What Responsibilities do Dive Operation Have?

[SDAnderson]

I agree that we are responsible for ourselves on a dive but knowing and not knowing when to call a dive can be a difficult decision. Although it shouldnt be, it often is. We plan, we travel, we get there ready to dive then suddenly the conditions worsen or the group(s) isn't what we expect but we've come so far......should I or shouldn't I.....I'm sure you can relate.

The question some of us have is where are we suppose to get the experience to qualify us for these dives? In class? Classes rarely qualify you to dive the conditions that are expressed in this post. Diving slowly and progressively, building up to an open ocean wreck dive makes sense but it isn't always possible. So then what, dive once a year on holiday? Some people want to dive at home where the conditions are more challenging.

How do you get the experience without getting in over your head? Any words of advise?

Knowing when to call a dive is always unpleasant but rarely all that difficult: when it doubt, abort. Easier said than done, I agree, but there you have it.

Ask questions and don't try to impress the charter with your skill. Rather, impress upon him the fact that you have concerns, aren't certain about your abilities and/or the conditions and might need extra help. If you don't know the site, the charter and the other divers, be extra cautious. If you think you might be getting a glad-handed back-slapping from a charter that is just looking to take your money, ask him about his insurance - that will almost always get him to stop talking for a minute and look closely at you.

As to gaining experience, the progression doesn't necessarily have to be slow but it does need to be steady and coherent. As japan-diver indicated, advancing in skill requires more diving than you can pack into a few dives on a weeklong trip. If time or money or interest conspire to keep you from diving more than occasionally, so be it. There is nothing wrong with being a once-a-year resort diver; if that's what you are, no amount of wishful thinking is going to make you an advanced diver.

The first step towards moving out of guppy status is to get trained through Rescue. IMNSHO, until you're Rescue certified, any class you take should be a Rescue prerequisite. No nitrox, no deep air, no night diving, no wreck diving, no nothing that doesn't lead directly to Rescue. You have to be able to take care of yourself and your buddy in an emergency. Depending upon your local conditions, a drysuit class might be an exception to this rule.

Past Rescue, training can be had from a variety of sources other than classes, although classes are usually the best place. Sometimes an alternate source could be a charter DM. It's imperative that this option not be assumed to be available and that arrangements are made with both the operator and the DM long before you reach the dock to have whatever special services you need provided. Plan on hiring your own private DM (and paying accordingly for both his/her time and expenses) and call it an introduction to local diving program, if need be. Another good source of training is a dive club. You can often find instructors, dive masters or just highly qualified buddies to share experiences and knowledge with - both on the surface and beneath.

The first step to expanding your limits is to know what your current ones are. Aside from making you a safer diver, knowing your limits allows you to create a realistic plan to develop the skills and gain the experience to become the diver you want to be.

 

[erichK]

While I encouraged people to read the thread I am responding to, I should perhaps have added the information that is supplied there, in a later posting:

**************************************************************************
The current is strong on this wreck on a good day and was exceptionally strong on this day, I know this site well and even fit, experienced divers can use 1000 psi (80 cf alum) going down the down line which is why the unanchored boat drops the divers 100 yards/meters upstream to drift onto the wreck.

EVERYONE is carded, and they fill out a "certified divers registration form" that indicates number and type of dives and date of last dive. However, unless something is seriously amiss all certified divers are accepted. No card no dive.

One possible contributing factor is that the dive can be promoted and sold by comission based travel agents that know nothing about diving and are not divers themselves. They are just selling a tour like any other tour they sell. They dont know and they dont care..

The harbour master probably should have closed the port that day, but instead washed his hands and issued a "proceed with extreem caution" warning. The companies policy is "if it is open, the boat goes out with any client that wants to pay"

************************************************************************
This is where a combination of economic forces tend to militate against safety. On the one hand, the loss on the operator occasions by having to cancel dives and quite possibly, on the other (for the divers) airfare, accommodation and other costs (not even to mention precious vacation days).

Many of us are forced to be mainly vacation divers. We live in Saskatoon, Canada, where the snowbanks have finally disappeared, but the thick ice on rivers and lakes is still melting, and where, perforce, all but the really fanatical end up mainly being vacation divers. We have to trust the reports of others and the descriptions of operators as we gamble our savings, hoping that a trip that will provide good dives.

Note what the letter says about the faces and attitudes of the other divers. Seems that these were also unhappy, even frightened. In the short run, the operator made some money and avoided some losses. In the long run, such dives are bad for the sport, even if no one actually gets hurt: likely they are a major reason for SCUBA's high attrition rate. At the very least, the operator should have made an emphatic statement about the state of the harbour and the difficulty of the dive, likely before letting this group got onto the boat. I think that those of us who dive unfamiliar sites deserve that. Such dive plan details as any need to descend quickly should also have been discussed, in case some of the potential divers had problem ears and such.

Of course, all this may have been done...but it certainly does not sound like it.

 

[SDAnderson]

At the very least, the operator should have made an emphatic statement about the state of the harbour and the difficulty of the dive

I agree completely - the charter operator should, to the best of his knowledge, provide his passengers with whatever information he has about the dive. Especially on days or dives when conditions are expected to be worse than normal.

Divers, however, should not assume that this will happen and should ALWAYS inquire, before boarding the boat, how the day looks. What kind of conditions are expected at the site and in general, what kind of skills and experience are needed, etc. I think this couple demonstrates the (understandable) folly of worrying about losing face or a few dollars: it can cost you your neck.

For good reasons, we all were taught that when we get behind the wheel of a car, we should drive defensively. For the same reasons we should all dive defensively, too. If you take a proactive stance and assume responsibility for yourself you won't ever have to worry about whether or not somebody else should have been looking out for you.

 

[String]

I pretty much agree with everything reefraff has said.

Dive operators i want a safe standards compliant boat to get me to and from the dive site, i want a decent site brief if i havent done it before and i want them checking that qualifications of divers are in order for the dive on offer.

Thats about it.

*ALL* divers are responsible for their own safety. THEY make the decisions that affect themselves. If they are relying on someone to make those calls for them then these people in my view arent good enough to be signed off as qualified divers.

I cant see any boat captain dropping divers down current of a line - its a basic skill. Again they probably drifted past it and couldnt get back to it. It happens occasionally, divers miss the shot line and cant get onto it. Its happened to me a few times. If that happens either aborad or enjoy a drift dive

Ive said it on the DM threads but if people need babysitting above and/or in the water they should pay for a 1:1 DM or instructor. Once qualified they need to take responsibility for themselves.

 

[Web Monkey]

The harbour master probably should have closed the port that day, but instead washed his hands and issued a "proceed with extreem caution" warning. The companies policy is "if it is open, the boat goes out with any client that wants to pay"

That's just the divers putting in their entries for the Darwin award.

Life is life and money is money and they're not the same. First you safeguard your life, then you argue about money. There's always another dive unless the diver does something really dumb on this one.

We blew off two days of diving in Tobermory because of rough seas (lake?). The boat captain (big, heavy steel former commercial fishing boat) looked at the water and said he'd take us if we wanted to go, but that he didn't think we would like it.

We figured if he was at all concerned, that was enough to call the dive.

There are times when it's best to go back to the bar and have a beer and watch the water. They should emphasize this more in OW class.

Terry

 

[Scuba]

While I agree that we are ultimately responsible for ourselves, responsibility is often shared. It's doesn't always fall solely upon one person. And different individuals can be solely or partially responsible for different tasks.

Boat captain is responsible for getting us to the dive location and back, safely, in regards to transport. I think this is fairly clear. Captain sinks the boat, leaves a diver out at sea through his negligence. He failed to carry out the duties he is responsible for.

Charter who selects or approves dive sites and books divers for the trip, bears at least partial responsibility of due diligence in ascertaining that divers are appropriate for such trip. To wash one's hand by saying divers are certified, therefore they are wholly responsible for deciding whether they wish to make a dive which may be way beyond their stated (ask) dive training and experience level, is in my opinion, contributory negligence. Dive charter to Titanic, you have a C card, period, your choice. Have money, you're in. In essence, we have at least two people contributing to negligent behavior. This is an extreme example, but unless I misunderstand some of the statements here, it is the position of some in this matter. This is a position which fails to take into account - contributory responsibility.

Recreational dive travel is a big part of this industry. Those professionals who cater to this part of the market definitely bear a degree of responsibility to the recreational diver for the services they perform.

I think most organizations are diligent about inquiring about a divers experience and matching it to the dive site and conditions. There are those who always ignore basic sensible norms of conduct and try to place blame on others when something goes wrong.

It's good to see so many divers take responsibility for their actions. After all, its our neck on the line and we should not depend on others to keep it safe. However, I also see this attribute carried to an extreme by some divers as demonstrated by the following observed examples: When divers defend a boat captain and charter who leave a diver behind through their contributory negligence. When a student blames solely himself for running or almost running out of air in a training dive. When divers feel an obligation to support a business that does not reciprocate - I see a good attribute, self responsibility, carried to an extreme which results in an unhealthy state of affairs.

 

[String]

Students are different, theres a duty of care issue there with the instructor.

Once certified it should entirely be the divers responsibility for the actual dive. The boat captain is solely responsible for the taxi journey.

 

[SDAnderson]

and a line must be drawn - that's only fair for everyone involved in the transaction. If you can't delineate the responsibilities of the parties to the contract you have a recipe for disaster. Let's consider some of the possible permutations of the due diligence process that you mentioned...

Charters checking C-cards? It's a wholly objective evaluation, seemingly a reasonable precaution (since people do lie about their credentials), it isn't a particularly onerous task for either party and there would seem to be little downside to doing so. Checking C-cards is, by the way, is a major change from how things were done even a couple of decades ago. I'm not certain that the world is a better place for it but it's tolerable.

Charters checking log books? Can we establish rules and procedures sufficiently rigid to make this evaluation objective? Not likely, so now we have the charter making subjective decisions - not where I want my boat driver to be. What are the criteria for any given dive or dive site and who decides? If the charter operator is going to be making a subjective evaluation of a divers training and expertise, shouldn't we require that he/she be able to demonstrate that they have the training and expertise to make this decision? The process will be time-consuming, expensive, fraught with tension and of questionable value - so let's leave it alone.

Charters conducting check-out dives? If it is decided that the charter should carry some of the burden of responsibility to ensure that divers possess the knowledge, training and experience to safely plan and conduct a dive, why not mandatory check-out dives with a suitably credentialed professional? Require a demonstration of each of the skills a diver might need on any given dive - mask drills, buoyancy, OOA, etc. This evaluation process would also be an opportunity to impress upon the diver the need to respect the limits of his training and experience. Of course, we'll need to create an agency to determine what skills are necessary and to establish criteria for evaluating those skills - along with a training program to teach the skills needed by all of the parties...maybe that agency could issue some kind of credential, a convenient wallet sized card that divers could carry with them...

Checking a divers certification card IS due diligence and, according to the training agency (an expert authority) the diver is at least qualified to know when they don't have the ability to safely conduct a dive within the limits of their training and experience. I think you're confusing "contributory" and "comparative" negligence (I'm not an attorney) but in either case, I think allowing for an easy assignment of responsibility for the verification of the divers ability to the charter is counter-productive: it drives up the cost of diving, introduces a substantial amount of hassle into the process, will do little to eliminate unsafe divers from the boat and rewards unsafe and uncaring divers for their own incompetence and bad behavior.

Diving is a dangerous activity. Participants should not enter into it without fully informing themselves of the risks and without being prepared to assume full responsibility for the consequences of those risks. Participants should obtain professional training and should carefully observe the limits of their training and experience, never exceeding either. Those that aren't comfortable with the risks and responsibilities of participating in diving should find another activity. Please.

Charter who selects or approves dive sites and books divers for the trip, bears at least partial responsibility of due diligence in ascertaining that divers are appropriate for such trip. To wash one's hand by saying divers are certified, therefore they are wholly responsible for deciding whether they wish to make a dive which may be way beyond their stated (ask) dive training and experience level, is in my opinion, contributory negligence. Dive charter to Titanic, you have a C card, period, your choice. Have money, you're in. In essence, we have at least two people contributing to negligent behavior. This is an extreme example, but unless I misunderstand some of the statements here, it is the position of some in this matter. This is a position which fails to take into account - contributory responsibility.

 

[Al Mialkovsky]

In the world of "it's not my fault" I feel responsibile for myself way more often than not.

Personal responsibility, imagine such a thing.

If I had people on a boat that needed to be baby sat I would decline the job. They don't belong there.

 

[ScubaFreak]

Divers are responsible for themselves.​

Whether they like it or not.​

Nail on the head.

Does the passenger in a car keep an eye on the petrol gauge? No...the driver does. The passenger just relies on the driver to get them from point A to point B.
What i see here is an underexperienced diver who got the fright of his life, and won't accept the responsibility of his own actions, so writes a fancy letter to the outfit. Fair enough, both sides of the story aren't known, and perhaps the dive outfit maybe should have re-assessed conditions considering the experience of the divers, but regardless of the operations actions, the diver should have thumbed it when he realised how the day was developing. If that hasn't been learnt by AOW, refreshers are in order.

SF