How do I miss these interesting threads until they run there course? When it comes down to it, liability is established by an act or omission. If you never have an accident, no one gets hurt, sick or killed, you can do anything that you like without recourse.
If you receive remuneration from diving outside of a personal, recreational or educational context, you are commercial diving. If you run a business to do this, you fall under various guidelines and regulations. That said, chances are that if there is no accident, you can do it any way you want to.
Enter the concept of professionalism. This suggests that people undertaking an activity operate in a manner that is reasonable and accepted as best practice. As far as what is and is not contaminated water, there are guidelines set-out by the Association of Diving Contractors International (ADCI) that include specific instructions for diving in contaminated water (as defined in their Consensus Standards for Commercial Diving and Underwater Operations). In short, where there is an immediate risk of long-term sickness or death as a result of contaminated water, surface-supply must be used with a dry helmet mated directly to a dry suit with attached dry boots and gloves. A return-line (reclaim) system must be used. There is also a policy of how the Diver is to be decontaminated.
That said, contaminated water rarely exposes a Diver to biological or chemical agents that are immediately dangerous to health and safety. I would suspect that the Harbor in-question doesn't possess such a hazard. However Hull searches and tributyltins (in the paints coating the Hull of large ships, which are absorbed into the skin) are very hazardous to divers in the long-term and best practice indicates the use of a hard helmet. Again, it only matters "after-the-fact" when people start pointing fingers after an accident.
The IMCA has specific requirements that are designed for the offshore industry. These are not extended to onshore activities.
Getting back to the OP's question...
Like everyone, you have to assess personal risk when you dive. If you feel it's worth diving alone to undertake hull inspections, there is no law against it, as has been previously discussed. I would however think long and hard about this, as there is an advantage to leaving it to the professionals.
fstbttms, Thal is a well respected member of SB and the international scientific diving community. Your tone seemed to me to be disrespectful. I understand however that you have experience in doing your job a certain way; which no doubt has been formed by what works for you and years of experience. I don't think it is anyone's intention to tell you how to do your job. We may however, each assess risk and professionalism differently.
If you receive remuneration from diving outside of a personal, recreational or educational context, you are commercial diving. If you run a business to do this, you fall under various guidelines and regulations. That said, chances are that if there is no accident, you can do it any way you want to.
Enter the concept of professionalism. This suggests that people undertaking an activity operate in a manner that is reasonable and accepted as best practice. As far as what is and is not contaminated water, there are guidelines set-out by the Association of Diving Contractors International (ADCI) that include specific instructions for diving in contaminated water (as defined in their Consensus Standards for Commercial Diving and Underwater Operations). In short, where there is an immediate risk of long-term sickness or death as a result of contaminated water, surface-supply must be used with a dry helmet mated directly to a dry suit with attached dry boots and gloves. A return-line (reclaim) system must be used. There is also a policy of how the Diver is to be decontaminated.
That said, contaminated water rarely exposes a Diver to biological or chemical agents that are immediately dangerous to health and safety. I would suspect that the Harbor in-question doesn't possess such a hazard. However Hull searches and tributyltins (in the paints coating the Hull of large ships, which are absorbed into the skin) are very hazardous to divers in the long-term and best practice indicates the use of a hard helmet. Again, it only matters "after-the-fact" when people start pointing fingers after an accident.
The IMCA has specific requirements that are designed for the offshore industry. These are not extended to onshore activities.
Getting back to the OP's question...
Like everyone, you have to assess personal risk when you dive. If you feel it's worth diving alone to undertake hull inspections, there is no law against it, as has been previously discussed. I would however think long and hard about this, as there is an advantage to leaving it to the professionals.
fstbttms, Thal is a well respected member of SB and the international scientific diving community. Your tone seemed to me to be disrespectful. I understand however that you have experience in doing your job a certain way; which no doubt has been formed by what works for you and years of experience. I don't think it is anyone's intention to tell you how to do your job. We may however, each assess risk and professionalism differently.
Last edited:
