Death v # of Divers and Scuba Oversight

[Abdullah]

Ayisha:

Yeah, that's the mindset I'm talking about. Something happens (& eventually, in an imperfect world, something always will), that's not practical to prevent, but we've got to create a 'solution' that won't work to prevent further incidents that will always occur in some form anyway.

Learning from experience & making practical improvements is legitimate & desirable. But bureaucrats & regulatory types can seriously ruin a good thing.

Richard.

Interesting perspective... The only thing regulated by bureaucrats and regulatory types in recreational diving is the construction and maintenance of tanks. The rest of the industry is self regulated by dive agencies and dive operators.

There are how many dead divers in this locale recently? And you've learned what from the casualties?

 

[drrich2]

My point was that the mentality that no death rate except zero is acceptable leads to the progressive mindset that brings the bureaucrats, regulatory agencies, etc… Therefore it is important not to adopt that mindset.

Richard.

 

[Charlie59]

My point was that the mentality that no death rate except zero is acceptable leads to the progressive mindset that brings the bureaucrats, regulatory agencies, etc… Therefore it is important not to adopt that mindset.

Richard.

A) What is your threshold then??? 8 diving related deaths in 3 months seems like an unusually high number to me.
B) What horrible regulation has kept you from diving in the way you want? There is a decided absence of scuba police where I have dived.

I like it when I'm around industries and individuals who find all accidental deaths as unacceptable. Seems better than someone saying "Oh, just one of those crazy divers dead".

I feel for all of those who died trying to take part in an amazing sport and hobby.

safe diving to all

 

[drrich2]

1. The Cayman Aggressor was moored in an area where it could not fit through the boat channel to reach a nearby dock. It was a site quite far from where public rescue resources are based. Fortunately Ocean Frontiers had a boat nearby and was able to render assistance. What would have happened had that not been the case?

Drew, one of the main selling points of a live-aboard is that it will likely venture farther from civilization to dive more pristine sites. I see what you're saying, but help being rather far off is a trade-off for this sort of trip.

Charlie59:

I don't know what the average death rate/million (or whatever scale you use) dives/year in the greater Caribbean area is, or what sort of year-to-year fluctuation/variation is typical. So I can't give you a specific number.

But I can tell you it's not zero.

'Horrible regulation?' Bit of hyperbole there. Since the government hasn't yet intruded into scuba in a big way, aside from the courts providing a venue for the legal & insurance professions to impose constraints, we don't seem to have a lot of regulations. But we do have some. Examples that come up on the forum fairly often of dive op. restrictions preventing people from diving how they want to dive:

1.) Prohibitions against solo diving.

2.) Mandating the group come up together, though some divers have plenty of gas. The worst air hog cuts the rest short...

3.) Requiring AOW for some dives that many people with OW could do fine.

4.) Then we have the debates over people choosing not to disclose medical conditions on dive shop waivers so as to avoid dive op.s refusing them services, or requiring medical clearance they don't want to pursue or perhaps find impractical or overly expensive.

And the above is generally due to risk management against potential lawsuits.

If you go into court being sued for some sort of negligence, malpractice, etc..., I imagine it would be more ominous for you if the community standard is that nobody is ever supposed to die on a boat trip. If we say no death rate but zero is acceptable, that's kind of what we're saying. And it's neither realistic nor right.

Richard.

 

[Drew Sailbum]

Drew, one of the main selling points of a live-aboard is that it will likely venture farther from civilization to dive more pristine sites. I see what you're saying, but help being rather far off is a trade-off for this sort of trip.

Hardly applies in Cayman. All dive sites are within a mile of shore somewhere. Might have to go down the coast to reach a dock.

Other than the crossing between Grand and the Sister islands the Cayman Aggressor never ventures further from shore than a modest swim. And its not like they are diving during the crossing.


Quite simply, this particular boat needs to get its emergency plan sorted out better. I've dealt with them before in an emergency and they didn't know where they could safely access shore in East End. Not good.

 

[drrich2]

Drew:

I believe I see what you're saying in your previous post. The issue that comes up is, how much is enough? Putting a tender boat in routinely, every time they're diving at a site where the main boat can't head for shore directly, is going to add to operating costs. Which means higher prices. And for live-aboards in more remote sites (I'm thinking the AquaCat in the Exhumas), live-aboard diving without such is considered safe enough.

So, does the reasoning follow that a given business' routine operation is never good enough if 'more could be done?' Because in some regulatory bureaucrat's mind, there's always more that could be done.

My point is, where does it end? There's always going to be 'one more thing' they could theoretically do, some additional contingency to plan for.

I don't know just where to draw the line. Knowing which port to head for in an emergency doesn't sound unreasonable, granted.

Richard.

 

[Charlie59]

All of the restrictions that you list are by dive operators and due to their fear of legal action. There are no laws that lead to these rules you listed. You can dive by yourself any time and you can choose the dive operator you dive with. An evaluation and analysis of facts in any dive accident is only prudent and if it makes the sport safer, all the better.

 

[drrich2]

All of the restrictions that you list are by dive operators and due to their

fear of legal action.

There are no laws that lead to these rules you listed.

Bold emphasis mine.

So, you see from your own words, yes, there are. For dive operators in large numbers across the U.S. & Caribbean to embrace some or all of these rules is a strong indicator their 'fear' is legitimate, and it is rooted in the legal reality created by laws already on the books. And that's just a sample of the indirect impact already in play.

You can dive by yourself any time...

Not legally everywhere you can't.

An evaluation and analysis of facts in any dive accident is only prudent and if it makes the sport safer, all the better.

Nobody has a problem with this. Most anybody would expect this. To the extent stated.

The problem is, when people start thinking the accident rate is supposed to be 'zero' per year, then after awhile, as occasional fatalities continue to crop up, somebody will decide the dive op.s 'aren't doing enough.' Then you'll have an agency formed for additional oversight. But that won't achieve 'zero,' either, so layers of regulation will ensue.

Zero is not credible. Now, if someone can show us figures to support an average death rate over a given time frame in these types of conditions for the sport, and compare that meaningfully to the current Cayman situation, I'd be interested to see that info.

Richard.

 

[Abdullah]

Not legally everywhere you can't.

Where is that written?

 

[Scott from LongIsland]

Drew:

I believe I see what you're saying in your previous post. The issue that comes up is, how much is enough? Putting a tender boat in routinely, every time they're diving at a site where the main boat can't head for shore directly, is going to add to operating costs. Which means higher prices. And for live-aboards in more remote sites (I'm thinking the AquaCat in the Exhumas), live-aboard diving without such is considered safe enough.

So, does the reasoning follow that a given business' routine operation is never good enough if 'more could be done?' Because in some regulatory bureaucrat's mind, there's always more that could be done.

My point is, where does it end? There's always going to be 'one more thing' they could theoretically do, some additional contingency to plan for.

I don't know just where to draw the line. Knowing which port to head for in an emergency doesn't sound unreasonable, granted.

Richard.

The Explorer boats keep a tender in the water at all times when at dive sites. Where is the major jump in cost due to this? from the drag? With such little movement of the mother ship i can't imagine that the drag of a tender would dramatically increase costs but perhaps i am mistaken. Personally, i don't think that is a lot to ask...and is "more that could be done" quite easily.