Disturbing trend in diving?

[dmaziuk]

He's just trying to finesse the word "training" by saying the OW dive is for checkout and not part of training. Everyone else, of course, considers it part of the training.

Well, looking at the book, mine does say "skills you will practice" during OW dives, so they aren't just "exam" dives.

In which case I'm good for 7 mil cold green muck kind of diving, not just my bathtub.

 

[Leatherboot69]

Well, looking at the book, mine does say "skills you will practice" during OW dives, so they aren't just "exam" dives.

In which case I'm good for 7 mil cold green muck kind of diving, not just my bathtub.

They’ve never been exam dives. You call them ‘checkout’ dives but PADI doesnt

 

[boulderjohn]

It changes the entire premise and makes the entire post that follows irrelevant.

I have to admit that my poor reading skills do not allow me to understand what you really meant when you wrote "In the US divers have been sued following an accident involving a random assigned buddy." Could you please elaborate so that reading-challenged people like me can understand?

 

[Allen-1]

In the Unittd States of America, some individuals have been forced to incur the inconvenience and expense of being a named defendant in a court action following a scuba diving incident where the plaintiff or the family of the victim attempted to obtain restitution from the randomly assigned dive buddy.

Citation, please.

 

[boulderjohn]

In the Unittd States of America, some individuals have been forced to incur the inconvenience and expense of being a named defendant in a court action following a scuba diving incident where the plaintiff or the family of the victim attempted to obtain restitution from the randomly assigned dive buddy.

Please give examples. There were none in the document you cited.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

In the Unittd States of America, some individuals have been forced to incur the inconvenience and expense of being a named defendant in a court action following a scuba diving incident where the plaintiff or the family of the victim attempted to obtain restitution from the randomly assigned dive buddy.

I think I have been fed the same FUD. But after repeated challenges from people like John, I've come to the realization that it was FUD. I've learned to question the source of everything, including things I want to be true (to fight against my own confirmation bias).

 

[boulderjohn]

I already provided links above and a screenshot of one case in particular where two previously unknown aka "random" buddies were involved in an accident and one was sued.

Diver Sued for Abandoning Buddy: Undercurrent 03/2004

I can't possibly be any clearer. But since you can't be bothered to do your own research, here's some more examples for you that I found in a quick search. Before you try to correct me, please allow me to point out that the examples in this particular article pertain to buddies who knew each other so they did not qualify as "instabuddies" but they do show the liability involved with being paired with another diver.

in Dao v. Shipway, an unpublished decision, a California judge granted summary judgment to a buddy because the friends were “engaged in a voluntary, active sport with inherent risks” of which the victim was aware. Although Doug Shipway (1) had been diving with his partner for years knowing he was not certified, (2) provided him tanks, (3) failed to follow the buddy system and (4) did not go back under water to search and waited an hour to call for emergency assistance, he was not responsible for his buddy’s death.

Your Liability as a Buddy: Undercurrent 03/2002

The first case you cited was one I discussed in detail in Post #341. It does not support your case, as I explained.

The second one focuses on another case that was also covered in the previous document and does not support your case.

You still have not provided a single example of a randomly assigned buddy being sued, successfully or unsuccessfully.

If the second article had been submitted to me while I was teaching how to write research papers, I would have found it very deficient. It is clear that the author was desperately trying to prove that dive buddies are at serious risk for liability in a diving accident but could not make the evidence support it. Part of the article is devoted to trying to explain why the evidence does not support it despite the opinion that it should. You will find the same thing in that first document you cited--the author tries to explain why there isn't much evidence to support the thesis.

 

[Stoo]

There's some SCUBA "influencer-wannabe" who was advocating that PADI should eliminate all theory from entry level courses. That's an impediment to getting people in to the sport. Save it for advanced level programmes.

Seems like a solid plan to me.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

There's some SCUBA "influencer-wannabe" who was advocating that PADI should eliminate all theory from entry level courses. That's an impediment to getting people in to the sport. Save it for advanced level programmes.

Seems like a solid plan to me.

Maybe we should just go back to enclosing a little instruction card in the regulator box saying "Don't hold your breath" and call it good?

 

[Chavodel8en]

There's some SCUBA "influencer-wannabe" who was advocating that PADI should eliminate all theory from entry level courses. That's an impediment to getting people in to the sport. Save it for advanced level programmes.

Seems like a solid plan to me.

This is an interesting topic worthy of discussion. I enjoyed what little theory provided in classes, and having a basic understanding why i should pay attention to NDL, and why Nitrox has depth limits.

But maybe alot of folks just need to know the final rule, without the underlying theory? Or would that undercut their following the rule?