Death v # of Divers and Scuba Oversight

[drrich2]

Where is that written?

In some places, a guide is required (e.g.: Cozumel). I saw a post elsewhere online claiming solo diving isn't allowed the in Caymans; I don't know the original reference to support that.

Scott:

One thing more to consider. At least in the U.S., where hospitals are concerned, your best intentions can be used to hang you. Let's say you identify a potential problem you have no legal obligation to have a policy to handle, but you, meaning well, craft just such a policy. Now, a patient in your hospital has a bad outcome that could in theory have been prevented had staff strictly followed your policy. But staff didn't.

Even though it's a policy you didn't have to have, you did have it, and a regulatory agency can cite you for not following your own policy. Wonder if that's an issue for a dive op., live-aboard or land-based, in the Caymans?

Taking it further, let's say they do the tender-in-the-water thing you suggest. Sounds reasonable. But somebody having a heart attack evacuated by tender dies en route. Now, someone comes along & says if the tender's motor had been more powerful, travel time to emergency services would've been cut and that person might still be alive.

If the tender thing is practical, I'm not opposed to it. Average annual death rate still won't be zero...

Richard.

 

[Charlie59]

Not to hijack the thread, but does anyone know of someone arrested or who has even received a citation from a governmental organization for solo diving? I haven't heard of one and if such a place exists, I don't want to visit. Thanks.

 

[Scott from LongIsland]

Richard,

so let me get this straight...now you are saying not to employ a better policy for fear that you won't follow your own policy that is not yet in place? huh? well, sh*t, in that case...there might as well be no procedures at all in place for fear that you might not follow them anyway.

I think that you are hung up on the word "policy". Just put a damn tender in the water b/c it is safer okay? not a policy...

Richard, at this point it sounds like you are just taking the opposite side for the sake of it. I do not see any logic in what you wrote above, just semantics. First you said the lack of tender was due to an potential increase in cost. Now it is due to some phantom policy or lack thereof. Doesn't make sense.

Scott

PS. We are not talking about the US.

 

[drrich2]

Scott:

Your idea of an informal practice that's not a written policy is a good one. I realize my thinking sounds paranoid, but I've been in discussions on proposed policy design in a health care setting. It's not unique to them, either.

In the business world, risk management is a big deal and semantics are important. You have to think about how someone lacking good sense in some agency with clout could interpret your policy and use it to hurt you.

This doesn't mean a business has no policies or cannot improve processes. What I don't want to see is the mindset that no accidental death is acceptable, as it leads to the mindset that whenever somebody dies, someone probably did wrong, or it's time for more regulation. Even one bureaucrat in a regulatory agency thinking like that can do some damage.

Policies for business problems are like medicines for diseases. They have costs, a risk of side-effects and the benefits are sometimes oversold. Sometimes medicine does great good, but a pill's not always the answer and neither is a policy.

Richard.

 

[Scott from LongIsland]

i think that you are over-thinking this. throw a tender in the water. it is pretty simple and not too hard to do. it is already on the boat. why are you formalizing everything?

I thought your initial reasoning not to put a tender in the water was due to cost but then it somehow changed. Now it is due to some phantom policy that may or may not be in place.

Explorer boats put a tender in the water...they seem to think it is a good idea. I have seen the tender put to use more than once. Do they have a flawed "policy" for safety as you are implying?

 

[drrich2]

When you are involved in running a business with risk management a concern, over-thinking is necessary. Similarly, I'm formalizing things because when you want something out of a business on a consistent basis, it's likely to involve a formal policy, and because Drew's post (# 31) looked to me like it would be something formal. Training was mentioned, etc...

As to whether cost is a factor in putting a tender boat in the water, and what all added upkeep on the tender, I don't know. Might not seem like much. I don't know how intense the pressure is on live-aboard operators to control costs.

I would imagine the Explorer Ventures people did some risk/benefit analysis and concluded that for whatever reason, and perhaps a mix of reasons, this is how they wanted to operate. Apparently the Cayman Aggressor didn't. What behind-the-scenes reasoning went into either decision I don't know.

Richard.

---------- Post added April 14th, 2015 at 06:09 PM ----------

P.S.: Does Explorer Ventures keep a tender in the water with all their boats? Just thinking that some places have more current issues and wondered whether other factors might be in play.

 

[flots am]

Welcome to OSHA in the US and OHSA in Canada. No accident is considered acceptable. Any fatality in a workplace (charter boat, etc.) will be investigated and analyzed, and a root cause determined, and maybe some rules to try and prevent similar accidents in the future...

OSHA is completely different.

If you die of a heat attack while working the punch press, they don't care.

If you die because you got sucked in to the punch press, they care a lot. That would be an accident that would be, and should be unacceptable. I have no problem with US safey regulations and enforcement, except that sometimes it could be stricter.

 

[Abdullah]

Scott:

Your idea of an informal practice that's not a written policy is a good one. I realize my thinking sounds paranoid, but I've been in discussions on proposed policy design in a health care setting. It's not unique to them, either.

In the business world, risk management is a big deal and semantics are important. You have to think about how someone lacking good sense in some agency with clout could interpret your policy and use it to hurt you.

This doesn't mean a business has no policies or cannot improve processes. What I don't want to see is the mindset that no accidental death is acceptable, as it leads to the mindset that whenever somebody dies, someone probably did wrong, or it's time for more regulation. Even one bureaucrat in a regulatory agency thinking like that can do some damage.

Policies for business problems are like medicines for diseases. They have costs, a risk of side-effects and the benefits are sometimes oversold. Sometimes medicine does great good, but a pill's not always the answer and neither is a policy.

Richard.

In context of the fact that the US doesn't regulate recreational diving at all, your assertions are absurd. The US regulates tanks, and it regulates workers, but we hobby divers are completely unhindered by regulation. If you have your own boat, compressor, and dive gear, you aren't even controlled by dive ops or dive agencies. The notion that continually self-improving the sport by thoroughly investigating accidents will somehow lead to regulation is idiotic.

No bureaucrat at some agency can act on his own. There has to be a mandate from the legislature. Legislative bodies tend to leave things alone when the sector has an effective self regulating process. Your mindset actually invites legislative intervention because they see that you are incapable of correcting your own deficiencies, so they need to step in and fix it for you.

---------- Post added April 15th, 2015 at 05:34 AM ----------

In some places, a guide is required (e.g.: Cozumel). I saw a post elsewhere online claiming solo diving isn't allowed the in Caymans; I don't know the original reference to support that.

Richard.

Ah! I read it on the internet, it must be true...

Cozumel uses guides to protect the reef and to provide employment. They aren't regulating solo divers. They are protecting resources.

 

[drrich2]

In context of the fact that the US doesn't regulate recreational diving at all, your assertions are absurd. The US regulates tanks, and it regulates workers, but we hobby divers are completely unhindered by regulation.

No, my assertions are a product of dealing for quite some years with bureaucracy and paying attention. In the U.S. While the thinking that drives the problem is sometimes absurd, the problem itself is not.

For the U.S. to have hardly any regulation of recreational diving at the federal level (let's be clear, it does at the state level in places; dive flag laws ring a bell?) does not mean that recreational diving is not subject to a number of laws/regulations not specific to diving. That's why instructors carry liability insurance, and so do dive op.s. That's why we've had discussions on ScubaBoard about whether the potential to get sued if a dive buddy has a bad outcome is a realistic concern.

Beyond which, a lot of diving by U.S. citizens occurs outside the U.S. (such as in the Cayman islands).

Of course, if people get it into their heads that:

Rationalizing fatalities as inevitable as long as the percentage is 'reasonable' is a fairly archaic view of safety. There isn't a statistically acceptable number of fatalities, unless that number is zero.

then that recreational scuba-specific regulation you're talking about will follow.

Richard.

 

[Abdullah]

No, my assertions are a product of dealing for quite some years with bureaucracy and paying attention. In the U.S. While the thinking that drives the problem is sometimes absurd, the problem itself is not.


Richard.

Your observations of bureaucrats dealing with the health care industry is irrelevant to sport diving. There is a public mandate in the health care industry because too often it's customers feel they have been abused, don't get satisfactory recourse with their provider, and need congress to help them fix the problem.

Sport diving is entirely self regulated and most customers are pretty loyal to their service provider (LDS). There is no clamoring for change, and thus, no interest in regulatory bodies to inflict regulations on the sport. Your assertion that determining the root cause of an accident, then implementing preventative policies will somehow invite regulation makes no sense at all.