Disturbing trend in diving?

[Eric Sedletzky]

Your post sounds like what you want to be true because it makes sense and it's upsetting to believe there are things in the world that defy logic and common sense.

But there are.

They can try but it doesn't mean they are going to win.
And then there would be my counter suit.

 

[boulderjohn]

They can try but it doesn't mean they are going to win.
And then there would be my counter suit.

According to the study cited in post

They can try but it doesn't mean they are going to win.
And then there would be my counter suit.

According to the 2008 study he cited in post 328, it has never even been tried.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

According to the study cited in post

According to the 2008 study he cited in post 328, it has never even been tried.

It's asinine is what it is.
Total waste of time.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

LOL . Yeah. That dive in Jupiter Ledge where my dh regulator filled with water and then shot it down my throat was quite the surprise and not an exaggeration in any way. The pneumonia from seawater inspiration and the blackout, so nice. What fun, maybe I will try to do that again---NOT!!!!!!!!! I was told those duble hose things would try to kill me and they was right and it did near about. And I do not need a log to remind me of that . I am absolutely lucky to be here.

I wish I had kept a log and put pictures from each dive in it. That would be fun. I might would have left that one out of the official record .

Yes, this was the dive that took Nemrod out of our “vintage diving community.” I don’t think he’s used a double hose regulator since. Nemrod, we miss you and won’t hold you to using a double hose regulator again, but there is a lot of single hose diving to be discussed too in the vintage forums. We just had a discussion of the “R-valve,” and restrictor orifices for use in the early 1960s, for instance.

To get this back on track, divers of yesteryear used their J-valves in fairly shallow water to determine when to end a dive, rather than a Divemaster (DM). Those today who are dependent on a DM for their no decompression limits (NDL) and other safety matters really are not competent divers, at least in the “vintage” sense of diving.

SeaRat

 

[Belzelbub]

Three words, which you then demonstrate that you really don't get it.

Find yourself a six pack and rent the whole boat. That way you won't get inconvenienced.

Actually, I do get it. For me, this is all theoretical. I dive nearly exclusively off of private boats. I have inconvenienced myself in doing dives off my own boat with new divers. I did that willingly, and will again. The difference is that it was my choice, and I was 100% on board with doing these dives with these newer divers.

A dive op simply needs to make it clear what to expect and try to group with similar experience. If the dive op is one where it’s a single group led by a DM, then I know what to expect. If it’s smaller groups (buddies, or even solo) and a DM is optional (or not available), then I know this is likely one I can dive more of my own dive.

 

[therookie]

not competent divers

Thank you for this, SeaRat! For me this idea of "competent" divers vs "certified" divers ties together many of what seems like loose ends of this thread.

Certification does not equal competency. Of course it does at the time the cert was issued, assuming the instructor was ethical, because you have to demonstrate competence in order to receive the cert. That doesn't mean you remain competent, however.

In my case I received what I will call a "shotgun" OW certification - acquired over the course of a few days in a tropical environment. At the end we were what I would now categorize as "barely competent". We knew some theory, we knew how to set up our gear, we knew how to stay alive breathing underwater for a little under an hour, and we knew that the underwater world is magical. But all that we had time (and money!) to do at time was the OW dives, nothing more - and it was just a few days shy of a full year before we were able to dive again, and it took a bit to regain some of that "competence" on our next trip. The first dive of that trip was somewhat challenging, but 45 minutes or so of warm water, pretty fish, and several turtles later we were all good... Still barely competent, but happy at least .

In the case of one SB member who recently admitted in a post to diving totally dependent on the DM even as far as depth was concerned - that seemed to me like a conscious, informed decision made in an attempt to overcome a severe mental block about diving, and the dive was performed with the full consent and under the direct supervision of a licensed dive professional. I feel it is not my place to pass judgement on the decision, or her competence.

I do think that divers that are habitually totally dependent on the DM are no longer competent divers in any sense of diving, assuming they were certified to begin with. I would say they have reverted back to "Discover Scuba Dive" level, despite their certification - or possibly even lower since even DSD divers are usually at least using a depth gauge to know how deep they are!

However, someone posted earlier to the effect that diving is a big tent, which I took to mean as very inclusive, and after six months or so on ScubaBoard I see what they mean. You vintage divers, CCR divers, cave divers, lobster hunters, purple urchin infestation fighting divers, etc - I freely confess that I as a strictly warm water pretty fish diver would likely not be "competent" if I were diving with any of you. We also have folks here that volunteer with DiveHeart to enable people with disabilities severe enough that they could never dive on their own to experience the wonder (and therapeutical value!) of what we do. And there is no question that those "disabled divers" are more than welcome in our tent.

So can that big tent include "incompetent" divers under the direct supervision of a licensed professional? I think so. And if I'm ever diving in a group that includes one, I'm going to view it as an opportunity to test my situational awareness competence, so that I don't get so focused on warm water, pretty fish and turtles that I forget about the people I'm diving with!

 

[boulderjohn]

Read it again more carefully.

Okay, let's talk about it, the closest case cited to your claim that randomly assigned buddies have been successfully sued. Note first that the suit was NOT successful.

I. The case was used to illustrate this point (page 83):

Under this theory, "by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties' relationship to the activity, the defendant owes no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from the particular risk of harm that caused the injury."47​

​

II. The two were not randomly selected buddies.

III. In the incident, one of them went out of air and tried to take the buddy's regulator to buddy breathe. The buddy panicked and fought off that attempt. The OOA diver drowned.

IV. Here is the analysis of the incident by the study's author:

The reasoning in Yace relied on the California Supreme Court's analogy to other sports where participants are not liable to each other for ordinary careless conduct committed during the game.55 Instead, a coparticipant only breaches his duty of care if he "intentionally injures another player or engages in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport."56​

​

While there may be circumstances where a diver's negligent acts might increase the risks to his buddy and give rise to a duty of due care, the court found this was not true during an underwater emergency: "Unlike most other sports, the possibility of a life-threatening emergency in scuba diving is apparent, and indeed anticipated. Just as an emergency problem with air supply is itself an inherent risk of the sport, so also is the reaction to that emergency of one's diving buddy."57 In other words, plaintiffs' action was barred by the primary assumption of risk defense because panic constitutes an inherent risk of diving. Because Dushane panicked, or suffered "a sudden overpowering fright," his behavior could not "be characterized as careless, much less as reckless or intentional" so as to overcome the doctrine.58​

 

[jborg]

To get this back on track, divers of yesteryear used their J-valves in fairly shallow water to determine when to end a dive, rather than a Divemaster (DM). Those today who are dependent on a DM for their no decompression limits (NDL) and other safety matters really are not competent divers, at least in the “vintage” sense of diving.

While I see what you're saying, I kinda find the premise a bit funny. The mark of a competent diver is to dive shallowly until they're out of air, and then ascend. The incompetent diver, on the other hand, ends the dive when the DM calls it or, presumably, when hitting their reserve as they will have an SPG and monitor their air. Potato, tomato.

 

[Nemrod]

Yes, this was the dive that took Nemrod out of our “vintage diving community.” I don’t think he’s used a double hose regulator since. Nemrod, we miss you and won’t hold you to using a double hose regulator again, but there is a lot of single hose diving to be discussed too in the vintage forums. We just had a discussion of the “R-valve,” and restrictor orifices for use in the early 1960s, for instance.

To get this back on track, divers of yesteryear used their J-valves in fairly shallow water to determine when to end a dive, rather than a Divemaster (DM). Those today who are dependent on a DM for their no decompression limits (NDL) and other safety matters really are not competent divers, at least in the “vintage” sense of diving.

SeaRat

No, I have dived DH since, on shallow, benign dives and swimming pools . DH regs just breathe so wet after a few dives I get a cough from irritation. I am going to be putting some very nice DH regs up for sale including a NIB Kraken ($) but I am keeping my beloved satin chrome Kraken and a few other favs. I want a new camera more than a box of dusty DH regs .



On subject, I do not mind at all mentoring newer divers, unless it is a once in a lifetime dive I will never get back to. But when they think they know everything, I mean, all anyone can do is try to set an example and when seeing something potentially dangerous, I am going to say something. But after I have said something and then been told that "we are not into details" dismissively then I am probably going to shut up and smile. If it is a young person with a lot of life ahead, I may be more insistent and have.

 

[The Chairman]

divers of yesteryear used their J-valves in fairly shallow water to determine when to end a dive,

Our J-valve was our SPG. We were incredibly independent back then. We were explorers and we dove in places that had never been dove before. That independence doesn't have to change, but it depends on the instructor to do their due diligence to give them the tools to be independent.