Wreck penetration and queuing

[Jim Lapenta]

What divers do on their own is one thing. But in my mind and according to my morals and ethics no overheads means no overheads. So if a pro is taking untrained, unqualified divers into them as a guide they would seem to have disregarded standards. They are assuming that the divers they just met and never saw before are ok with going into these places and fully capable of handling any issue that arises in one. Definition of dumb and reckless behavior. To me a swim thru is less than a body length and two divers can easily pass through in proper buddy position side by side. Anything more is not appropriate without additional training.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

 

[beanojones]

Once again, you are confusing the rules for professionals working with students from the rules (or lack thereof) governing people just going out and diving. The "special orientation dives for certified divers" exception allows a professional leading an orientation dive to enter an overhead environment with a client. The fact that they are allowed to go into overhead environments on "orientation dives" (the purpose of which is to show the client the area so that the client can then dive the area without a guide) should indicate that there is no prohibition for that.

You say it is a PADI money grab. How so? If a dive operator in Florida chooses to do a guided dive into a simple wreck (which, BTW, I saw happen on the last dive I did there), how does PADI get a single penny out of it? How do they even know it happened? In the case I witnessed, a family visiting Florida from Texas asked to have a professional show them around a very simple wreck, and they were willing to pay the shop to have that done. The PADI exception allowed the instructor leading the dive to do so without the liability risk of a standards violation for entering an overhead during instruction. What is wrong with that?
The argument is that in many cases, like the simple arch described before, is so very simple that even a poorly skilled snorkeler can do it easily. Why should someone who wants to swim under a simple arch be required to take a cavern course first?

First, what divers do is what divers do. People do all kinds of things. Operators, similarly, do all kinds of things.

Trust me, you really don't want to get into a game of "I'll show you mine" with someone who makes their living in the Japanese market, because we (as the entire Japanese dive industry) simply do far more insane stuff of all kinds because lawsuits are not really a market driving force. (For someone interested in just what sort of things I have seen pass without comment, ask in a different thread.)

But that's not really germane, what divers and operators do, because divers have no particular obligation to do anything. They know the rules (or they would if PADI was internally consistent about their own rules). And operators get sued out of existence when they kill divers.

It is only for me the fact that PADI violates their own standards (no overhead and always have direct vertical access) in allowing overhead envornment training in Cavern, Ice, and Wreck that is the problem. Now that they have a tech side which teaches diving in environments presumed to have no direct access to the surface, there's no reason to have overhead environment training on the recreational side, other than to pandering to the market, and member base who would have to change what they do.

If we go on safety records, then drunk driving is safe, nearly as safe as driving in general is. And the personal costs of avoiding drunk driving (having to have a designated driver, having to catch a cab, not having the car in the morning, not drinking) are real costs. It is only the odd accident that makes us even care about whether someone is drunk driving. The safety record of drunk driving is well established by the millions of people who do it every day. I simply have never met anyone who drinks (except those who live in metropolitan areas with extensive public transport) who has not drove drunk, and many/most pretty regularly drive drunk. It is just the foolish young men who drink too much, and drive too fast that really cause problems with drunk driving, and the occasional outlier wastrel.

And yet, these are simply not arguments for allowing drunk driving. "Getting away with it regularly" never is a reason to abolish a rule, for anyone but a teenager stickin to the man, YEAH~! Examples of people getting away with foolish/risky behavior are just that, examples of people getting away with it. Getting away with it is not even close to a sensible grounds for formulating rules.

I do not have to imagine much going wrong to change a "simple swim through a wreck" into a problem.
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba...6739-mask-removal-gas-sharing-practice-2.html

 

[DevonDiver]

The key point was the understanding that when divers "engage in diving activities consistent with ... [their] experience,"...

John, I quoted that statement explicitly, but you've edited it.

Training AND experience.

AND

It's quite specific... I'm surprised that you'd hack a direct quote to twist the point.

---------- Post added July 9th, 2014 at 08:20 PM ----------

"Getting away with it regularly" never is a reason to abolish a rule,

Brings this to mind:

On the Line: Public Safety Risk Management: The Normalization of Deviance (If It Can Happen to NASA, It Can Happen to You)

The normalization of deviance is defined as: “The gradual process through which unacceptable practice or standards become acceptable. As the deviant behavior is repeated without catastrophic results, it becomes the social norm for the organization.”

 

[Scubagolf]

Gotta love this discussion. I could be a poster child for "overhead dives" I shouldn't do.
1. The Cathedral dives on Lanai.
2. Numerous swim-throughs on many trips to Coz.
3. Chandelier "Cave" on Yap.
4. Devil's Throat -Cozumel.
5. C-53 wreck- Cozumel and other similar "wrecks" around the Caribbean and the Pacific.
All were done after pre-trip investigation of the potential risk, often via posts by others on SB. I will continue to do so.

 

[BDSC]

And you have lived to tell the tale. Amazing! It's hard to believe you were able to think for yourself and make an informed decision.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Again, what divers do is their business. No problem with that as long as they are ok with no one risking their safety to pull them out of a wreck or cave if things go bad. I'd rather they be left there than have another diver risk their life by pulling them out.

But a professional should be a professional at all times if they are leading others less qualified than themselves. If they are just diving as an individual they are just another diver.

If they are leading dives the standards should still apply with regards to overheads, depths, etc. of the least qualified person. If they are not doing that they should stop referring to themselves as professionals since their actions are not those of someone who is exhibiting professional behavior. Especially if they are getting compensated for it.

 

[NAM001]

Beano

I agree with you and to take it one more step. As mentioned about things that are done where law suits are not the driving force. I agree with that also. Because of those lawsuits we USA types have all sorts of restrictions that no one really believes in solely because they have to.... because of some law suit. In that atmosphere how can we expect any student to take seriously the true dangers in diving when the one in ten million dangers are pushed to the front of the line. There is no other logicval result that when a new diver sees this but cant tell which ones are the real dangers and the ones that are not. Crossing the street is dangerous, my mother told me so, however i personally dont know of any one that has actually been killed doing it. So if i went to tany course that said to never cross the street alone because its dangerous. I would say yea right, you just have to say that. So perhaps our training and legal systems ect has become its own worse enemy. How many are old enough to remeember the drivers ed movies road kill ect and never ever took a drink or sped or missed wednesday night church because of it?

First, what divers do is what divers do. People do all kinds of things. Operators, similarly, do all kinds of things.

Trust me, you really don't want to get into a game of "I'll show you mine" with someone who makes their living in the Japanese market, because we (as the entire Japanese dive industry) simply do far more insane stuff of all kinds because lawsuits are not really a market driving force. (For someone interested in just what sort of things I have seen pass without comment, ask in a different thread.)

But that's not really germane, what divers and operators do, because divers have no particular obligation to do anything. They know the rules (or they would if PADI was internally consistent about their own rules). And operators get sued out of existence when they kill divers.

It is only for me the fact that PADI violates their own standards (no overhead and always have direct vertical access) in allowing overhead envornment training in Cavern, Ice, and Wreck that is the problem. Now that they have a tech side which teaches diving in environments presumed to have no direct access to the surface, there's no reason to have overhead environment training on the recreational side, other than to pandering to the market, and member base who would have to change what they do.

If we go on safety records, then drunk driving is safe, nearly as safe as driving in general is. And the personal costs of avoiding drunk driving (having to have a designated driver, having to catch a cab, not having the car in the morning, not drinking) are real costs. It is only the odd accident that makes us even care about whether someone is drunk driving. The safety record of drunk driving is well established by the millions of people who do it every day. I simply have never met anyone who drinks (except those who live in metropolitan areas with extensive public transport) who has not drove drunk, and many/most pretty regularly drive drunk. It is just the foolish young men who drink too much, and drive too fast that really cause problems with drunk driving, and the occasional outlier wastrel.

And yet, these are simply not arguments for allowing drunk driving. "Getting away with it regularly" never is a reason to abolish a rule, for anyone but a teenager stickin to the man, YEAH~! Examples of people getting away with foolish/risky behavior are just that, examples of people getting away with it. Getting away with it is not even close to a sensible grounds for formulating rules.

I do not have to imagine much going wrong to change a "simple swim through a wreck" into a problem.
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba...6739-mask-removal-gas-sharing-practice-2.html

 

[cephasiii]

Never Share a line into a wreck! It's my line and I'm taking it with me when I leave, and if your not done with your dive, then you now have no line to exit. Run your line on the opposite passageway as mine, or somewhere else where we won't get confused as to whose line is whose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bob DBF]

It is only for me the fact that PADI violates their own standards (no overhead and always have direct vertical access) in allowing overhead envornment training in Cavern, Ice, and Wreck that is the problem. Now that they have a tech side which teaches diving in environments presumed to have no direct access to the surface, there's no reason to have overhead environment training on the recreational side, other than to pandering to the market, and member base who would have to change what they do.

First, after any admonition that PADI gives, they immediately follow it with "unless you have the proper training" which they are more than happy to sell to you.

Second, the classes you mention predate any tech classes PADI has and also predate the term tech diving and its divergence from other recreational diving. They could work these classes into the tech diving side of PADI, however the additional training needed before the actual classes would put them at a disadvantage in the marketplace.

I'm not an apologist for PADI, just trying to look at the situation realistically.




Bob
----------------------------------
I think that advocating unsafe and dangerous practices is both stupid and foolish. That is why I don't tell people to do what I do. Dsix36

 

[KathyV]

At popular wrecks, when different dive boats and independents show up to dive it,do strangers just share the same reel/line into the wreck? Is there a sort of right of way , like on the road (maybe who dropped anchor first?)
Thx

The Thistlegorm wreck is the most popular dive in the northern Red Sea (for good reason!) and we were traveling on a livaboard out of Sharm El Sheik in Egypt when we dived it a number of years ago. I remember that the captain and divemaster told us that we had to get to the site and into the water very, very early and quickly before other boats showed up. I'm sure that we moored during the night and did the dive briefing pre-dawn while it was still dark.

I recall that we were the first boat there and the first group of divers into the water. It was an incredible dive but near the end we noticed another group of divers on the wreck and when we came up we were amazed at the number of dive boats that had appeared! The boats were tied off onto each other and there were very many of them - and more kept coming. We were very glad that we had been first and had plenty time on the wreck and site before the others arrived.

We did 3 dives on the wreck that day and I feel certain that the dive operations had coorperatively worked out a rotating system of "dive zones" and timing and boat traffic to control the number of dive groups in the water and keep things safe; because the visibility remained good and it was never a problem to gain access to the zone you were diving. They may have also worked out a rotating system of days of the week when different dive operations could visit the wreck - I am not sure about that but it make sense.

Although we had plenty of diving freedom on most other dives during that trip, I recall that each group stayed pretty close to their divemaster on the Thistlegorm wreck just because of the high number of boats and divers in the water.

That was a great trip and the Thistlegorm was the highlight. I avoid cattleboat diving and our livaboard and crew were spectacular and somehow they managed to give us 3 great wreck dives that day, despite the heavy demand on the site.