidents can and will happen. Sometimes a task does not appear overly complicated or dangerous but it may be.

Honestly how many of these accidents are divers who thought they would not be able to complete the task and knew they were going to be a statistic?

 

[chuck_zc]

Sea urchin harvester? Didn't know there was an industry here. What are they collected for? I know the Japanese eat them but can't think of anyone else who would. Sea urchin looks like sneeze.

I worked for a couple of divers about 6 years ago as a tender..lots of fun
Don't run in those circles anymore so I'm not sure if anyone still does it. The urchins were collected for their roe. Watching your buddy jump throught the ice with 40' of 3/8 nylon rope is not my idea of a good time.

 

[MikeFerrara]

No it would not appear (entanglement, mechanical injury, pinned under weight) the task was the direct cause of the fatality.

I may be wrong but I think one of the things Pipedope was trying to bring to light was that if the task was performed by a commercial company there would have been a minimum manning of three (diver, tender, supervisor for surface supplied) or four for SCUBA (diver #1, diver #2 or standby diver on surface, tender, and supervisor)

Your correct in stating that "solo diving" the most likely cause of this casualty, but it is also correct to state it was from not meeting the minimum manning requirements for commercial diving.

I understand that point and agree that if the dive was done to commercial standards it likely would have turned out different.

However, if the dive would have been done to senseible recreational standards, the same is also true.

What's crawling up my shorts here is that some seem to be suggesting that the same mistakes may lead to trouble if the dive is clasified as commercial but not if it's considered recresational? That one is unreasonably dangerous while the other isn't? One mandates legislation and/or prosecution and the other doesn't?

Some of the other comments we have seen in this thread though convey a more dangerous message or perhaps lack of understanding. When someone makes assumptions that they can complete a paticular dive (depth, current, decompression, task being performed, cave diving, commercial diving...) based on what they think will be encountered without having the training or experience to accurately consider all factors accidents can and will happen. Sometimes a task does not appear overly complicated or dangerous but it may be.

Honestly how many of these accidents are divers who thought they would not be able to complete the task and knew they were going to be a statistic?

This is a basic premis of dive planning. With the possible exception of heart attacks or similar medical problems one could argue that every diver who has ever been hurt was diving beyond their ability and/or training and/or experience.

In the case of commercial diving there are laws that protect an employee from being forced into a situation by their employer. In recreational diving there are no such laws (which is ok with me) but that doesn't make the same dumb mistakes any less dumb or less dangerous. All dive objectives share some common general hazards...water, distraction...ect while specific hazaards due to the specific task or equipment may differ.

 

[pipedope]

What's crawling up my shorts here is that some seem to be suggesting that the same mistakes may lead to trouble if the dive is clasified as commercial but not if it's considered recresational? That one is unreasonably dangerous while the other isn't? One mandates legislation and/or prosecution and the other doesn't?

Turn it around.

How does a dive that requires a three man team with multiple backups (and a chamber if the depth is enough) to be safe is there is a paycheck suddenly become safe to do under recreational standards if there is no pay?