El Buzadero
Registered
The late Mr. Smith was not a PSD. He was a local guy who "assisted" law enforcement from time to time. His association came from being conveniently in the area and being a local fixture raising ski and pontoon boats as part of a small cottage business. As I mentioned in my posting above, you see this often enough that it has stopped surprising me. OSHA, the Federal Code of Regulations, the Association of Diving Contractors etc all address "working dives" quite specifically: type of accepted equipment, minimum size of crew, and qualifications. The problem is the gray area of the perceived overlap between Public Safety and Commercial.
Part of it is in the interpretation of the regulations. The rules are quite clear, any dive below 100 ft or any dive with planned decompression (i.e., 'water stops') is required to have a DDC onsite and ready for use. How many local law enforcement and volunteer groups regularly train with surface-decompression, let alone own a chamber and bring it to the site? We regularly see so-called "tech diving" allowing the use water stops, most of which is done without a chamber onsite. In a "commercial" setting this would never be allowed.
The unfouling of an ROV is by all definitions a "working dive". If the vehicle could be fouled, then you could get fouled heading down to that same location on bottom. For that matter, the recovery of a body should be classed a working dive. I would submit that any dive that goes beyond simply looking at something should be considered a "working dive" and therefore carried out under the rules as defined in the Federal Code of Regulations and the other regulatory standards. But that is not the way it works currently. Using this case as the ongoing example at hand, the local agencies, choosing not to undertake the effort themselves, allowed a local guy with good intentions and by all accounts a highly thought of person, to perform a dive that was well outside the parameters of either legal compliance or good common sense. Whether Mr Smith had done this before, whether or not he was a good guy and a fine human being, or whether he was being paid or a volunteer, the incident occurred.
The regulations are also quite clear on the DPIC. On any diving operation, there is a legal and regulatory requirement to designate (in writing) a Designated-Person-In-Charge (DPIC). This is a qualified person who is deemed the onsite person responsible for the safety and well being of the diver or divers. The DPIC is the ultimate buck-stop for the life-support activity. In the event of an incident, this is the head that rolls.
For this particular operation, WHO WAS THE DPIC OF RECORD?
Part of it is in the interpretation of the regulations. The rules are quite clear, any dive below 100 ft or any dive with planned decompression (i.e., 'water stops') is required to have a DDC onsite and ready for use. How many local law enforcement and volunteer groups regularly train with surface-decompression, let alone own a chamber and bring it to the site? We regularly see so-called "tech diving" allowing the use water stops, most of which is done without a chamber onsite. In a "commercial" setting this would never be allowed.
The unfouling of an ROV is by all definitions a "working dive". If the vehicle could be fouled, then you could get fouled heading down to that same location on bottom. For that matter, the recovery of a body should be classed a working dive. I would submit that any dive that goes beyond simply looking at something should be considered a "working dive" and therefore carried out under the rules as defined in the Federal Code of Regulations and the other regulatory standards. But that is not the way it works currently. Using this case as the ongoing example at hand, the local agencies, choosing not to undertake the effort themselves, allowed a local guy with good intentions and by all accounts a highly thought of person, to perform a dive that was well outside the parameters of either legal compliance or good common sense. Whether Mr Smith had done this before, whether or not he was a good guy and a fine human being, or whether he was being paid or a volunteer, the incident occurred.
The regulations are also quite clear on the DPIC. On any diving operation, there is a legal and regulatory requirement to designate (in writing) a Designated-Person-In-Charge (DPIC). This is a qualified person who is deemed the onsite person responsible for the safety and well being of the diver or divers. The DPIC is the ultimate buck-stop for the life-support activity. In the event of an incident, this is the head that rolls.
For this particular operation, WHO WAS THE DPIC OF RECORD?
