Defining Science diving and volunteer opportunities

[boulderjohn]

The OP is looking for categories of research that a recreational diver might volunteer. You guys seem to be tuned in to the research community. What types of opportunities are out there for erstwhile volunteers? How would a volunteer know that he is supporting real research and not just faffing about on a fantasy cruise?

That was indeed my purpose, and that is indeed why I am feeling a bit frustrated. I sense that some people see two categories:

1. Full-fledged scientific research being done exclusively by specially trained scientific divers with advanced degrees
2. Nothing.

---------- Post Merged at 10:37 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 10:34 AM ----------

BTW, I do have some tentative plans to work as a volunteer on a true scientific project that will lead to published papers, despite the fact that I myself do not meet these qualifications. Somehow the lead scientist thinks my diving skills might be valuable. Imagine that.

 

[g1138]

It's not that we see two categories as scientific divers and nothing. You John, are calling yourself what we would prefer. A volunteer diver for a scientific project. The problem Thal and I were recognizing is when organizations are calling their volunteers: scientific/research divers. What we would like to prevent is a mix between two different groups with highly different training backgrounds to be called under the same name.

It's similar to how DIR has gotten a bad rep for several verbose and venomous divers. We're not saying volunteers divers are always ill trained or set for failure. We would just like there to be a definitive separation between the two groups by name alone to prevent any bad rep should there be a bad apple in the group (on either side). There are plenty of AAUS institutions who rely on volunteers and have separate less rigorous training programs for those volunteers. But they still classify them as volunteer divers.
Aquariums are one example.

---------- Post Merged at 12:23 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 12:10 PM ----------

The whole point that Thal originally brought up is it is OK to be a volunteer, to volunteer for research, and scientific projects, however the only thing we would have a problem with in that situation is if you started referring to yourself as scientific divers. It was simply a point being stated.

 

[boulderjohn]

Then why not make a positive contribution to the thread by helping to identify and define the different levels rather than saying there is one legitimate level and the rest we spit on? Surely there must be a category somewhere between scientist and scum.

 

[g1138]

Then why not make a positive contribution to the thread by helping to identify and define the different levels rather than saying there is one legitimate level and the rest we spit on? Surely there must be a category somewhere between scientist and scum.

I don't see any writing in this thread where that was even implied to the idea of those volunteers. The distinction was explained clear enough in the beginning in my mind. It was just taken as a negative accusation, which it was not. The only negative association I detected was research groups utilizing volunteers and branding them scientific divers.

Scientific divers in the US are rated under an AAUS institution. If you're not rated by such then under OSHA's exemption you're not a scientific diver. So volunteers for scientific projects fall under the category of volunteer. That's the only distinction. There is no definitive levels really to talk about in terms of which one is higher or not; it's just a distinction.

A recreational ice diver will be better trained for ice diving than an AAUS rated sci diver from Hawaii. Vice versa, etc etc.
The point is you call it what it is. In the US, volunteers aren't sci divers by legal definition under OSHA.

 

[skearse]

Following along here-like John, I'm interested in the volunteer ops that may present themselves along my diving hobby career...happy as a clam in my day-gig as a chem eng. but would love to be able to help out where I can. Form what I'm reading, it almost seems like this thread went in two different directions based on the topic 'interpretation:' I read it as John looking to define (identify) legit organizations that engage rec. divers as part of their scientific operational strategy, while Thal (with some help from other posters) is discussing the actual definition (meaning of the term) of who/what is a sci diver versus a volunteer helping out a sci. project. Just reads to be a bit confusing-may be worth splitting the topic to tackle both issues? As to point two (definitions) is it possible to draw the delineation on the basis of 'professional' vs. 'amateur?' In other words, if you or your team are getting paid (receiving grant $, etc.) for your research, and with the end goal of publishing technical/scientific research in professional journals (ie, not Sport Diver), then you're a 'sci diver' and yeah, you should be working under the auspices of the AAUS. On the other hand, if I'm jumping into the water to frag and glue staghorns with CRF (or something similar) because it's what I choose to do (or even more, I paid for the opportunity)then I'm a rec. diver volunteering, and shouldn't end up in an AAUS stat count should something happen. As for the OSHA thing, the issue may not be as easy-we could sit here on SB and debate where to draw the line, but until the regulators issue an MOU or the equivalent, it's purely speculation. Believe me Thal, I empathize with your position-I'm under no illusions that should something happen, there wouldn't be a shortage of people lining up to try to cast the net as wide as possible. Even under the aforementioned VPP, there are still regulatory ways that they can (at least try) get you if they so desire. Texas City and the evolution of the NEP are, IMO, proof of that.

 

[chairmanTARAC]

Interesting thread, DrBill and I seem to be on the same page.He like me predate the Scientific diver certification. It seems the universities started the "scientific Diver certification" for many reason's but based on the dialog it was for liability issues. I have been involved with studies using volunteers and also with studies done by university scientific divers. I can assure everyone that just because you are a qualified as a scientific diver does not mean you are proficient in science or your diving skills. It has been my experience that university's are more interested in the grant money then published science.

 

[Wookie]

I don't see any writing in this thread where that was even implied to the idea of those volunteers. The distinction was explained clear enough in the beginning in my mind. It was just taken as a negative accusation, which it was not. The only negative association I detected was research groups utilizing volunteers and branding them scientific divers.

Scientific divers in the US are rated under an AAUS institution. If you're not rated by such then under OSHA's exemption you're not a scientific diver. So volunteers for scientific projects fall under the category of volunteer. That's the only distinction. There is no definitive levels really to talk about in terms of which one is higher or not; it's just a distinction.

A recreational ice diver will be better trained for ice diving than an AAUS rated sci diver from Hawaii. Vice versa, etc etc.
The point is you call it what it is. In the US, volunteers aren't sci divers by legal definition under OSHA.

I'll fight you here. First of all, AAUS is not the only organization with a scientific diver exemption. In fact, AAUS seem to be a bit prima donna about who they accept in their organization. I probably say that because I was rejected. I would hazard a guess that more scientific dives are conducted from the Spree than any other dive or NSF/NOAA research vessel in the world. I only guess because I haven't seen data for other vessels, but in 2012 we safely conducted approximately 5,000 dives live boat for scientific divers in the 60, 100, and 130 foot range. We conducted dives in the Mona passage as well as St. Croix to a max depth of 300 feet on Inspiration rebreathers. Charterers included NOAA, NPS, more NOAA, University of Puerto Rico, and FFWCC. FFWCC is AAUS, none of the others are. Divers came from all over the United States on LORs from their Universities, as well as NOAAs volunteer research diver program.

I have a scientific diver program. It is conducted in strict accordance with OSHA's standards for scientific divers, including having a diving control board (made up of NOAA, NPS, and AAUS DCB members, UDS's, and LODO's), a Diving Safety Manual (patterned after the AAUS Diving Safety Manual), a training program, and an equipment maintenance program. OSHA does not require you to submit to them any proof of the above, you just have to meet the above and claim the exemption. The only time you would be pinged is if there were an accident. My scientific divers must come with a recreational c-card and 250 logged scientific dives. We hold quarterly proficiency dives, and require annual physicals. I have been approved to write a LOR to NOAA as well as NPS, as we are in compliance with the NOAA and NPS diving Safety Manual. Although we are not authorized to provide an on-site DSO for NOAA charters, it's because non-government employees are not allowed to supervise government employees. We do, however, provide a lead diver for NOAA missions so that all of the NOAA personnel may dive.

All of our divers are volunteers. They sign volunteer waivers and are specifically not counted as crew, and are specifically not counted under the Jones Act. They are not paid, they are not reimbursed for expenses, I do not compensate them in any way. They must have a master dive accident policy from a recognized insurer or re insurer (DAN or DiveAssure) as well as a major medical policy in force while they are diving. If we are counting fish, they must endure a 3 day fish identification class which includes a test that they must pass with 80% or better. Their data is included with the rest of the data collected by the "real scientists", because they are doing real science. My volunteers are in high demand because they are mostly retired and can come for 10 days at a time.

I have 2 Diving Safety Officers on part time staff. They are both deep tech instructors, one for NAUI, one for IANTD. Both dive Megladon rebreathers. Both are in absolute control of the dive deck when acting as DSO. They don't dive until the work day is done.

So, volunteers may act as scientific divers under the legal definition of OSHA if you write your Diving Safety Manual that way. It's how I expect to start running charters to Cuba in the near future. We'll be doing science.

 

[boulderjohn]

Frank, how do interested people learn about this program?

 

[Wookie]

I hand select them from interns, grad students, retired military, but the best come from aquariums. Problem with aquarium divers is that they don't know how to stop and turn around. There are no glass walls to run into... They go only one way. It's hard to do a transect in one direction.

In all seriousness, we'll be working this spring in generating our own scientific divers from scratch. As it is now, we only accept folks who are trained from other organizations. I will tell you this, however. There will be more and more opportunities in the coming months for these types of divers. As NOAA budgets shrink, the work still has to be done. Many NOAA fisheries guys are getting ready to retire, and their positions won't be replaced with FTE's.

 

[drbill]

Thal... straight from the AAUS web site:

Certification

The American Academy of Underwater Sciences offers AAUS Verification cards directly through our website for AAUS members that have been trained through a participating organization and are active scientific divers. The process is quick and easy! Click this link to begin the purchasing your AAUS Scientific Diver Verification of Training Card."