"During the police investigation, Bernard said he was unaware Falk and Prickett had gone down after changing out a mask, but that didn't stop him from continuing his dive -- a violation, per French Polynesia law, of his role as divemaster to supervise all divers and make the group surface. Bernard said he thought he was in the presence of experienced divers, and that Prickett had 25 years of experience. Prickett said he was only a standard openwater diver, and his 25 years of experience was as a surfing cameraman. Falk had less than 15 dives, none from a boat, none drift diving, and none with a diving computer. And despite Bernard having set a dive profile for 80 feet, he brought Miyamoto, who only had less than five dives and was only certified to 60 feet max, down to 130 feet.
Bernard admitted he hadn't told the three divers beforehand that they were going to breathe nitrox."
Is it your opinion that licensed dive operators have no responsibility for the safety of the divers they put in the water? That the dive master did not have both the ethical and legal responsibilities to check the certifications of his customers, provide properly calibrated rental equipment, plan a safe dive profile for the area in which he is presumably an expert and he knows his customers are novices and then follow that profile? If so, I will certainly be careful to never dive with you.
And I may need to consider creating an interview protocol for dive masters I dive with in the future to make sure ahead of time that their beliefs are not like yours. While I'm very aware that I am ultimately responsible for my own safety, and I certainly would not have put myself in a position in which I was using equipment I was unfamiliar with and had not been trained on or was knowingly exceeding my level of experience and training, if I am ever caught in a significant down currant or other unforeseeable event, I do want to know that the professionals I am relying on are doing their best to pay attention to their divers and are as well prepared as possible to deal with an emergency.
By the way, the following is a direct quote from danvolker posted in the Accidents and Incidents forum on Aug 12, 2011 :
"One of the things a good captain does, is to acertain the average skills of the divers on each trip, and then figure out what dive sites are most optimal for the group. If he believes a large number on a trip are of poor skill level, he will want to go to a dive site where they can jump in and float on the surface like ducks, and to the slow ascents that new divers will be doing. He will NOT take new divers, or a group that tells him they can not descend fast, to a site where a fast descent is critical"
I see two or three separate issues.
First, the divers entered the water as certified divers, meaning they were responsible for executing their own dive plan, and that they knew how to use the equipment they were using--when they were certified, they learned how important all of this was, and that this was their responsibility to know. Any injury that occurs to these divers because they did not follow a correct profile, or because they did not know how to use their gear, is them injuring themselves...not the operator.
Second issue is the failure of the DM to recognize the incompetence of these divers, and to take actions which would have protected them from themselves.
Third possible issue is the boat operator...if the divers had indicated that they were trained deep divers, and that 130 feet was good....the captain is not expected to issue a lie detector....and the reality is, even a diver showing a cert card of a deep dive course, can be illegitimate for the purposes of proving competency on a deep dive. The narcosis level at 130 feet...for "some divers", is severe enough to be life threatening for decision making. And these guys were making bad enough decisions while at the surface.....However, if the divers told the captain they had never been deeper than 60 and 80 feet, respectively, this would seem to me to be yet another issue of negligence, unless the captain dropped them with an instructor or some sort of mentor that could believably keep them safe--which clearly did not happen.
If the dive master had been a good dive master, this accident would not have occurred...but the injury --the DCS, was still caused by the divers themselves.
---------- Post added May 29th, 2015 at 12:43 PM ----------
Here is an analogy....Lets say you are an Acrobatic Pilot....my brother Rick is one, so I hear about these issues often enough...
I will say your Parachute is very much like the Dive Master. What keeps you safe when you are flying, doing stunts, or just putting around, is a combination of your skills, and how well you maintain the plane ( to prevent power loss or other catastrophic failure).
If all else fails....you have a reasonable hope that your parachute will save your life.....and a good parachute, is way better than a lousy parachute
So yes, you want a good DM....but....like the pilot, its up to YOU to have the skills and to know the gear will work...the Parachute means you already screwed the pooch badly......ie., expecting that you will be safe, because the DM is with you, is much like flying a plane with no idea about how well maintained the engine is, whether it will lose power or not....and not really being much of a pilot--and not really caring, because you are wearing a parachute---and that is what you think is most important.
***my brothers Acrobatic page
Rick Volker air shows The spectators at the airshows he competes in, are glad he does not count on his parachute or a DM for safety
