That really depends on the regulations and how strictly they're enforced. On my first trip to Grand Cayman when they still limited maximum depth and use of gloves, I dove with a scofflaw who took us below 100' and didn't have a problem with my gloves.
I agree. It goes to show that the imposition of regulations isn't something that is 'bound to explode' into the micro-management of an activity.
American view of freedom seems (to me) to be very much 'all-or-nothing', black-or-white'. If freedom is eroded slightly, then it's bound to progress into a complete loss of freedom.... therefore, freedom must be absolute. Thankfully, outside of that American experience, a much more relaxed view of freedom endures (and has done for many thousands of years).
On my first trip to Bonaire, where gloves were strictly forbidden, as I was returning to the dock to exit the water on one dive I put my hand up to block my face from hitting a dock piling when the surge pushed me into it and the entire side of my hand lit up from the encrusting fire coral....
I do agree with that also... I've found that 'glove bans' are a very simple-minded method of preventing damage to coral.
However, to preserve coral from diver abuse, you're left with several other options that offer substantially 'less freedom' - ban divers from coral area altogether or selectively ban divers from areas based upon their certification and/or experience.
It'd be nice to hope that dive operators...and individual dive pros... could enforce better education and control over indisciplined divers,
but scuba is a customer-service industry... and there'd be more than a few disgruntled customers who'd react badly from a 'lecture' from a dive master... or even worse (God forbid) that the dive pro might refuse to take them on X, Y or Z sites because of their diving standards...
Who's to say that an arbitrary depth limit doesn't affect one's enjoyment of the dive?
Nobody. I was merely stating that it didn't affect
my enjoyment of the dives (
and I am pretty demanding when it comes to getting my money's worth on an expensive holiday).
What if the depth were limited to 60' and, as I've heard, all the unbleached corals in the Maldives start much deeper?
I think the issue also had a lot to do with the remote location and consequent lack of medical (hyperbaric) treatment.
During my entire career as a dive pro, I've only ever had maybe 2 or 3 customers
ever enquire about the provision of a chamber. I doubt many holiday divers visiting the Maldives consider such things when planning dives. Goes to show that regulations can exist to protect divers who otherwise wouldn't be aware of the risks they were taking.
Just because you haven't found any regulations yet that you couldn't live with doesn't mean such regulations might not be imposed in the future. Governments are not usually in the best place to decide what is best for scuba divers and their underwater environment.
I've heard of some very ludicrous regulations getting drafted. Luckily, the scuba industry (in a lot of primary diving destinations) is quite a powerful lobbying group. In most instances, bad legislation hasn't made it into practice. Thailand had a few battles. We did to with the local authorities in Subic Bay, after a double-fatality caused a silly knee-jerk, face-saving reaction by the authorities... but sense does prevail.
The worst I've seen is in the UK... with imposition of European regulations demanding the M26 DIN valve for Nitrox use.
That's because the "prudent" agency recommendations are often silly and impractical.
I don't see much that is silly or impractical with the various safe diving recommendations made by agencies.
Should a diver who has done a 4-day thread-bare McDiver course really be going deeper than 18m/60'? Should they really be more than a CESA breath from the surface? I think not.
Should a diver do deco, without doing training for deco? I think not.
Should a diver who is trained to rely upon a buddy, dive without a buddy? I think not.
Of course, it's all relative to experience and training. There
is a point where a diver is capable of setting their own rules... the problem lies with the reality that some divers just want to exert their 'rights' and do stuff that they don't understand, aren't ready for...and are not capable of making
informed decision about. Hence... recommendations from agencies.
When I've been diving with experienced divers without strict supervision, my experience is that no one really pushes the envelope. If the "prudent" recommendations were made more sensible, you'd find even more compliance.
I agree. But these recommendations aren't aimed at 'experienced' divers... the goal is to protect the 'inexperienced'.
...and, yes, I have seen plenty of inexperienced divers who, without strict supervision,
would really push their envelope.
Not that you could nominate
most of those divers for a Darwin Law... they just don't know what they need to know. But then again, what more can you expect from the thread-bare recreational diving training standards?
McDiver training = McDiver diving = McDiver recommendations.
Sure, but if that were really true, you'd see a lot more dive injuries and fatalities. The fact is, most new divers are scared by PADI et al. to even dip below 60' let alone 100'. Most of the real risks in inherent in scuba diving are very visible: running out of air, having a heart attack from being out of shape, boat ladder accidents, hazardous marine life. With computers that have graphic indicators of nitrogen loading (red zone, yellow zone, green zone), I'd say that even the DCS risk has been rendered very visible.
...and yet... the chambers are all still so busy...
That leaves narcosis, but how many recreational divers truly die or are injured because of narcosis each year?
In my mind... the involvement of narcosis has to be considered in
any incident that happens below 100'. Unprovable. Undocumented. But still very real factor.
The question can always be asked: "
If the same incident trigger had occured 40' shallower, would the result have been the same...?"
Maybe to some people. When I'm at the edge of a deep wall, my brain already registers I'm at the edge of a cliff. When I'm 100' below the surface, surviving solely because of a regulator attached to a a small tank of pressurized air, my brain is very well aware it's in a dangerous place.
Personally, I think that comes with experience. I've seen lots of novice divers who
obviously don't have that awareness. Blissfully ignorant swimming around, oblivious to time, depth, air and/or buddy. I'm sure that many dive pros would testify to having seen the same behaviour in many divers.
I firmly believe that the respect
truly comes with experience. Your brain understands the risk. My brain understands the risk. But for Joe McDiver... who just finished his AOW course and hit 50 dives without incident... thus a self-appraised diving god? Hmmm.....
Perhaps it is the fault of the agencies, by proclaiming 60' "safe" for newly "qualified" open water divers, they minimize all the risks of breathing underwater and convince smaller brains that there's nothing at all to worry about. Still, you'd think all that training on buddy systems, air sharing, OOA ascents, the need to monitor one's gauges and do pre-dive planning, you really believe that none of that registers to most people that the recreational pursuit of diving could potentially be hazardous?
At entry-level, many agencies deliberately press the message that diving is safe. It's something instructors are taught to do in their IDCs. The message is "Fun, Fun, Fun". Not much changes until the Rescue Diver course...
I think it's wrong to terrify novice divers with horror stories... but, at the same time, equally irresponsible to neglect teaching a profound respect for being underwater. I think the balance could be much better.