Why certify?

[Walter]

I think it should be pointed out, the conversation is about known and accredited agencies, not Joe Public printing his own cards in the basement.

There are no accredited agencies. There is no accredition process. There is no one who accredits agencies. They are all basically printing cards in their basements. Some are just on a larger scale than others.

 

[Mike Boswell]

The problem with this statement is the illusion of control that it gives. The dive ops should be practicing risk management, but far too many times they end up practiing risk avoidance. An appropriate and clearly written liability release form for Solo Divers legally transfers the risk and responsibility back onto the shoulders of the individual -- where it belongs! - IMO.

Hi Jax,

Sadly for small businesses, liability releases don't mean squat. I wish they did.

 

[Jax]

Hi Jax,

Sadly for small businesses, liability releases don't mean squat. I wish they did.

Is it because the litigants outspend them?

 

[fire_diver]

Too many divers confuse a card with permission. Any C-card is simply a tangible expression of training you have recieved. Training does not equal permission.

The dive op owns the boat, and the capt is responsible for everyone on that boat. Thier risk, thier call.

As for deco dives, You really need to be on a dedicated "tech" charter. Rec charters have time constraints. They can't sit around burning fuel and and daylight waiting on me to complete my deco while everyone else is on deck, dried off, and waiting.

 

[ptyx]

Is there any difference for dive operator in term of liability between those scenarios if a diver has an accident?

1. diver had a c-card
2. diver had no c-card, but his log showed he was qualified
3. diver signed a release

If (1) is more favorable, that's a good case for solo/deco/monkey/drunk diving certifications. If not, training is still a good idea, but there is little incentive for operators to honor any kind of card.

 

[Rainer]

As for deco dives, You really need to be on a dedicated "tech" charter. Rec charters have time constraints. They can't sit around burning fuel and and daylight waiting on me to complete my deco while everyone else is on deck, dried off, and waiting.

Really depends. I run a few mix ("rec"/"tech") charters each year. For sites that allow multi-level dives, run times are often about the same (just over an hour). The deeper dives just mean less bottom time and more deco time. It's usually not a big deal at all...

To be honest, most of my "tech" dives (including deco) are shorter than my "rec" ones.

 

[Mike Boswell]

Is it because the litigants outspend them?

Jax - It is my understanding that, in the USA, you have the right to sue for damages, and you cannot sign this right away, even if you wanted to. Waivers and releases make it harder for you to claim that you were not informed of certain risks. A judge or jury would consider the fact that you signed a waiver and/or a release, but if you can somehow claim that the dive op was responsible for your accident, or if they were negligent, then you have a case.

 

[DennisS]

I got a C Card many years ago so I could get my tanks filled. It still works, I show them my C Card and they fill my tanks.

 

[BVickery]

Jax - It is my understanding that, in the USA, you have the right to sue for damages, and you cannot sign this right away, even if you wanted to. Waivers and releases make it harder for you to claim that you were not informed of certain risks. A judge or jury would consider the fact that you signed a waiver and/or a release, but if you can somehow claim that the dive op was responsible for your accident, or if they were negligent, then you have a case.

That is very much it. We went over liability releases in a pre-law class, and in the whole context of things, it means squat. The standards of bringing a civil suit is less strenuous than it is for a criminal, and more importantly you only need a majority in the jury and NOT unanimous to award damages (and with a jury, it can tend to get pricey).

 

[DCBC]

Is there any difference for dive operator in term of liability between those scenarios if a diver has an accident?

I think that this is largely determined by jurisdiction. For example, in many areas liability is dependent upon what the operator does, or fails to do; which is deemed to be reasonable under the circumstances. If it is held that an operator failed to use due diligence by allowing a diver to dive solo, they may be held liable. As this is determined at the time (after the fact), what operator would take the risk? Perhaps if solo diving was more widely accepted, this would change.

Jurisdiction also has an influence on what type of training is suitable. In some locations, certification is accredited. In Quebec for example, Diving instructors are certified by the Government and the licenses they issue are required to dive within the Province by statute. This decision was made as a result of diver deaths that have been attributed to inadequate training on the part of the certification agency involved.

The EU is also tightening the belt when it comes to diving regulations. I'm sure Diver0001 could comment on the specifics much better than I.