Local dive shop in Venice CA, refuses to fill tanks

[padiscubapro]

I didn't say their aren't benefits or that it is an appropriate choice for some. My POINT is that labelling a group "bad" because they have a different philosophy is unfair - particularly when other positives go unmentioned. Same thing for if there was a boat that forbids the use of compressed air and only allowed Nirtox. It would be unfair for me to label them "bad" or unsafe because they forbid me to dive compressed air in a safe and reasonable fashion. I simply would say that group is not conducive to my diving style and would look elsewhere and not spend my time labeling their policies as "bad".

And the insinuation that any company that embraces nitrox is "good" is equally incorrect. Just look at the enterprise that inspired this thread. They embrace Nitrox yet ban customers from their shop for not buying from them - that would be "bad" policy if you ask me.

In my experience I have never seen anyone who is of the compressed air camp rally against nitrox people with any venom or vigor, they just say it isn't for me. I have seen numerous nitrox fox vehemently protest against the compressed air group and speak negatively of the approach. I always found that very interesting and quite telling.

The big difference here is that we have one group saying another is "bad" because they don't allow a particular approach while we have another group who simply says that the other approach is not what they do and makes no qualitataive judgements about it.

I am not labeling a group of people bad because they differ with my opinion.

restricting the person to a single tank isn't wrong (provided they allow an alternate air source like a pony, This is for satfety not increasing dive time, If they want to be sure limit the size to say a 30cf tank)

If they allow ANYBODY including the staff to dive SOLO those divers should be properly equipped with totally redundant systems or not allowed to do it period.. At absolute minimum the divers should be using a single tank with an H-valve (and 2 first stages) and a small pony.

Gas selection should be left to the diver, There is nothing wrong with placing limits on the dive profiles. Nitrox has alot of benefits (especially when used to the same limits as air) and very few down sides (the main one being the MOD for the mix, but a diver with reasonable buoyancy control and who pays attention to his/her depth this is a non-issue)

Even running 4 or 5 dives a day to recreation depths and times, getting anywhere near the alowable limits is quite difficult, so this really isn't an issue.

God forbid something happens and the person gets an "underserved hit", bolts to the surface or any other issue that threatens the divers healt, the fact that they were breathing Nitrox inproves the chance of the diver getting away with less or no heath issues.

Breathing Nitrox saturates the blood with oxygen much more readily than AIr does (to do it on air you must go deeper), if a person has any predisposition factors this extra availability of oxygen can be a blessing.

I don't know if you ever took a Nitrox class and if so how complete it was.. If your class really addressed all the issues you most likely would come out with the same opion I am expressing. BTW my nitrox classes take about 12 hours of academics.... The actual caclculations take of only a small percentage of the class, everything else is physiology...

 

[nlbford]

First and for the last friggin' time, I didn't say the group (or people) are bad, I said the policy is.

Well you stated "policies" which struck me as a sweepingly general judgement as to RS's policies and attitude in general. And if I misunderstood the intent of the statement, I apologize.

If you are speaking specifically to a policy of not allowing two tanks, I can agree that in the way you describe it it does seem unneccesarily restrictive. It has not been my understanding that they wholely restrict two tanks, but stated that I could be wrong in that understanding. As I said, I know they allow pony's, so it seemed to me to be at least a partially errant statement - and one that seemed (at my inital reading) to be a basis for a statement that "their policies are bad".

Second, I did let divers know that they offer air fills for free, which is a good thing.

In the context I have read - and will freelu admit that I haven't had the benefit of seeing everything you have written - you appeared to say, their policies are bad, but hey, go get some free air fills from them - which struck me as a little bit unfair. If I have misunderstood intent, my bad. But in the context I saw that post, you seemed to be discussing policies in general as wholely bad.

Third, other positives didn't go unmentioned, I posted I enjoyed the company both in the store and on trips, and agreed that in general they are safety concious. Especially the dive masters. I do have negatives regarding the service that I did not post publicly, nor do I intend to.

Not in the post that inspired my post on the subject. Which at the time was all I had seen.

I really don't give a damn what anybody else breathes underwater, or what they breath it from. I never questioned anyone's choice of gas (unless it's wrong for the profile MOD/END), nor do I judge anyone diving air or mixed gases.

I do judge people that restrict my choice of gases though.
Because I care very much what I breath, and what I breath from.

ANd you are free not to do business with them. I just feel that to make the general statement that a store has bad policies because they don't cater to your brand of diving - which the brief post you made appeared to do - strikes me as a bit unfair. Particularly in light of the fact that as you elaborate you seem to acknowledge some pluses on their end. ANd again. I originally am speaking to the brief post that ellicited my steatement - which at the time was all I had seen.

As detailed in my last post, I consider it a safety issue, and since I'm resposible for mine, and it is mine that is at stake, I prefer not to dive with them.

ain't nothing wrong with that.

That's all there is to it. Ken, Billy and several others in the store know my point of view, I know theirs, we dive different boats.

Doesn't mean we don't get along, I swing by the store when I'm in their neighborhood and every once in a while make a purchase there, too.

Well that is all very different than the brief statement I saw. AND again, if I misunderstood I apologize. I can't say I dispute much of what you have stated since clarifying the post I initially addressed.

 

[nlbford]

I am not labeling a group of people bad because they differ with my opinion.

restricting the person to a single tank isn't wrong (provided they allow an alternate air source like a pony, This is for satfety not increasing dive time, If they want to be sure limit the size to say a 30cf tank)

Which is why I said I felt the general statement that "their policies are bad" was somewhat unfair, as I know they DO allow ponies because I have often used them on their boats.

If they allow ANYBODY including the staff to dive SOLO those divers should be properly equipped with totally redundant systems or not allowed to do it period.. At absolute minimum the divers should be using a single tank with an H-valve (and 2 first stages) and a small pony.

I know that when I have gone on their trips and intended to dive solely I have done so with a totally seperate and redunadant pony - granted at my choice and not their exlicit behest. I have not paid specific attention to the exact equipment used by thoise they do allow to dive solo other than myself, but it has always seemed they had ponies as well. I do know that they have often turned down people's requests to dive solo. I do not know if they have allowed people without ponies to dive solo. Perhaps they have, but to be honest, I am not a believe in the safty police appraoch to diving. If someone wants to dive shallowly in close proximity to the boat by themselves in n otherwise contientious manner that allows them to reach the surface in the evet of an equipment failure I feel that if the charter wants to let them, so be it. I will say that I find that no different than the many boats that allow people to dive deep without the benefit of a pony is no less risky than a shallow dive near the boat. We are all ultimately responsible for ourselves.

Gas selection should be left to the diver, There is nothing wrong with placing limits on the dive profiles. Nitrox has alot of benefits (especially when used to the same limits as air) and very few down sides (the main one being the MOD for the mix, but a diver with reasonable buoyancy control and who pays attention to his/her depth this is a non-issue)

And a private company should be allowed to allow or not allow what they wish without being labelled as "bad" for placing reasonable restrictions. And you state that not allowing two tanks is not unreasonable if ponies are allowed - which is the case with Reef Seekers.

Even running 4 or 5 dives a day to recreation depths and times, getting anywhere near the alowable limits is quite difficult, so this really isn't an issue.

God forbid something happens and the person gets an "underserved hit", bolts to the surface or any other issue that threatens the divers healt, the fact that they were breathing Nitrox inproves the chance of the diver getting away with less or no heath issues.

Breathing Nitrox saturates the blood with oxygen much more readily than AIr does (to do it on air you must go deeper), if a person has any predisposition factors this extra availability of oxygen can be a blessing.

I don't know if you ever took a Nitrox class and if so how complete it was.. If your class really addressed all the issues you most likely would come out with the same opion I am expressing. BTW my nitrox classes take about 12 hours of academics.... The actual caclculations take of only a small percentage of the class, everything else is physiology...

Again. AS I stated, my post has nothing to do with being against nitrox or it's users. I thought I was prettyy clear about that. I DID make an observation that the people I have seen make definitve judgements about the users of another gas have been nitrox users speaking of those who dive air - and that has been my personal observation. That is very diufferent than my saying there is something wrong with nitrox or I am against it. I have several freinds who dive it as their primary choice (a couple of whom no longer dive with Reef Seekers after being rregulars there) - and I say more power to them. What I responded to was a brief statement that said Reef Seekers policies were "bad" because of two choices they have made in ragrds to the practices they allow - and I thought that was unfair. Particularly since one came across as somewhat inaccurately claiming they did not allow any redundancy at all.

If people want to dive nitorx I am all for it. IF they want to avoid establishments that don't service nitrox divers I encourage them to do so and to share that with others who may feel the same way. However, I do think it is unfair to label "policies" in general as "bad" for that simple reason - which is what the post I responded to did.

I have spoken to many people about Nitrox. I am not unaware of it's pluses. And to be honest, I don't fully agree with Ken's edict against the gas - though I do understand some of his rationals. But I don't fault him for it, nor do I begrudge him the right to make that policy without the being labelled as "bad" for doing so.

 

[nlbford]

Nope.

The Nitrox, by the way, is less of an issue because their boats usually don't offer it, so I wouldn't take a Nitrox clean equipment onboard anyway.


Maybe not "theirs", but it was Billy's in at least two conversations I remember.

Well I am not as familiar with Billy as I am with Ken - Billy is rarely rarely on a boat and my dealings with him have always been strictly in regards to purchases.

I do know that Ken has other concerns than whether someone gets back on time. If that was a primary concern, he'd have troubles with some divers regardless of the gas. Hell I have been on a reef seekers trip where the boat was held up for an hour by a free diver on the surface who refused to acknowledge the boats efforts to urge him on board so they could MOVE.

As for why you say "Nope", I am not sure what that is in response to. Are you saying they may not permit solo diving? To my mind, as far as any private company goes in making it's own policies, I don't agree with the safety police approach and thus feel that as long as what they do is legal, are willing to make it clear that the person needs to be aware of the safety implications, are willing to accept the liability exposure and no one else is put at risk, then they are free to allow or disallow what they wish.

If you are syaing "nope" and that they allow ANYONE to dive solo, I know that isn't the case. I have seen people turned down many a time.

If it is something else, I don't know what iot could be.

 

[caveseeker7]

As for why you say "Nope", I am not sure what that is in response to.

My mistake, actually, I thought you were referring to my equipment and ability to use it. That they wouldn't, hence no(pe).

In regards to solo diving, I don't have a problem with it in general. I believe a person should be able to do it (either by training or experience) and be equiped to do it safely.

In that regard I agree with padiscubapro, completely redundant gear should be required.

But that's just my humble opinion.

 

[nlbford]

My mistake, actually, I thought you were referring to my equipment and ability to use it. That they wouldn't, hence no(pe).

In regards to solo diving, I don't have a problem with it in general. I believe a person should be able to do it (either by training or experience) and be equiped to do it safely.

In that regard I agree with padiscubapro, completely redundant gear should be required.

But that's just my humble opinion.

I think that anyone is a fool for diving solo without the proper equipment. Thus they shouldn't need to be told they need it.

However, I am one of those that believes if we regulate everything based on the desire to protect fools from themselves we start a slippery slope that leads to needlessly overblown restrictions on everyone because beauracracy tends to find that to be easier. Sometimes what appears to be inherently dangerous can be done more safely than what is often viewed as safe. And if we let regulators make that determination, our ability to make our own choices often suffers.

I have been on boats where solo diving is not permitted period, regardless of any measures to mitigate potential dangers. That strikes me as bit overcautious. I totally respect any boat's right to make that decision. But it is decision making like that ends up with discretionary rules as to when it is allowed being overtaken by legislation that simply prohibits it period.

I just feel when people start getting protected from themselves, the door gets opened for all of us to protected by people who are going to make the most expedient decisions in how we are all protected and our choices almost certainly get more and more limited under that slippery slope.

Anway . . . in rereading it appears I may have come across as to vehement in my efforts to speak on RS's behalf. In no way do I mean to imply their practices and services are perfect - I certainly have had instances with them that have been less than so. But I do enjoy diving with them and if there are divers out there who dive with equipment that is not against their policies, I didn't want them to think that their whole appraoch was bad simply because certain aspects are restricted - regardless of whether those restrictions are pure or not.

And again, if I misunderstood you, I apologize.

 

[RichLockyer]

The Nitrox, by the way, is less of an issue because their boats usually don't offer it, so I wouldn't take a Nitrox clean equipment onboard anyway.

If they allowed doubles and nitrox, you could bring doubled 104s and run two rec dives, not worrying about what's offered on the boat.

 

[caveseeker7]

If they allowed doubles and nitrox, you could bring doubled 104s and run two rec dives, not worrying about what's offered on the boat.

You got a point there ... if ... .
If they let me bring a rebreather I could dive all weekend and not worry about what's offered on the boat ... with less weight than the 104's and with the advantage of diving a constant pO2.

 

[RichLockyer]

If they let me bring a rebreather I could dive all weekend and not worry about what's offered on the boat ... with less weight than the 104's and with the advantage of diving a constant pO2.

Yup. And like doubles or nitrox, if you are trained and qualified, then that should be your option... not the option of the charter. Depth and time restrictions are certainly within the bounds of reasonable authority of the charter, as would be requiring a reasonable level of equipment (I've heard that some charters require a BC/wing... no bare backpacks or Mike Nelson tank rigs). Regardless of my personal feelings toward CCRs, if I were running a charter, it would not be my place to forbid their use.

 

[ekiledjian]

Are you all kidding? Are these people morons? I would make sure you post their websites and tell every diver you know about them. I go to a local dive shop in Kentucky and these guys are great. They get a lot of their business by just being nice to people. Their professionalism and kindness will keep me as a client even if someone does have slightly cheaper prices. As Shakazulu said how long do they expect to be in business? I would wager it won't be long.

I might be coming to Kentuky on a business trip. ANy dive recommendations?