DCS due to reading computer wrong (I think)

[Rhone Man]

The Odyssey, unlike many/most liveaboards, treats every diver like an adult. They give very thorough briefings on each site, including depths to all areas of the wreck in question. They do not, however, plan your dive for you. Planning the dive - including depth, mix, bottom time, and stops - is up to the individual diver. Part of that plan should involve a solid "should I even be doing this dive?" reflection. To me, if you only have an aluminum 80 as your gas supply... the answer should be "no."

And God bless 'em for that.
When I did the SFM, four of our group were tec trained, but pretty much everyone on the boat was an extremely seasoned diver (I described myself as in about the middle third in terms of experience). There were three who sensibly decided that they could not do the dive safely and sat it out.
One question though: I have "bent" my air only computer a few times and it always goes ballistic when I break the surface. I am curious why the OP's computer didn't do the same if (as everyone seems to agree) he seems to have broken his deco ceiling?

---------- Post added March 14th, 2013 at 08:58 AM ----------

They should require evidence of technical training before allowing divers to do technical dives off their boat. Every charter and dive op I'e ever encountered has some basic rules defining acceptable dive behavior. Like, for example, being certified to dive, or carrying an alternate 2nd stage. Why is this boat different? Do they require C cards? Regardless of whatever disclaimers they want to claim, they're knowingly sending recreational divers on technical dives, and sending guides with them. That's what I mean by 'sanctioning' this dive behavior. And I assume there's one reason for this; there is a much bigger market of recreational divers than there is technical divers.

A dive charter is NOT a water taxi.

I disagree so much I am not sure I can find words which adequately express it.

 

[Crass3000]

I didn't read the 1000s of responses so maybe this has been mentioned but these dive guides clearly know that these dives are out of recreational range. I seems like the operators who run dives like this (and the Blue Hole in Belize, for example) are negligent in sending somebody down deeper than they know the people are trained for and without enough gas to properly decompress.

Obvioudly it is up to the diver and clearly the diver should know this and stay shallower. Ultimately it is the divers fault for doing the dive and not staying shallower. But... these dive guides must go through a lot of O2 back on the boat. The operations seem shady.

 

[fisheater]

I didn't read the 1000s of responses so maybe this has been mentioned but these dive guides clearly know that these dives are out of recreational range. I seems like the operators who run dives like this (and the Blue Hole in Belize, for example) are negligent in sending somebody down deeper than they know the people are trained for and without enough gas to properly decompress.

<snip>

"Negligence" is in the eye of the local legal system. No local legal system functioning to European/North American standards? Then don't expect the locals to have the same attitudes towards others' safety.

It's popular to decry the "nanny state," but outside such a system, it's everybody for themselves.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Crass3000]

"Negligence" is in the eye of the local legal system. No local legal system functioning to European/North American standards? Then don't expect the locals to have the same attitudes towards others' safety.

It's popular to decry the "nanny state," but outside such a system, it's everybody for themselves.

Thanks for snipping the part of my quote where I agreed with you and said it was REALLY the divers who should have known better. Next time don't quote what is convenient to make you're point and take mine totally out of context. If you wanna talk about negligence, thats a matter of semantics whether it be legal or just plain the Dive Op being stupid. I would argue they are still negligent as they certainly know what could likely happen and it likely happens a lot.

 

[Rhone Man]

Thanks for snipping the part of my quote where I agreed with you and said it was REALLY the divers who should have known better. Next time don't quote what is convenient to make you're point and take mine totally out of context. If you wanna talk about negligence, thats a matter of semantics whether it be legal or just plain the Dive Op being stupid. I would argue they are still negligent as they certainly know what could likely happen and it likely happens a lot.

There is nothing shady about the Odyssey. They say it like it is in the first briefing: how you dive is up to you - if you want to dive solo, that's fine. If you want plan you dive times so you go into deco, that's fine. If you want guides supplied who will meticulously keep you out of deco, that's OK too - just ask. If you want to try and penetrate to the engine room alone, go for it; if you want a guide, just shout. But don't make one decision and then blame the operator saying that they shouldn't have let you make that choice.

As I said to one of my friends who impliedly blamed me for his divorce: it is really not anyone else's job to stop you making bad decisions.

 

[flots am]

I disagree so much I am not sure I can find words which adequately express it.

Different locations, different realities.

In the US, where it's easier to find a lawyer than a doctor, companies do everything they can to not get sued, because it's expensive and time-consuming and even if you win you still lose.

Half-way around the world in a boat in the ocean, you're pretty much on your own. If you screw it up, it's all yours.

This isn't generally obvious to people who grew up and were trained in the US/Canada/Europe/etc, and who expect that when engaging in something potentially dangerous, that the operator will be exercising a level of care for their safety, out of financial self-interest if nothing else.

flots.