Would Government Regulation of Diving Be So Bad?

[H2Andy]

This is going to be a volatile subject, so please NO PERSONAL ATTACKS allowed. address issues and ideas, not people. if you call anyone a name, your post will be pulled, no questions asked.

As to the ideas themselves, please speak freely.

---------------------------------------------------------

We often hear "let's police ourselves before the government steps in."

What if "self-policing" has failed? The training standards
are compromised, some might argue, new divers are at
their unsafest level ever, more and more instructors are
teaching without a basic understanding themselves.

Only a government entity (immune from commercial pressures) can ensure that standards are
not only SET IN PAPER but also ADHERED to in training.

How? Easy -- a standarized test administered by official
test-givers. Pilots have to pass an FAA test, though their training can be private. Why not the same for divers?

Wouldn't divers be safer if someone WITHOUT A PROFIT MOTIVE was in charge of evaluating diver skills prior to
handing them a c-card?

 

[CanadianDiverGirl]

Could work, but I think that all certifying agencies disbanned and the old YMCA standard brought back.

My 2cents....

 

[yknot]

In spite of what some feel about current skills and training, do you really have any facts to back up any suggestions that self policing has failed? Too often we forget that sport diving was pioneered by a bunch of mavericks without the need for government standards or even formal training. Scuba for 90% of it's participants is nothing more than trying to enjoy the 70% of the planet we wern't born to inhabit. Do I need the government to tell be how to breath? For all of the horror stories posted here they generally end with no permanent harm and everyone back on dry land. How about less concern and more acceptance of responsibility for your actions? Most current agiencies seem to be more concerned with marketing and protecting their member LDS's from legal action than in diver safety.

 

[Otter]

Andy,
A couple of questions:
Is it 'the governments' role to protect us from ourselves?
Do you really believe the government is immune from commercial pressures? Lobbyists?

Oops...just got a message that someone has reported this post. So this may go away anyway.

 

[Xanthro]

Government involvement sounds great on paper, but it is not immune to profit pressure, and you have huge political pressure.

The agency would be require to be budget neutral, which would mean the fees for the test would have to cover the budget of the entire department. This would literally add hundreds of dollars to every certification test.

Plus, what of scuba takes place beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal government? Treaties would have to be signed with other nations. Standards for international water use would have to be approved.

Plus, the Federal government lacks constitutional authority to regulate scuba to begin with.

The reason that the FAA requires pilots to pass a test, is that an inexperienced pilot endangers many others, and travels interstate.

A scuba diver endangers mostly himself or herself, and doesn’t travel between States on most dives.

Xanthro

 

[MikeFerrara]

This is going to be a volatile subject, so please NO PERSONAL ATTACKS allowed. address issues and ideas, not people. if you call anyone a name, your post will be pulled, no questions asked.

As to the ideas themselves, please speak freely.

---------------------------------------------------------

We often hear "let's police ourselves before the government steps in."

What if "self-policing" has failed? The training standards
are compromised, some might argue, new divers are at
their unsafest level ever, more and more instructors are
teaching without a basic understanding themselves.

Only a government entity (immune from commercial pressures) can ensure that standards are
not only SET IN PAPER but also ADHERED to in training.

The first of many problems is that the government doesn't know anything about diving and would really jaz things up. They would no doubt bring in experts who would no doubt be the same ones we rely on now only when their misguided opinions become law they'll make even more money. Or...they might not bring in experts at all and just yield to special interest groups which will no doubt spring up out of the woodwork when the government gets involved.

How? Easy -- a standarized test administered by official
test-givers. Pilots have to pass an FAA test, though their training can be private. Why not the same for divers?

Wouldn't divers be safer if someone WITHOUT A PROFIT MOTIVE was in charge of evaluating diver skills prior to
handing them a c-card?

Since when does the government not have a profit motive? Have you priced an FAA examiner?. LOL


IMO, we need to educate and light a fire under the butts of some of the agencies but when government gets into diving, I'm getting out.

 

[Boatlawyer]

This is going to be a volatile subject, so please NO PERSONAL ATTACKS allowed. address issues and ideas, not people. if you call anyone a name, your post will be pulled, no questions asked.

As to the ideas themselves, please speak freely.

---------------------------------------------------------

We often hear "let's police ourselves before the government steps in."

What if "self-policing" has failed? The training standards
are compromised, some might argue, new divers are at
their unsafest level ever, more and more instructors are
teaching without a basic understanding themselves.

Only a government entity (immune from commercial pressures) can ensure that standards are
not only SET IN PAPER but also ADHERED to in training.

How? Easy -- a standarized test administered by official
test-givers. Pilots have to pass an FAA test, though their training can be private. Why not the same for divers?

Wouldn't divers be safer if someone WITHOUT A PROFIT MOTIVE was in charge of evaluating diver skills prior to
handing them a c-card?

Just thinking off the top of my head here, but flying an airplane carries an inherently greater risk of harm to others than recreational diving. A private pilot in a little Cessna can create quite a mess if he crashes into the sixth grade class picnic or a "jazz on the green" event in a local park. On the other hand, even the worst diver is likely to harm only himself and his buddy.

So, where is the public interest?

Even if one looks at the number of diving accidents/fatalities as a whole, rather than the risk of harm in each given incident, there are reportedly few, probably fewer fatalities and accidents than those involving household appliances, which the government has not seen fit to require licenses to use.

Diving is not a "fundamental right" so any law regulating it would only have to meet the "rational basis" test, i.e. is there a rational (as opposed to compelling) state interest being served by the legislation. Given the low incidence of diving accidents, compared to other activities, I doubt that even this test can be met.

:dazzler1:

 

[yknot]

How? Easy -- a standarized test administered by official
test-givers. Pilots have to pass an FAA test, though their training can be private. Why not the same for divers?

Bad pilots are a threat to public safety. Bad divers are a threat to themselves. BTW, how happy would you be if some tester said you didn't pass and told you that you couldn't dive anymore? They are already doing something like this in Quebec, which is an excellent reason to never go there.

 

[Uncle Pug]

Well... in every other area of life regulated by government the resultant bliss has been wonderful.

 

[DennisS]

Check out the OSHA requirements for diving.

What numbers are you using that shows divers are at their unsafest levels ever. If you take the number of fatalities and the number of divers it's probaly safer than high school football.