Diver lost in Cozumel today

[AggieDiver]

This is going to surprise a lot of people, but "5 Stars" is a marketing term and not a rating. Use of the term misleads consumers into thinking it's a rating, since the same "stars" are used to rate movies, auto-crash tests, quality of consumer items and all sorts of other things, however this isn't true in the case of PADI.

"5 Stars" signifies only that the shop teaches PADI classes exclusively, and meets some other requirements mostly relating to appearance and marketing, but it is not a quality rating, since it's not possible to have 1, 2, 3 or 4 stars.

flots.

I am not actually surprised by that based on what I already knew, but do agree that it is very misleading for PADI to give a 5-star or approved rating without taking any responsibility for the shop's policies or practices. If I were a new diver and heard that a facility was a "PADI 5 Star" facility, I would assume they were the best of the best and had an excellent safety program and record.

---------- Post added April 18th, 2012 at 03:38 PM ----------

My interpretation is a little different.

I think we all agree that the PADI standard depth limit is 60' during training. However, once certified, PADI recommends to the new diver that they don't go below 60' until they take AOW or get comfortable making 60' dives, before going further.

PADI then goes on to say that AOW divers should not go below 100' until they have a deep diver specialty, or get comfortable making 100' dives. And finally, a hard stop at 130. PADI OW/AOW divers are not certified to go deeper than 130', and expects the shops to enforce this, but has no ability to enforce it.

The difference IMHO, is that it is up to the OW diver, not the shop to determine if they are ready to make an 80' dive.

The shop however, may have made a poor judgement call in allowing it, but they in no way violated PADI standards.

That is the real crux of the issue...people oftentimes don't know what they don't know. So a diver may believe themselves to be an experienced and skilled diver, when in fact they are not. Without some intermediate measuring point, it is hard for PADI or a dive shop to really know what a diver's skill level is.

 

[cruiser]

1) The 60ft limit is during training ONLY.

The op I use in Aruba won't take PADI OW divers below 60 feet. He says that is as deep as they can go on their OW certification.

My first trip there, we had to stay above 60 feet when diving with the DM because my buddy only had OW PADI certification.

Maybe it's been changed? I don't know.

 

[AggieDiver]

Mike, I think we can all agree to disagree around here without insulting each other or belittling opinions. In the end your thoughts are just like everybody else's...an opinion. Nobody here expects a dive operation to hold anybody's hand, and you are building a nice little straw man to knock down in saying so. What is being debated is what level of responsibility the dive op accepts in asking the diver's experience level. If the op asks on their information form how many dives the diver has or what their skill level is, then the diver should have some reasonable expectation that the operator plans to act on that information. Otherwise, why would they ask for it? If the operator bears no burden at all, then why not just flash a c-card when you get to the boat, sign a waiver and that is the end of it? Or why ask for a c-card at all? If the operator is allowed to assume everybody is completely responsible for their own ability to make the dive, why do they even have to check for c-cards?

Where the rubber meets the road is that operators DO ask for skill level information, and most DO act on it by trying to group divers with similar skill levels. By doing that, they DO take on some minimum responsibility for alerting divers if the dives they have planned may exceed their skill levels or if the conditions may be more challenging than expected. That doesn't mean the DM should hold their hand or wipe their nose, it means the DM should inform the divers properly of the conditions (which it sounds like was done in this incident). It also means the operator has a responsibility to try to take divers to sites that match their skills.

In the end, yes, divers hold the ultimate responsibility for their own safety, but the operator is the local expert and owes the diver some level of care not to drop them into something they are ill-equipped for without at least informing the diver of the conditions. If you can't see that, then we will just have to disagree.

I remember having this same kind of discussion many years ago regarding an incident at the Flower Gardens involving the Fling or the Spree. There was a lot of discussion about the captain demanding to see log books before allowing people to board the boat and whether they accepted responsibility for the diver's skill level by using that as a screening step to get on the boat.

 

[diverrex]

Doesn't matter how many times you all want to go round and round and round on the finger pointing and rules, regulations, standards, guidelines etc... cry to PADI or anything else.

A certified diver has been certified to dive. It's up to them to provide for their own safety. Beat it into your little heads, you can argue all you want, but that's where the rubber meets the road. If a dive master gives you a dive briefing you don't feel comfortable doing, it's up to you to open your little mouth and be heard. If you chose to shut up before the dive, shut up after it then and reap the consequences that you accepted like a big boy before you splashed in. Dive masters aren't there to pass out baa-baas and check if you doodied in your wet suit and need a change.

While much of what you say is true the overall attitude within it is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

 

[boulderjohn]

The op I use in Aruba won't take PADI OW divers below 60 feet. He says that is as deep as they can go on their OW certification.

My first trip there, we had to stay above 60 feet when diving with the DM because my buddy only had OW PADI certification.

And that is the choice of the dive operator, not the agency. There are many dive operators that will not take divers to specific sites, such as the Speigel Grove in Florida, without advanced certification.

 

[boulderjohn]

I fully agree that a diver who does not have a lot of experience does not have the ability to judge his or her abilities in relation to a new and unknown site. A good dive operation will make an effort to determine if the diver and the site are a good match. In my experience in Cozumel, the best operators do indeed make that effort.

On the other hand...

Let's say that a dive operator in Cozumel were to make a rule that no OW divers could go below 60 feet. Since pretty much all the first dive sites in Cozumel are deeper than that, they would pretty much lose all their OW certified customers to other shops. Since about 90% of the divers are only OW certified, that would pretty much put that operator out of business. That puts a lot of pressure on shops to take divers to sites that push the experience envelope.

 

[AggieDiver]

On the other hand, most shops and DMs dealing with divers who will be diving with them for multiple days will go to an easy site for the first dive with a diver they haven't seen before to give them a chance to assess their skills. Once they have an idea what the person is like in the water, they can adjust accordingly. Where this issue really hits is with the cruise ship divers. Because they don't get that 1st dive/day to assess skills, they should be even more diligent about reviewing # of dives and stated skill level because it is the only chance they will get to put each diver on a boat appropriate to their skill level.

 

[Mike]

Mike, I think we can all agree to disagree around here without insulting each other or belittling opinions. In the end your thoughts are just like everybody else's...an opinion. Nobody here expects a dive operation to hold anybody's hand, and you are building a nice little straw man to knock down in saying so. What is being debated is what level of responsibility the dive op accepts in asking the diver's experience level. If the op asks on their information form how many dives the diver has or what their skill level is, then the diver should have some reasonable expectation that the operator plans to act on that information. Otherwise, why would they ask for it? If the operator bears no burden at all, then why not just flash a c-card when you get to the boat, sign a waiver and that is the end of it? Or why ask for a c-card at all? If the operator is allowed to assume everybody is completely responsible for their own ability to make the dive, why do they even have to check for c-cards?

Where the rubber meets the road is that operators DO ask for skill level information, and most DO act on it by trying to group divers with similar skill levels. By doing that, they DO take on some minimum responsibility for alerting divers if the dives they have planned may exceed their skill levels or if the conditions may be more challenging than expected. That doesn't mean the DM should hold their hand or wipe their nose, it means the DM should inform the divers properly of the conditions (which it sounds like was done in this incident). It also means the operator has a responsibility to try to take divers to sites that match their skills.

In the end, yes, divers hold the ultimate responsibility for their own safety, but the operator is the local expert and owes the diver some level of care not to drop them into something they are ill-equipped for without at least informing the diver of the conditions. If you can't see that, then we will just have to disagree.

I remember having this same kind of discussion many years ago regarding an incident at the Flower Gardens involving the Fling or the Spree. There was a lot of discussion about the captain demanding to see log books before allowing people to board the boat and whether they accepted responsibility for the diver's skill level by using that as a screening step to get on the boat.

Did I take it too far?

It's all good people. Just a little sarcastic poking and stirring.

The problem with all this is there is a mixing together of two different things, hell probably 3 different things even.

1) If normal mundane dive conditions in Cozumel. Easy peasy diving. Biggest concern should be depth and explicitly understood advanced dive sites. That's really all that enters into the equation. If you've got 3 dives should you be going to 100 ft? Should you go inside the C-53, should you be going to Barracuda, should you be going to the Devil's Throat? How much responsibility is the dive op or the diver?

2) Its this very dubious, very hard to quantify X-factor of a small window of strange currents. How much responsibility does a dive op have in regard to temporary, unpredictable currents. Certainly if its Monday and there are no strange currents and suddenly on Tuesday they start, is the dive op at fault for those currents on Tuesday? What about Wed? Does the dive op know if the strange currents are over with? If they existed on Tues and Wed, what about Thursday? How much responsibility is it the dive op or the diver?

 

[divezonescuba]

PADI Open Water Diver Manual, chapter 4 knowledge reviews, pg. 216

9. Match the following by placing the correct letter in the blank.

____ Maximum depth limit for Open Water Divers

____ Maximum depth limit for divers with training and experience beyond the Open Water Diver level

____ Maximum depth limit for divers with Deep Water training

a. 18m/60 ft. b. 40m/130 ft. c. 30m/100 ft.

 

[Splitlip]

@Mike, clearly you are a god of diving. Unfortunately not everyone else out there is and these are the people that concern is being expressed for. The don't know what they don't know and are indeed doing trust me dives where the input, guidance and professionalism of the dive master is pretty fundamental.

I struggle to see how anyone in their right mind would think taking a large group of novices on a wall dive with fairly strong currents (or worse, strong down currents) is a sensible, prudent or professional course of action. Currents, apart from Gods like you, have been known for their tendency to separate divers. They can pull masks off, depress regs, cause panic in newer divers, cause rapid ascents, get divers lost at sea - I could go on. I think you underestimate the risks associated with currents and hope that no-one in your charge is thus mislead.

John

I'm not a dive god, but watching this thread I'm rethinking some of my comments about certified divers, no matter the skill level, to be prepared to dive any site on their own.
After a few google searches, I would recommend any noobs in Coz hire a DM. Not the guide on a cattle boat, but somebody bound to the buddy team.

Doc Vikingo published an article about vertical currents. Wow! I've never experienced anything like that, and I suspect neither has macho Mike. And Mike, I am a Jupiter drift diver. Up to 5Kt south north currents, but our walls are max 20 ft with bottoms at max 130 but typically less than 80.
I agree about tucking in (often here we only need to hug the bottom and take advantage of friction.) I imagine these horrid vertical currents are not the norm, but something which needs to be considered.

Don, some of your illustrations of southern currents, make it very clear.