Shark kills Diver

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

My suggestion then to all of you is stay out of the water! What a bunch of whiners! SCUBA isn't natural! It is called capitalism and if enough people want to go then they should be able to do just that! The man knew what he was in for and paid his money! I see no negligence from anything that I have seen that puts the Captain or Crew at fault? So before you start talking about things you that are not presented at this point, stop and think!
 
The diver knowingly jumps in the water with blood, food and sharks.........................How can that be someone else's fault or responsibility?

Dive operators and instructors are--and should be--held to a higher standard of accountability.

What do you think the dive operation told the divers?
--Hell, yes, you could be attacked; that's what makes the dive exciting!
--Of course you're safe; we've done this numerous times and no one has ever been attacked.
--We're creating a situation that knowingly makes sharks aggressive; if you're stupid enough to jump in the water without protection, that's your problem, not ours.

In none of those situations would the operation have acted in a reasonable and prudent manner.

Yes, divers bear ultimate responsibility for their own safety, but in this case the diver was not acting irresponsibly (e.g. by not monitoring his air or by not maintaining his gear).

The very fact that a dive operation offered this type of dive implies that it is safe for divers who act reasonably under water. It's no different than getting an air fill and expecting it to contain no carbon monoxide, or renting gear and expecting it to fuction properly. If a person does happen to get a bad air fill, or have a gross malfunction of rented gear that causes their death, the diver is not responsible--it is the air filler or rental place that is 100% responsible.

Now, if this were a case of some divers who went out on a fishing boat, chummed the water for sharks, and then jumped in, it would be 100% their own fault; no one would expect a fisherman to know how to adequately ensure the safety of divers. Dive operations, however, are expected to adequately ensure the safety of the divers they bring out.

As another example, consider boarding a plane during bad weather. You expect the pilot to have your safety in mind and not take off if it's dangerous to do so. If he does take off in dangerous conditions and the plane crashes because of that, it's the pilot's and airline's fault; the passengers can't be held responsible because they should never have boarded a plane that might have taken off in dangerous conditions.

Passengers have a reasonable expectation that an operation (diving or airline) has their well-being in mind.

In the end, though, I hope this tragedy at least helps divers better understand how foolish it is to use operations that chum the water (whether sharks are present or not); they're more interested in taking your money than keeping you safe or offering you an authentic dive experience.
 
My suggestion then to all of you is stay out of the water! What a bunch of whiners! SCUBA isn't natural!

who is falls into the "all of you" and "whiners" you are referring to?

maybe you need to re-read some of the previous posts. not everyone thinks the dive op is at fault and seems like most think the diver should be responsible for his decisions.....

what does scuba not being "natural" have to do with anything? seems as though the consensus was that feeding sharks was not natural... not anything to do with scuba.
 
Dive operators and instructors are--and should be--held to a higher standard of accountability.

What do you think the dive operation told the divers?
--Hell, yes, you could be attacked; that's what makes the dive exciting!
--Of course you're safe; we've done this numerous times and no one has ever been attacked.
--We're creating a situation that knowingly makes sharks aggressive; if you're stupid enough to jump in the water without protection, that's your problem, not ours.

In none of those situations would the operation have acted in a reasonable and prudent manner.

Yes, divers bear ultimate responsibility for their own safety, but in this case the diver was not acting irresponsibly (e.g. by not monitoring his air or by not maintaining his gear).

The very fact that a dive operation offered this type of dive implies that it is safe for divers who act reasonably under water. It's no different than getting an air fill and expecting it to contain no carbon monoxide, or renting gear and expecting it to fuction properly. If a person does happen to get a bad air fill, or have a gross malfunction of rented gear that causes their death, the diver is not responsible--it is the air filler or rental place that is 100% responsible.

Now, if this were a case of some divers who went out on a fishing boat, chummed the water for sharks, and then jumped in, it would be 100% their own fault; no one would expect a fisherman to know how to adequately ensure the safety of divers. Dive operations, however, are expected to adequately ensure the safety of the divers they bring out.

As another example, consider boarding a plane during bad weather. You expect the pilot to have your safety in mind and not take off if it's dangerous to do so. If he does take off in dangerous conditions and the plane crashes because of that, it's the pilot's and airline's fault; the passengers can't be held responsible because they should never have boarded a plane that might have taken off in dangerous conditions.

Passengers have a reasonable expectation that an operation (diving or airline) has their well-being in mind.

In the end, though, I hope this tragedy at least helps divers better understand how foolish it is to use operations that chum the water (whether sharks are present or not); they're more interested in taking your money than keeping you safe or offering you an authentic dive experience.

If you were any more wrong you would be speaking Chinese! You don't didn't have clue! The Operators do everything they can to manage the situation but everyone understands and talks about the dives from the time the boat leaves the dock! No one is in the dark and all have signed waivers! These aren't "Passengers" they are Adventures!

So stay of the Black Diamond slop! Too dangerous? Accessed risk! To see an Apex predator you must bait it, so what, whats the difference between that and finding a whale carcase and watching sharks feed?

You don't want to be involved then don't! If they scare you the stay away! But some of us believe they are beautiful animals that command respect! So stay home and stay safe! The world will be a better place I am sure!

Shark Feed
 
who is falls into the "all of you" and "whiners" you are referring to?

maybe you need to re-read some of the previous posts. not everyone thinks
the dive op is at fault and seems like most think the diver should be responsible
for his decisions.....

They know who they are, I would not put you in that group!:)
 
They know who they are, I would not put you in that group!:)

It is an unfortunate situation but everyone needs to be held accountable for their actions at some point.

thanks!:thumb:
 
Dive operators and instructors are--and should be--held to a higher standard of accountability.

What do you think the dive operation told the divers?
--Hell, yes, you could be attacked; that's what makes the dive exciting!
--Of course you're safe; we've done this numerous times and no one has ever been attacked.
--We're creating a situation that knowingly makes sharks aggressive; if you're stupid enough to jump in the water without protection, that's your problem, not ours.

In none of those situations would the operation have acted in a reasonable and prudent manner.

Yes, divers bear ultimate responsibility for their own safety, but in this case the diver was not acting irresponsibly (e.g. by not monitoring his air or by not maintaining his gear).

The very fact that a dive operation offered this type of dive implies that it is safe for divers who act reasonably under water. It's no different than getting an air fill and expecting it to contain no carbon monoxide, or renting gear and expecting it to fuction properly. If a person does happen to get a bad air fill, or have a gross malfunction of rented gear that causes their death, the diver is not responsible--it is the air filler or rental place that is 100% responsible.

Now, if this were a case of some divers who went out on a fishing boat, chummed the water for sharks, and then jumped in, it would be 100% their own fault; no one would expect a fisherman to know how to adequately ensure the safety of divers. Dive operations, however, are expected to adequately ensure the safety of the divers they bring out.

As another example, consider boarding a plane during bad weather. You expect the pilot to have your safety in mind and not take off if it's dangerous to do so. If he does take off in dangerous conditions and the plane crashes because of that, it's the pilot's and airline's fault; the passengers can't be held responsible because they should never have boarded a plane that might have taken off in dangerous conditions.

Passengers have a reasonable expectation that an operation (diving or airline) has their well-being in mind.

In the end, though, I hope this tragedy at least helps divers better understand how foolish it is to use operations that chum the water (whether sharks are present or not); they're more interested in taking your money than keeping you safe or offering you an authentic dive experience.


Maybe if you are discussing rank beginners who absolutely need help to be safe in the ocean....but the Abernethy boat caters to very advanced divers, a majority being photographers and videographers who would SHUN the type of operation you are positioning as appropriate.

To many advanced divers, a boat which would try to suggest what "safe" is for a particular dive, would be grounds for NEVER using that boat again. I would fall into this category--I do not believe that any dive boat captain or dive master has attained a level of knowledge that would lead me to follow their advice on diving--maybe on tieing knots on the boat, or how to use the head, but not diving.

All divers are not beginners... and there are boats that do cater to advanced divers. Thank God.

Experts at many adventure sports will get into dangerous situations--which of course, is why these videographers are paying Abernethy thousands of dollars--to get them into a spectacular adventure scenario that the "average diver" can barely imagine.

As to other adventure sports, would you outlaw double black diamond ski slopes or trails, the moment a skier dies on one ( note--this would eliminate alot of hills, and really mess up skiing for all but the novices). What about the football players who have died, or the Nascar drivers....When you look at the huge number of divers Jimmy has taken out to dive with sharks, his safety record is remarkable..and when you consider the divers he is taking are looking for the most spectacular "Adventure Photography" under the ocean ( I think you will find National Geographic and the Discovery Channel are included in believing this about Jimmy) , then the appropriateness of what Abernethy does becomes even more conclusive.

The shark cage operations are not really any more about adventure than Sea World, and the photo ops are frequently inferior to Sea World on these cage dives. But for novice divers, maybe they do have a place.

In the end, your real arguement will be with the photographers and videographers who feel they have the right to pursue the adventure photos--real ones. Will you force them to go out and dive on their own boats( buy their own boats) , or to dive on a friend's boat-- a person without Abernethy's experience in running shark dives?
The result of eliminating the Sheerwater type dive operation would be this----most good videographers and photographers DO KNOW someone who owns a boat. Where there is a will, there is a way. Tell me if you don't think this would be a can of worms to open :)


Me, I spearfish, so I am not really part of this arguement :)

Regards,
Dan

Regards,
Dan
 
Sometimes people who play with fire get burned.........
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom