Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
>Regarding Jammer's posting November 16 17:45:15,
>A boat tank vs a personal one vs a rental vs yours vs mine - ownership /
>source- is not relevant. Contact with the public, internal contents and
external
>descriptions are.
>
It was relevant here. The captain had told the diver who made the mistake
that "all my tanks [the boat's tanks] have air in them. Take any one of
them."
Correctly identifying which tanks were the boats and which tanks wern't
would have led him to the mix he wanted- air.
Furthermore, since he has no business using my tanks, identifying them as
such should have led him to the conclusion "any tanks but these".
Are you saying that "my" system, use your own tanks, is not recognized?
Are you seriously claiming that the majority of public divers steps on a
boat and uses eeny-meeny-miny-mo [or some equaly scientific method] to
choose a tank?
I think not. I think that if a diver knows that this tank is mine, those
aren't, that diver will use one of the tanks that isn't.
I saw several problems that day.
The boat tanks were incorrectly labeled.
The diver used a tank without knowing for certain where it came from.
While the tanks were labeled, only the two of us knew how to read the
labels. Furthermore, the labels, with the exception of the color of the
tank and my buddie's name, were not olbvious.
Saw a bunch of other problems, but not on this subject. The captain had a
real problem with responsibility, too. There was another little incident
right after lunch involving a dock that demonstrated the captain's view
to responsibility. And the sandwiches were mushy, the coffee weak.
Of these three problems, there is one that would overide any combination
of the others, and would ensure saftey under ALL conditions.
Labeling conventions, training, identical tanks, ownership of tanks and
simple error all pale before a diver who assumes responsibility for
himself.
>None of this is, apparently relevant. All this identification' didn't do the
>job of passing the "don't touch" message on. They did not notify.
>
I don't agree. If I can recognize a tank as mine, I expect anyone else to
be able to, also. I submit that the message, in the form of the
diffrences of our tanks and the boat tanks, along with the direction of
the captain, was passed on. The diver was told to use "any" of the boat
tanks. He failed to do so.
>Prevention is the point, not affixing responsibility after the fact. Your
>markings are not sensible precautions used to prevent confusion in the planned
>circumstances of their use.
I suggest that being certain of the mix in your tank as you drop over the
side will prevent all future occurences. I suggest that responsiblity is
the *ULTIMATE* prevention.
>
>>The reason I posted the story was to demonstrate reasons for my opinions,
>>which were reinforced by the episode.
>
>I see the preventable and predictable episode as contradicting your
>intention.
>
{grin} You've left me a cheap way out. My intention is to be responsible
for my own dive.
It went fine...
>One cannot abdicate a responsibility one has not been taught or knows to
exist.
>Your suggestion to make every diver responsible is laudable, but the mechanism
>isn't there yet to ensure all divers are as informed about issues such as
>this - as opposed to say, Boyle's law or mask clearing. I'd say this is
another
>whole topic worthy of discussion.
>
I would be facinated by such a discussion, would love to contribute, and
hereby declare the field open, so indicated by the new subject line. How
can we spread the word, and the way, of Absolute Personal Responsibility?
Can it be taught? Can it be driven home with the same clarity as seeing a
body floating face down?
I also suggest that prior knowledge of a law of physics is not required
prior to that law being enforced. *I* can't make each diver responsible.
They are. It's whether they take responsibility thats at issue here. If
it's left up to me, no one will ever be bent or killed again..
unfortunately, it's NOT up to me, it's up to that higher court.
They *ARE* responsible. Teaching them that they are would be nice, but
not teaching them won't relieve them of responsibility in that final
court.
>>Your position seems to imply that I am responsible for the level of
>>knowledge of other divers,
>
>No.
>
I am not responsible, but if I am to dive EAN, I have to take measures to
ensure their saftey? Sounds like a direct contradiction to me...
>> and that it is up to me to protect them from
>>hazards they know nothing about, because I have a higher knowledge level.
>
>Partially. When dealing in hazards, you, the informed and in control, are
under
>an obligation to exercise due care to warn/protect the
>uninformed/innocent.
One of the points I hoped to demonstrate was that *NO ONE* is in control
on a boat...
I *AM NOT* in control of the other divers, they *MUST* assume
responsibility for themselves... or they will die...
If I were in control, I would agree. Control may be at the focus of this
discussion.
>
>I don't think the speeding analogy works.
I agree. It's got lotsa holes (a technical, construction term). Kin
fittabigass truck throughem. (Another technical, construction phrase,
meaning that the holes in the analogy are realy big.)
>While the current labeling standard may be far from evolved, it can be
expected
>to do what it says. On the other hand, you have your own definition, you
>pre-educate no one, and you expect it to be publicly recognized.
>
Disagree completely. My story was meant to demonstrate that the current
marking "standard" does NOT do what it is intended, it does *NOT* mark
tanks carrying other-than-air mixes. It is NOT adhered to, and is
meaningless.
>Are you doing enough to ensure that it doesn't happen again?
Nothing has changed, I don't presume to tell other divers on a boat what
to do.
>We've discussed a lot of things over the course of this thread. I've read
many
>reasons why individuals don't want to label their tanks. I have yet to hear
any
>discussion how or why the current labeling standards, such as they are, can be
>construed as anti-survival or unsafe.
>
My story was meant to be such a demonstration. It demonstrates how tanks
marked to the standard of the industry led a diver to use the wrong tank.
It was meant to point out that the standard is flawed, it has no
enforcement, and is not, therefore, adhered to enough so that it means
anything. A meaningless standard is as bad, or worse, than no standard at
all. It gives the illusion of safety, with nothing behind it. The story
was meant to point out that the nitrox sticker on your tank means that I
shouldn't use it, it has an unusual mix in it, unless the captain tells
me to, that it only contains air.
>
>On a completely other note,
>
>
>>#1. You are responsible.
>>#2. Don't hold your breath.
>
>This is wonderful. A new first rule of scuba. I will add it to my basic
>open
>water classes from now on. (and give you appropriate credit)
>
>To my divers, I will add that much of the rest of the diving public is
>unaware
>of and untrained in rule number 1.
>
[blush] I'm flattered. It's not mine, though. I first heard from The One
True Dive Babe, with whom I dive most often, and whose home I share.
---------
"huh?"
-Jammer, 1992
---------
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]