Question on Form - How many logged dives since certified?
- Thread starter shopguy
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
ScubaBadger32
Contributor
I know people who fill scuba cylinders to use to fill airsoft/paintball cylinders. It’s much cheaper than them buying a regular compressor that can do 3000 psi. I just hope they are filling air not EANx
It was a starting point - but I never took a divers word for it. Until a diver "proved" themselves in the water, everyone was considered the same level. It pissed a lot of chest thumpers off, but I am going to do my due diligence - "show us, don't tell us." But to Tridacna's point, if we didn't ask how many dives a person has done, that would also open the door for a negligence case.
To so many of you who are taking the log book thing so literally, and jumping to conclusions about how much investigation a dive shop should do before allowing someone on the boat for a dive - have you all forgotten that by getting certified you are accepting responsibility for diving within your limits and training? Planning your dive and diving your plan? All of those things you're supposed to learn in your first OW course. Of course it does not excuse a dive shop of gross negligence, but technically, all a dive shop is required to do is verify certification because a diver that holds a certification card SHOULD (key word SHOULD) be accepting responsibility for their own dive and safety. Unfortunately, I've seen way too many divers with 10 dives to 1000 dives that should be diving with a private DM or instructor. I was also one of the first if not the first on the island to require a private DM for anyone with less than 20 dives for the first day and the right to require for subsequent days as necessary, all divers under 16, or someone who had not dive in more than 2.5 years. I never deviated from this policy in almost 20 years. I lost customers over it, but we had an amazing safety record. Two fatalities in 19+ years, both medically related and both who were not truthful on their signed dive forms and releases, but I know that we took all reasonable and prudent precautions.
No, I just play one on TV.You a defense or plaintiff’s attorney? I think I know…
Wait a minute. I thought it WAS a logbook question we were debating. The OP asked if he should answer the question of "how many logged dives" with the number of dives he actually did, even though he didn't have a logbook as proof. I suggested he interpret "logged" as he saw fit, in good faith, and added my opinion that it would be in the dive's shop best interest to accept that, as opposed to the dive shop having a policy of asking to see a logbook as proof. My thinking was that a dive shop that does not ask to see a logbook as proof but rather takes the signed form at face value--signed by a certified diver who presumably knows what the question is asking--would be in a better position in litigation. My thinking is that dive shop employees are unlikely to consistently check logbooks in a way that isn't going to fall apart under questioning in litigation. It just doesn't seem practical to use logbooks as proof. What format is acceptable? What's the minimum information that needs to be recorded? It's too much work, too subjective, and employees are going to take shortcuts or otherwise mess up. I think a policy of checking logbooks opens the door to a questioning scenario the insurance defense lawyer would rather avoid. That's what I was getting it, but I didn't want to sidetrack the thread with this debate.
Regardless, I think the policy Christi described of actually observing the diver in the water before taking the diver on a challenging dive makes the most sense. It's subjective, but if the dive op's goal is actually to keep divers from getting injured in the first place, it probably does the job better than other methods.
I'm not actually disagreeing with you, but a filled out logbook is no more proof of a diver's number of dives experienced than is the writing of a number on an op's questionnaire. Both are up to the diver to submit truthfully and easy to "fake", though a faked dive log would take more work.
OP
shopguy
Contributor
For the first 5 years it wasn't hard to get fills at the three LDS in my area. The remote ones closest to my home went out of business first, when the logging industry died and lots of stuff went under. The other one in Port Angeles, WA turned in to more of a sporting goods store (hard to tell they are even a dive shop these days), and other than being embarrassed to be seen in there, they started asking for cert cards (some new employees/owners maybe). Times changed... so yes, I bought my own compressor which I used for the last ~4 years. First I got a cheapo Chinese one from Amazon which I returned without even using, it was horrible at first site. Now I have an L&W which has been amazing, and I highly recommend to everyone.
I'm sure plenty of people would be upset to hear about anyone filling tanks for uncertified divers -- but the fact is, there isn't anything illegal about it, and for most shops it is really an insurance/fear of lawsuit thing.
I won't give their names, but I can say, so far, in all of my travels -- only about half of the time I get asked for my cert card when renting tanks or gear. 1 of 2 places in San Diego area asks, 1 of 2 places in Mexico, and 1 of 2 places in Puerto Rico also -- so yeah, exactly half. Not worth risking a bad vacation though, so now I have my cert card.
This thread has grown faster than I can keep up.. so probably can't reply to all questions. Too busy dreaming about my upcoming trip to Cozumel, my first there.
Blackcrusader
Contributor
I am not aware of any law requiring checkout dives, but....
In the death of Tina Watson, the Mike Ball company was fined for not requiring a checkout dive for Gabe and Tina. That was because their company advertised that checkout dives were required, so they were essentially fined for not following their advertised policy.
In the death of Tina Watson, the Mike Ball company was fined for not requiring a checkout dive for Gabe and Tina. That was because their company advertised that checkout dives were required, so they were essentially fined for not following their advertised policy.
OP
shopguy
Contributor
Sad, but probably true. Although, do you think it would be that bad if the heirs to the dead didn't sue or make a stink about it? If they just said, "well, he/she was taking a risk and they knew it" and went on with their lives. I guess the reason I was able to get by without certification for so long was because I knew people, and they knew me, and my family, and knew we were not litigious. I can see how being on vacation, away from home, the owners don't know the customers, so that can't really apply. But still, why is diving different than everything else, and the only activity that requires certification? You can do plenty of equally dangerous things on vacation with just a liability waiver (which every dive shop that asks for certs also makes you sign)... skydiving, bungee jumping, ATV rentals, jet skis, etc.
I don't know about laws but all three visits to AKR in Roatan saw every single diver on the boat being asked to jump off the back on the first morning to demo mask clearing and buoyancy control. It wasn't strict. And in Egypt on a liveaboard, the first dive was a checkout where every single diver was asked to deploy SMB before exiting.
Similar threads
