Scuby Dooby, et al, my comments on these posts address the question posed by this thread in general terms, not specific to the incident mentioned unless noted. As can be seen on my second post.specifically noting comments in reference to it. We definitely have a difference of opinion on this issue, but its been a good discussion, on topic.
Train divers to minimum proficiency, take them to an inadequate site, and then misguide them, you have just opened the door to govt. regulation. Fortunately I think this is not the norm, at least not all three combined. No system is perfect."
I see this situation very differently.
- get the minimum training or at least insufficient training and / or practice.
- choose to visit a dive site beyond your skills / experience.
- fail to defend your own safety underwater, instead leaving this responsibility to others.
We may disagree, but it seems to me both statements can exist without contradiction. A case of shared, as opposed to sole responsibility. I speak of separate determinable contributions made by various parties to facilitate an act. Assignment is based on the role and contributions of various parties. You, amongst
others, place it all upon one party, the diver, in regards to the issues discussed. I presume this is based on the premise that he who is primarily and ultimately responsible is also solely responsible as long as he is free to choose, regardless of contributions made by others as contributing factors. You dont deny that contributions to an act are made by others, simply that the responsibility of the party making the final determination is the deciding factor in the commission of the act, therefore absolving the other contributing parties of responsibility. I view it more from the perspective of cause and effect. For every action there is a reaction. Perhaps easier to see in the interactions of physical matter, but applicable nonetheless in human interactions.
Unquestionably, the diver can stop the process at any time. Unquestionably, the degree or form of contribution by others is, to varying degrees, going to impact the divers decision. Was the contribution by professionals consistent with guidelines of conduct espoused by the licensing organization and industry norms, as pertains to safety issues in this case? That is - the, or one of the, legal question that will be looked at in the event there is a legal dispute. I wont continue down this path since Im not a lawyer. I am not advocating this path in the incident posted here. But frankly, there are cases where this course of action should be taken, if for no other reason then to discourage grossly negligent practices on the part of a very small set of so called professionals. This position is viewed as sacrilege by many in the diving community, but I view the opposite the same way.
reefraff,
We can drop the seat belt issue, not appropriate discussion here. I recognize the existence of difference of opinions and biased studies to support each position. As to "tyranny of the majority, in a society, there will always be tyranny imposed on the majority by one or many on one or many. Otherwise we have anarchy, not the best alternative. The key is finding a good and fair balance for most. You cant please everybody all the time. Some things are simply impossible.
Where we disagree is on the question of how we are divvying those responsibilities up.
........ You apparently think their duties include some nebulous "professional standards or norms" that extend beyond that. How about some specifics?
In general terms not necessarily specific to the incident in question here.
Charter determines admittance requirements: Must have C-card. The fact they have the right to refuse anyone (aside from legal restrictions) can play against them here. Their pick, their choice.
Charter chooses, not always though, dive site.
An OW C-card recommends certain safety limits be followed: No overhead, no deco, no solo, no dive deeper than 60ft. Appears to me very well defined safety standards. Are they meaningless to professionals?
A professional knows full well the limitations and qualification imparted by any one specific C-card, therefore it is incumbent in his role as an expert making various determinations to match customer selection to appropriate dive site, or inform customer of unsuitable conditions, and even decline customer if necessary. A judgment call, that is usually not black and white, furthered clouded by income considerations. Extend the same premise to DM guiding a dive Is it not incumbent on professionals to uphold their licensing agency standards in regards to safety practices?
You post standards expected of a diver,
"Be familiar with my dive sites. If not, obtain a formal diving orientation from a knowledgable, local source."
Ah, a technicality. If I may translate. Don't seek professional advise, we are neither knowledgable nor responsible. lol
If diving conditions are worse than those in which I am experienced, postpone diving or select an alternate site with better conditions. Engage only in diving activities consistent with my training and experience
. Translation. We are not your babysitter responsible for you, We're diving here, if you want to dive - dive.
Do not engage in cave or technical diving unless specifically trained to do so.
To heck with that, if you want to come, you're in. We could care less about you, Don't forget, we are not responsible for you - you are. lol Just pay up and give a good tip. Alright, I'm pushing it here. Just trying to get a point across.
Are there no safety standards incumbent of DMs or other licensed professionals acting in the capacity of guide or tour operator? Lets have the full story. Are DMs there for whatever indulgences a diver may have? Does this include assisted suicide? Im being fictitious here.
Regarding another point you raise, it is one thing for client to suddenly bolt on their own and enter a wreck when its not part of the plan or go deep ( I was on a dive where a recently certified diver suddenly bolted from aprox. 40 ft to 100 ft, at the bottom of the reef because he wanted to go to 100, nothing anyone can do about that. I shadowed him all the way to 80 feet some distance behind him. DM didnt budge from 40. I dont blame DM in this case, but this is certainly someone you dont want as a buddy, both of them. Buddy, thats another standard or norm, isnt it, that barely gets lip service on guided dives. There were only three of us.) I could be wrong here, from a legal issue interpretation, but I believe it is irresponsible and contrary to professional conduct to voluntarily place someone at risk, even when permission is given by client. Any lawyers want to comment? I understand no one wants increased liability. This ultimately has a trickle effect on everyone. I think it was you who pointed it out.
Is it too much to ask that charters take divers to an appropriate dive site based on C-card qualification, log book, or personal knowledge? And to have guides follow the same basic principles. In fact, this is the core of our disagreement, I believe by their actions they have in fact assumed some responsibility. They just don't want to be held accountable - at all, when everyone contributed to a bad decision I know, I know, it costs money. A diver turned down for a trip is money not made, is the position of some. While others do great without the need to compromise integrity.
Its a fine balancing act holding liability at bay, and as a result having to defend questionably negligent behavior on the part of a few, that if allowed to fester could pose a bigger problem. Again, abstract, usually not black and white case, and pointing no fingers at anyone here.
Specifically in regards to the incident being discussed:
We spoke with the dive master and he advised that we should try the reef drift dive and that we would be comfortable on that dive. He advised the female dive leader to take our group and told her to make sure that she stayed with us.
We started the second dive. Once at the bottom the first group moved off to our left. Our group leader went right. We followed her as we had been instructed. We moved off for about 30 seconds and then she turned and told us to go join the other group. We turned and were hit with the cross current. There was no way to join the other group and in fact we moved off, once again losing sight of anyone from our group. We attempted to cross the current but could not. We drifted for awhile and moved up neared the surface to see if we could see anyone. No one was in sight. After several minutes we surfaced because we were alone in the ocean and felt it best to find the boat. We returned to the boat."
I say the divers didnt do too bad on this one, with the exception of perhaps to have preferably chosen to distrust expert professional advise and skip the dive. Again, people do rely to varying extent on expert professional advise. Kind of their reason for being, otherwise, what good are pro's for? What do we pay them for? Guidance is one of the reasons.
I also say the pros and/or leaders screwed this one up, to use a slang expression - royally.
We appear to have an insurmountable difference of opinion over the question of assigning responsibility. Unless a new twist emerges here, I dont think re-stating essentially the same points from a new perpective is going to change your minds, or mine. Its been a good discussion. Feel free to continue to express your point or refute mine.
