What Responsibilities do Dive Operation Have?

[Web Monkey]

Thats incredibly hard to define. Yes you'd expect a good site briefing but common sense again is needed. If something isnt covered in a briefing, ask questions.

That's sort of like the "be back on the boat with 500 PSI" thing. You don't know what you don't know. I've seen brand new divers get torn up on a coral swim-through because of heavy surge. They had no idea what it would do to them.

I'm not sure that it would have helped even if the DM came right out and listed it in the dive briefing, since they had no idea what "heavy surge" and "sharp coral" even meant, and they certainly wouldn't have known enough to ask the right questions.

I don't know what is, but I can pretty much guarantee the answer isn't more government.

Terry

 

[Scuba]

The best way to keep government regulation away is for industry leaders to define safety standards, promote and demand implementation as applicable, monitor adherence, and enforce compliance. Not a simple endeavor and certainly not cheap. This is done today to varying degrees producing debatable success. Whether it is perceived as satisfactory from various perspectives or not, one thing is clear, the overall results produced are sufficient to keep the regulators away at this time. One always has to stay on top of changes.

I would hate to see diminishing acceptable results facilitating govt. regulation, in what is an ever increasing regulatory climate, at least in the U.S. Sometimes govt. regulation is necessary, but I believe it is generally better when things are done well without it.

One thing that I view as inexcusable from diver training agencies and professionals trained and licensed by these agencies, is the perhaps not so uncommon contradictory practice of emphasizing in OW training that certain conditions are to be avoided until properly trained for, and then, on vacation charters these same professionals de-emphasize and leave it up to the diver to brake training safety standards by permitting divers to dive in conditions they are not qualified for. I'll admit it is not always a well defined line such as overhead, even this can be debatable, but in such instances it is better to err on the side of caution and upholding safety standards.

While it is true that a diver can continue training and gaining experience outside the training agencies, such as a log book would imply, asking for such should be required for certain dives in which adequate certification is lacking. Anyone can lie, but this would protect the charter from liability, at least to some extent, and show a degree of due diligence.

Knowingly violating standard principles on the part of those entrusted to uphold them - is asking for government regulations.

There is an inherent issue affecting divers and charters. Divers are eager to dive. And charters are eager to facilitate their dive. For obvious reasons. This is not a reason to brake industry safety standards. A little more effort in matching divers to dive sites and conditions on the part of charters, as well as divers properly choosing a charter who caters to their needs, would go a long way in preventing accidents. There are many good charters and divers who do just that. Hopefully the vast majority. It is in the interest of the dive industry as a whole, to protect unwary and careless divers from those professionals who fail to do so, rather than protecting these professionals. Especially when one considers the large number of vacation only divers.

Improvements in safety, as well as keeping the need for govt. regulation at bay is not going to be found by putting all the responsibility on one source. Everyone has a contribution to make. We are all participants in this sport/hobby, we all share a responsibility to do our part.

 

[Scuby Dooby]

Improvements in safety, as well as keeping the need for govt. regulation at bay is not going to be found by putting all the responsibility on one source. Everyone has a contribution to make. We are all participants in this sport/hobby, we all share a responsibility to do our part.

I completely disagree. It is my responsibility to keep myself safe, if I'm not able to know when to call a dive, and how to do it, then I don't belong underwater. This is not me being macho or thinking I'm a great diver, this is a very basic bit of common sense and self protection that I expect adults to have.

Regulation imposed on boats, shops, DMs / Instructors to keep people safe who don't care enough to protect their own lives is a bad idea. I think it is just as likely to lead to even worse situations with unprepared divers. What if these people ever actually decide that they can dive unsupervised - from the beach, boats, whatever? Who is responsible then - the guy that gave them airfills? The owner of the parking lot where they left their car? It's called an open water certificate, enabling you to dive unsupervised. If you are too stupid or ignorant to inform yourself and receive proper training and that causes a problem then responsibility should fall on your own shoulders.

Honestly, this is completely ridiculous. One question for you all: Did you know that you couldn't breath water when you started scuba diving? If you did then you should have kept in mind that the only person who is responsible for your safety (and the only person I WANT responsible for mine) is yourself. If you are scared, unprepared, ill, etc. then stop your dive and go UP!!! and get safe - as quickly and safely as possible. You were trained in this - use your training instead of asking others to be responsible for your life. Geez . . . amazing

 

[The Kraken]

Scuba wrote:
"and then, on vacation charters these same professionals de-emphasize and leave it up to the diver to brake training safety standards by permitting divers to dive in conditions they are not qualified for."

Unless there is some pre-arranged agreement, and even that would be open for interpretation by the courts, these "professionals" legally cannot prevent a diver from diving as far as I am aware.

If anyone on the board has some legal information regarding the rights of divers and professionals this would be a good place for you to jump in.

If we are speaking specifically of a dive operation that takes a diver/divers to a dive site, the only responsibility that the contracted agency has to the diver is to get him/her to and from the dive site in a safe and prudent manner.

The dive operation can offer advice, but it is up to the sole discretion of the diver whether or not to make or call a dive.

If there are conditions which the dive operation feel present a clear and present danger to the clients it has a right and responsibility to abort the trip. I think this is the only area in which there could be grounds for litigation upon the part of a diver.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I don't want the "industry" or the government regulating my diving. If one of them is going to...at least the government lets me vote. The agencies just do all kinds of dumb stuff without ever asking me.

The way to keep government out is to vote that way. I don't even want my right to dive how I want dependant on my ability to do so safely. Safe diving is good but I don't want it to be any one elses business. PERIOD. If I want to bungie jump off Mt Everest or dive to 300 ft with a snorlel, I want to do it without the government or the agencies in my shorts.

If you ask me, the threat of government regulation is largely a threat that originates with the agencies to generate a greater perception of dependance on them. Yes, I know they have lobbied against some legeslation but the power of lobby groups is part of the problem rather than the solution as I see it. Besides they lobby for themselves not me.

If there is any real threat of government intervention it's not due to the few who do "out on the edge stuff" but rather due to the masses of barely trained divers who herd into the resorts as a result of the marketing that sells them on the idea that diving is fun and safe for every one. We may someday see legeslation if there is the perception that they need to be protected FROM the industry and themselves. There is already legeslation in some places.

Maybe all we need to do is to apply the Truth in Advertising laws that already exist.

 

[murphdivers286]

Scuba Diving is an extreme sport if we want to admit it or not. This is no hiking trip, or bicycle ride on a trail. We are going to another world for which we were not designed. That's why we carry those big round things on our back.

As for the original post. There are three sides to any story. One side, the other side, and the truth. It is human nature to change the story just a little to sway it to our side. That doesn't make anyone a bad person. It is just human nature. It is really hard for someone to stand up and say I ********* up.

I would like to hear the operation's side of the story. In my job, I listen to both sides of the story, look at the evidence present, and listen to any independant witnesses before I make a decision. Unfortunately, we do not have that privilege here. All we have is their version of the story. I'm not saying they are lying, I just want to listen to another version.

I just went on a dive this past weekend. At the surface the current was moderate, but at the bottom the currenct very strong. There was no way for the boat to know the current was that strong on the bottom until we got down there.

Divers should be responsible for themselves. If they doubt their ability, or the dive, then they should abort. I have aborted dives before and it was not an easy decision. In the original post he stated, "We left and returned to our hotel where my wife cried and shook for the rest of the day." At what point did she start feeling this way. If she was this upset at the end of the dives, I can only quess she probably felt this way after the first dive. Back to my statement about calling your dive.

As for the government issue. We do not want the government controlling anymore of this sport than they already do. I work for the government and it can be a real pain. The government would put some much restrictions on this sport to where no one would want to dive because of all the legal red tape. I don't personally believe the government should control every part of our lifes. We are adults here and should start acting like it. There is a saying I use with the students at my school, "The difference from being a child and an adult is standing up and taking responsibility for our actions and stop blaming others"

I'm not saying the divers are at fault and I'm not saying the op is at fault. I'm saying there is more to this story than what we just read. We all knew what this sport was all about when we joined. There is no secret about the dangers involved within.

 

[Scuba]

Just a few more points. I am not a fan of regulation, but sometimes one has to accept certain facts. Take the seat belt law for example. You can love it or hate it, but it produces unquestionable net benefits compared to its cost and inconvenience.

I certainly agree it is incumbent on everyone to protect their own safety irrespective of any involvement by others. But when others do get involved, whether by providing air fills, guiding dives, chartering boats and determining who is able to go and where, or anything else, everyone has a responsibility to carry out the duties they have voluntarily taken according to standard norms of practice. Some would like to keep divers misinformed with the notion they are not accountable at all for maintaining any professional standards or norms which may affect diver safety, usually the bad operators. I am not accusing anyone here of this, as I can understand the concept and perpective of ultimate reponsibility. My point is: ultimate, does not mean total and complete.

On another point, even if professionals on a charter can't prevent anyone from making a dive, the act of asking for C-cards for admittance infers notice of training level. To proceed by taking divers to dive sites they are not trained for per their licensing agency standards, and willingly accepting to guide these divers on dives which violate industry standards for the individual diver, is .......... You tell me. This seems to me a clear example of "someone" not owning up to the responsibilities they have voluntarily taken and are expected to uphold. Maybe I'm mistaken in regards to expectations. This does not absolve the diver who ultimately makes the final decision of any reponsibility. It does demonstrate he is being misguided, and is not the sole contributor to resulting outcome.

Train divers to minimum proficiency, take them to an inadequate site, and then misguide them, you have just opened the door to govt. regulation. Fortunately I think this is not the norm, at least not all three combined. No system is perfect.

While there are definitely many who wish to make a dive as deemed fit per individual choice based on a well informed understanding of the issues, a dive which may contain an extra known margin of safety or risk - there are many others who lack the necessary foundation to do so, or wish to rely on others.

The diving industry is big enough to accomodate everyone. When the diverse needs and desires of divers are all made to conform to one mold, there is no fit. The consequences can easily be further restrictions for all.

 

[Scuby Dooby]

Let's go back to the first post Scuba.

The divers were brought to the dive site, the boat didn't sink nor was anyone injured by the crews actions on the boat. No one reports rental gear that was in disrepair or caused any problems. The divers were given a briefing and I would assume procedures for getting back on the boat, pickups since they weren't lost at sea and were warned about possible bad conditions during the dive.

They didn't inquire about the general weather / sea conditions though they note that the sea was rough and the boat 'bobbing around like a cork'. They also say that the briefing warned them of the possibility of strong currents. Even though they were given this information and saw the weather conditions, they still chose to make the dive. They unfortunately ran into conditions beyond their comfort / ability while on their dive (quite possibly / probably due to their decent) and terminated the dive.

Now onto a quote from your last post:

"Train divers to minimum proficiency, take them to an inadequate site, and then misguide them, you have just opened the door to govt. regulation. Fortunately I think this is not the norm, at least not all three combined. No system is perfect."

I see this situation very differently.

- get the minimum training or at least insufficient training and / or practice.
- choose to visit a dive site beyond your skills / experience.
- fail to defend your own safety underwater, instead leaving this responsibility to others.

These divers should have no gripe with the boat / shop from what is presented here. It is obvious by their own admissions that they were under-prepared to dive.

another quote:


"While there are definitely many who wish to make a dive as deemed fit per individual choice based on a well informed understanding of the issues, a dive which may contain an extra known margin of safety or risk - there are many others who lack the necessary foundation to do so, or wish to rely on others."

If you lack the necessary foundation or wish to rely on others to determine whether you will be safe on a particular dive then you are contravening the very skills that you should have learned as an open water diver. No matter how your class went and whether you liked your instructor or not I am sure that everyone receives a book along with their course, at least they do where I was trained regardless of the agency. Read a PADI or NAUI manual and these points are stated, I believe repeatedly. If you enter the water unprepared and want to rely on other people to keep you safe you are breaking the 'rules' of an open water diving cert, not to mention showing little concern for your own life.

Sorry if my tone seems curt, but I am amazed that anyone would try and absolve these divers of the responsibility they had for THEMSELVES. This is starting to resemble an argument for the lawsuit and subsequent warnings that coffee is hot at McDonalds . . .

 

[SDAnderson]

Just a few more points. I am not a fan of regulation, but sometimes one has to accept certain facts. Take the seat belt law for example. You can love it or hate it, but it produces unquestionable net benefits compared to its cost and inconvenience.

Seat belts save lives. To say that laws mandating them have "unquestionable" net benefits is just plain wrong. Without expanding this thread to including arguing about seat belt laws, I hope you realize that there is a sizable minority of folks that disagree with you. Simply put, many (approximately 1/3) people believe that the the link between tough seat belt laws and lives saved is more tenuous than we are led to believe and that the social and financial costs outweigh any benefits. I have a problem with the notion that people should be required to/prohibited from <insert your pet behavior here> for their own good and punished for failure to do so. The evolution of seat belt laws is an excellent illustration of the nanny-state "tyranny of the majority" problem and demonstrates the slippery slope danger of ever-increasing intrusion by the state into our lives.​

I certainly agree it is incumbent on everyone to protect their own safety irrespective of any involvement by others. But when others do get involved, whether by providing air fills, guiding dives, chartering boats and determining who is able to go and where, or anything else, everyone has a responsibility to carry out the duties they have voluntarily taken according to standard norms of practice. Some would like to keep divers misinformed with the notion they are not accountable at all for maintaining any professional standards or norms which may affect diver safety, usually the bad operators. I am not accusing anyone here of this, as I can understand the concept and perpective of ultimate reponsibility. My point is: ultimate, does not mean total and complete.

I agree that both the charter operator and the diver share some of the responsibility for ensuring the successful completion of the transaction. Where we disagree is on the question of how we are divvying those responsibilities up. This is the original question that started this thread and I don't think you've contributed much towards an answer: what duties have charter operators voluntarily assumed when they are hired by a diver? I think they should be responsible for getting me to and from the site and sharing any pertinent information about the site that they may have. Period. You apparently think their duties include some nebulous "professional standards or norms" that extend beyond that. How about some specifics?​

On another point, even if professionals on a charter can't prevent anyone from making a dive, the act of asking for C-cards for admittance infers notice of training level. To proceed by taking divers to dive sites they are not trained for per their licensing agency standards, and willingly accepting to guide these divers on dives which violate industry standards for the individual diver, is .......... You tell me. This seems to me a clear example of "someone" not owning up to the responsibilities they have voluntarily taken and are expected to uphold. Maybe I'm mistaken in regards to expectations. This does not absolve the diver who ultimately makes the final decision of any reponsibility. It does demonstrate he is being misguided, and is not the sole contributor to resulting outcome.

I think your misunderstanding extends beyond the responsibilities of the charter operator to include his rights: he can refuse to take anybody he wants. The charter operator has no responsibility to accept any particular level of certification for a particular dive. He isn't allowed to refuse you based upon a short list of exemptions: race, religion, etc., but otherwise it's his call - and if he wants to bar you from the boat for no reason other than he doesn't think you "look" right, he can do so. You should consider this when you start assigning him the responsibility for making an in-depth evaluation of your qualifications for a particular dive - you might end up being the "other guy" that got tossed off the boat. The certification that a diver receives very specifically places the burden on him to not exceed the limits of his training and experience. What are the "industry standards" for a dive site? Should a charter refuse to accept any open water divers for a charter to any wreck site, for fear that they might violate their certification and penetrate the wreck? Should a charter refuse to accept any diver that isn't Rescue trained because, by his (my) definition, they aren't adequately trained? Nonsense. A divers certification doesn't just state that they were trained in X skills, it also states that they are aware of their limitations and that they agree not to exceed them. Read the PADI document Standard Safe Diving Practices - this is a contract that every new PADI diver signs that clearly places a substantial number of responsibilities for their safety upon them. The second clause reads:

"Be familiar with my dive sites. If not, obtain a formal diving orientation from a knowledgable, local source. If diving conditions are worse than those in which I am experienced, postpone diving or select an alternate site with better conditions. Engage only in diving activities consistent with my training and experience. Do not engage in cave or technical diving unless specifically trained to do so.​

I'd say that pretty well sums up who is responsible for what. Besides, by accepting this responsibility and not trying to foist it off on others, divers will be taking an important step towards developing a self-sufficient mindset that will better protect them than any number of rules and regulations.​

Train divers to minimum proficiency, take them to an inadequate site, and then misguide them, you have just opened the door to govt. regulation. Fortunately I think this is not the norm, at least not all three combined. No system is perfect.

We need some definitions here: "minimum proficiency", "inadequate site" and "misguide" aren't very precise. In the abstract, however, I'll agree that this is a recipe for disaster - where we disagree is who is to be held responsible for it. Obviously, if the charter operator lies about conditions, he can color his butt Kentucky Blue. Otherwise, I believe that the responsibility for selecting a site consistent with your level of training and experience has traditionally fallen on the diver and should remain there.​

While there are definitely many who wish to make a dive as deemed fit per individual choice based on a well informed understanding of the issues, a dive which may contain an extra known margin of safety or risk - there are many others who lack the necessary foundation to do so, or wish to rely on others.

Maybe it's the hour, but I'm unable to figure out what you're saying here. Sorry. If you're trying to say that some people want or need extra help, I couldn't agree more. I think it's incumbent upon them, however, to make independent arrangements for those services well in advance, to be willing to pay for those services and not to assume that the charter operator will automatically be willing or able to provide them.​

The diving industry is big enough to accomodate everyone. When the diverse needs and desires of divers are all made to conform to one mold, there is no fit. The consequences can easily be further restrictions for all.

Huh? You want the mold to be big enough so that everybody gets to do whatever they want? Divers should take responsibility for themselves and obtain the training and experience necessary to conduct themselves safely. If they do this, they won't need to worry about whether or not the charter operator is babysitting them.​

 

[Scuba]

Scuby Dooby, et al, my comments on these posts address the question posed by this thread in general terms, not specific to the incident mentioned unless noted. As can be seen on my second post.specifically noting comments in reference to it. We definitely have a difference of opinion on this issue, but its been a good discussion, on topic.

Train divers to minimum proficiency, take them to an inadequate site, and then misguide them, you have just opened the door to govt. regulation. Fortunately I think this is not the norm, at least not all three combined. No system is perfect."

I see this situation very differently.

- get the minimum training or at least insufficient training and / or practice.
- choose to visit a dive site beyond your skills / experience.
- fail to defend your own safety underwater, instead leaving this responsibility to others.

We may disagree, but it seems to me both statements can exist without contradiction. A case of shared, as opposed to sole responsibility. I speak of separate determinable contributions made by various parties to facilitate an act. Assignment is based on the role and contributions of various parties. You, amongst
others, place it all upon one party, the diver, in regards to the issues discussed. I presume this is based on the premise that he who is primarily and ultimately responsible is also solely responsible as long as he is free to choose, regardless of contributions made by others as contributing factors. You don’t deny that contributions to an act are made by others, simply that the responsibility of the party making the final determination is the deciding factor in the commission of the act, therefore absolving the other contributing parties of responsibility. I view it more from the perspective of cause and effect. For every action there is a reaction. Perhaps easier to see in the interactions of physical matter, but applicable nonetheless in human interactions.

Unquestionably, the diver can stop the process at any time. Unquestionably, the degree or form of contribution by others is, to varying degrees, going to impact the divers decision. Was the contribution by professionals consistent with guidelines of conduct espoused by the licensing organization and industry norms, as pertains to safety issues in this case? That is - the, or one of the, legal question that will be looked at in the event there is a legal dispute. I won’t continue down this path since I’m not a lawyer. I am not advocating this path in the incident posted here. But frankly, there are cases where this course of action should be taken, if for no other reason then to discourage grossly negligent practices on the part of a very small set of so called professionals. This position is viewed as sacrilege by many in the diving community, but I view the opposite the same way.

reefraff,

We can drop the seat belt issue, not appropriate discussion here. I recognize the existence of difference of opinions and biased studies to support each position. As to "tyranny of the majority”, in a society, there will always be “tyranny’ imposed on the majority by one or many on one or many. Otherwise we have anarchy, not the best alternative. The key is finding a good and fair balance for most. You can’t please everybody all the time. Some things are simply impossible.

Where we disagree is on the question of how we are divvying those responsibilities up.
........ You apparently think their duties include some nebulous "professional standards or norms" that extend beyond that. How about some specifics?

In general terms not necessarily specific to the incident in question here.

Charter determines admittance requirements: Must have C-card. The fact they have the right to refuse anyone (aside from legal restrictions) can play against them here. Their pick, their choice.

Charter chooses, not always though, dive site.

An OW C-card recommends certain safety limits be followed: No overhead, no deco, no solo, no dive deeper than 60ft. Appears to me very well defined safety standards. Are they meaningless to professionals?

A professional knows full well the limitations and qualification imparted by any one specific C-card, therefore it is incumbent in his role as an expert making various determinations to match customer selection to appropriate dive site, or inform customer of unsuitable conditions, and even decline customer if necessary. A judgment call, that is usually not black and white, furthered clouded by income considerations. Extend the same premise to DM guiding a dive Is it not incumbent on professionals to uphold their licensing agency standards in regards to safety practices?

You post standards expected of a diver,

"Be familiar with my dive sites. If not, obtain a formal diving orientation from a knowledgable, local source."

Ah, a technicality. If I may translate. Don't seek professional advise, we are neither knowledgable nor responsible. lol

If diving conditions are worse than those in which I am experienced, postpone diving or select an alternate site with better conditions. Engage only in diving activities consistent with my training and experience

. Translation. We are not your babysitter responsible for you, We're diving here, if you want to dive - dive.

Do not engage in cave or technical diving unless specifically trained to do so.

To heck with that, if you want to come, you're in. We could care less about you, Don't forget, we are not responsible for you - you are. lol Just pay up and give a good tip. Alright, I'm pushing it here. Just trying to get a point across.

Are there no safety standards incumbent of DM’s or other licensed professionals acting in the capacity of guide or tour operator? Let’s have the full story. Are DM’s there for whatever indulgences a diver may have? Does this include assisted suicide? I’m being fictitious here.

Regarding another point you raise, it is one thing for client to suddenly bolt on their own and enter a wreck when its not part of the plan or go deep ( I was on a dive where a recently certified diver suddenly bolted from aprox. 40 ft to 100 ft, at the bottom of the reef because he wanted to go to 100, nothing anyone can do about that. I shadowed him all the way to 80 feet some distance behind him. DM didn’t budge from 40. I don’t blame DM in this case, but this is certainly someone you don’t want as a buddy, both of them. Buddy, that’s another standard or norm, isn’t it, that barely gets lip service on guided dives. There were only three of us.) I could be wrong here, from a legal issue interpretation, but I believe it is irresponsible and contrary to professional conduct to voluntarily place someone at risk, even when permission is given by client. Any lawyers want to comment? I understand no one wants increased liability. This ultimately has a trickle effect on everyone. I think it was you who pointed it out.

Is it too much to ask that charters take divers to an appropriate dive site based on C-card qualification, log book, or personal knowledge? And to have guides follow the same basic principles. In fact, this is the core of our disagreement, I believe by their actions they have in fact assumed some responsibility. They just don't want to be held accountable - at all, when everyone contributed to a bad decision I know, I know, it costs money. A diver turned down for a trip is money not made, is the position of some. While others do great without the need to compromise integrity.

It’s a fine balancing act holding liability at bay, and as a result having to defend questionably negligent behavior on the part of a few, that if allowed to fester could pose a bigger problem. Again, abstract, usually not black and white case, and pointing no fingers at anyone here.

Specifically in regards to the incident being discussed:

“We spoke with the dive master and he advised that we should try the reef drift dive and that we would be comfortable on that dive. He advised the female dive leader to take our group and told her to make sure that she stayed with us.

We started the second dive. Once at the bottom the first group moved off to our left. Our group leader went right. We followed her as we had been instructed. We moved off for about 30 seconds and then she turned and told us to go join the other group. We turned and were hit with the cross current. There was no way to join the other group and in fact we moved off, once again losing sight of anyone from our group. We attempted to cross the current but could not. We drifted for awhile and moved up neared the surface to see if we could see anyone. No one was in sight. After several minutes we surfaced because we were alone in the ocean and felt it best to find the boat. We returned to the boat."

I say the divers didn’t do too bad on this one, with the exception of perhaps to have preferably chosen to distrust expert professional advise and skip the dive. Again, people do rely to varying extent on expert professional advise. Kind of their reason for being, otherwise, what good are pro's for? What do we pay them for? Guidance is one of the reasons.

I also say the pro’s and/or leaders screwed this one up, to use a slang expression - royally.

We appear to have an insurmountable difference of opinion over the question of assigning responsibility. Unless a new twist emerges here, I don’t think re-stating essentially the same points from a new perpective is going to change your minds, or mine. Its been a good discussion. Feel free to continue to express your point or refute mine.