Unknowing divers endangering kids

[String]

You seem to be villifying fool for jumping to assumptions, yet you are automatically jumping to the assumption that the kid was certified.

Quite simply nobody knows either way so the original post villifying it was over the top and an extreme overreaction based on assumption.

Fool approached them and said it may be none of his business, but... and the guys response apparently never gave any indication that the kid was certified. I would say it is highly likely that fool was dead on with his actions.

He didnt ask.

As Stephen Ash pointed out, lots of certified divers DON"T think about such things all the time.

But many do and again he just assumed.

Certificaion really only implies competancy, it does not ensure it. I could pretty much guarantee if you were to watch every certified diver who posts on this board put their gear together, you'd find that a sizeable portion would have to take their time and really think about how to mount their BCDs and hook thier regulators on their tank and lp inflators - it's not automatic for everyone, you can't assume that breathing out on an impromptu ascent would be automatic for everyone, even though it was taught in class.

Thats an argument against lax training standards nothing else. Once a diver is certified he shouldbe allowed and able to do what he wants within the limits un-nanny'd.

IF the kid was not certified, then the father was definitly risking the kid's life.

later,

IF the father wasnt an instructor and IF he hadnt briefed or instructed the child on the dangers etc maybe. Its all "if" though. Not one solid fact which is why posting this thread in the first place was a bad idea. Opinion dressed up. Nothing more.

 

[friscuba]

IF the father wasnt an instructor and IF he hadnt briefed or instructed the child on the dangers etc maybe. Its all "if" though. Not one solid fact which is why posting this thread in the first place was a bad idea. Opinion dressed up. Nothing more.

First of all, IF they were both certified, or IF the parent was an instructor, I doubt highly he woudn't have mentioned those facts to the original poster rather than just taking it and shrugging it off. It seems to me the original poster was given no indication in person that he was making an incorrect assumption. It does appear that he did talk with the guy long enough to have a short discussion, not a one way accusatory rant. Somehow I think he'd have found out if he wasn't assuming correctly.

At any rate, throw that all aside and assume the orginal poster did not even talk to the guy... It's still a valid discussion thread. He merely talked about suspecitng a dive taking a non-diver down on the octopus. He didn't mention names, addresses and descriptions so he did not attack anyone specific in any case. It seems to me that by his (none of us were there, but I see nothing in his tone to indicate disrespect) description of the event that he was polite when approaching those involved.

Living in a dive destination, I talk to divers on occasion who do just the exact thing the original poster suspects happened here. My response is pretty much the same as his. Most immediately respond that they were going to less than 30 feet, then I immediatley tell them about the guy who embolized in 52 inch pool in Britain several years ago (read it on another board, it was big discussion at the time). I see nothing wrong in mentioning possible hazards of this practice and nothing wrong with it as a topic of discussion on this board.

later,

 

[String]

First of all, IF they were both certified, or IF the parent was an instructor, I doubt highly he woudn't have mentioned those facts to the original poster rather than just taking it and shrugging it off. It seems to me the original poster was given no indication in person that he was making an incorrect assumption.

OR say anything to back up his assumption. It works both ways. The original poster never bothered to find out the vital facts before posting.

It's still a valid discussion thread. He merely talked about suspecitng a dive taking a non-diver down on the octopus. He didn't mention names, addresses and descriptions so he did not attack anyone specific in any case. It seems to me that by his (none of us were there, but I see nothing in his tone to indicate disrespect) description of the event that he was polite when approaching those involved.

The topic alone is hardly not attacking someone. Then going further to assuse someoone of endangering their own child, stating this person didnt understand gas laws and so on makes even more wild assumptions and is hardly a neutral post.

 

[friscuba]

OR say anything to back up his assumption. It works both ways. The original poster never bothered to find out the vital facts before posting.



The topic alone is hardly not attacking someone. Then going further to assuse someoone of endangering their own child, stating this person didnt understand gas laws and so on makes even more wild assumptions and is hardly a neutral post.

If I were to talk to you and a family member who you shared an octo with, at a dive site, about the very exact same thing, I suspect I'd find out whether my suspicions were correct or not in about 2 seconds. Can't see how this would be any different.

 

[D_B]

So, let's see.

Scenerio one:

Adult and child are both experienced divers, fully aware of what they are doing. Talking to them has gained nothing, but no harm was done.

Scenerio two:

Adult and child are both divers, but unaware of the potential danger in what they are doing. Talking to them has educated them to the risk of what they are doing, and hopefully they will think about it more in the future. A net educational gain, and possibly a future problem averted.

Scenerio three:

Adult is diver, child is not qualified. Again, talking to them has hopefully opened their eyes to the potential danger of their activity, and possibly they will reconsider doing this again in the future.

Looking at the same three scenerios and assuming that fool did not approach the adult, we see that in one there is no difference, but in two and three there is a potential problem that is not addressed.

So, I say fool made the right call. Least possible harm, greatest potential gain.

Perfectly stated !
What is the most reasonable/responsible thing to do in this situation ? ... nothing ???? I don't think so

DB

 

[GreenDiverDown]

The original poster never bothered to find out the vital facts before posting.

In my mind...whether or not they were certified is of little consequence and hardly a vital fact.

...aw...I should have listened to Don...

 

[DandyDon]

In my mind...whether or not they were certified is of little consequence and hardly a vital fact.

...aw...I should have listened to Don...

:lol: I understand....

 

[mongoose]

Not meaning to hijack, but at CSSP during a class, I saw a man taking a child that could not have been more than 8 years old(probably more like 6 or 7), into the water using some cobbled-together BCD, with a pony bottle on the child's back.

I will be honest, and admit to having taken a certified diver down on the octo in a swimming pool, but that was edgy, probably a mistake, and I don't think I'll do it again.

Back to scubafool's account... I don't know if the child was or was not certified, I just know I would not have dreamed of doing what scubafool described. No instructor that I know would do it.

Children, IMHO, have a difficult time fully realizing the magnitude of the effects of their actions, and have difficulty grasping the concept of their own mortality, at least until they are well into their teens.

I rarely make strong, opinionated statements on the board, but I will make this one and stand by it:

Unless one is a fully qualified instructor, taking an uncertified person, especially a child, into any body of water on SCUBA is a galactically irresponsible thing to do.

--'Goose

 

[Vayu]

I'm a little late here, but I agree with scubafool. The kid probably wasn't certified and the adult was probably showing off. I have no basis for these assumptions other than the subjective account posted, but I will share a similar incident.

I did my first post-open water dive at the site in question. We were playing around and I saw a shadow over me. I thought it might have been a freediver, so I moved aside and took a look.

To my horror, two 6 - 8 yr olds were straddling a tank that had one first stage, a primary regulator, and a secondary regulator attached. Each kid had a regulator and were holding onto the tank to keep them down. Every now and then they would touch bottom and try very hard to swim back up. These kids had nothing but bathing suits on.

I'm not sure what happened to them, but it seems pretty obvious to me that a certified adult gave them those tanks. I guess you had to be there. That is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

-V

 

[Guba]

What an excellent exercise in debate! Both sides produce magnificient points and counterpoints. However, as a qualified debate judge (University Interscholastic League), I can say that in this case argumentation is irrelevant. As a diver who is in constant contact with young people, the act of letting a child breathe off an octo at depth is irresponsible. Sure, I've been in a demonstration in which kids were allowed to "Tag" (breath off an octo), but that was in the completely controlled environment of a pool and depths never exceeded 4 feet (and that was if we were scooting our bellies on the bottom). ANY "emergency" in that scenario could be handled simply by standing up.
The situation described by Fool was clearly out of bounds. A few questions, and any reasonable diver (not wishing to simply win an argument) should agree. Was the child properly equipped? No. Redundant air supply? No. Capable of maintaining proper buoyancy? No. Able to conduct a safe ascent should something happen to the adult? So even assuming the child is certified, would he be in a position to help his "partner" in an emergency? Nope, again. He was in the wrong environment with the wrong gear. Was Fool "over-reacting". I don't think so when you comtemplate the potential result of these two making a habit of this activity. In my mind, end of argument.