Garloo---
 I think there are two main issues you are missing.  First, technical diving
is beginning to be mass marketed.  On a road not so dissimilar to the one
PADI jumped on 20 years ago, they will cover the ground fast, to catch up,
if allowed. Do you think its safe for your grand mother to tech dive, or
your 16 year old daughter?? Do you believe everyone in America should try
tech diving ?
OK, lets say you do believe this. Do you think their right to dive should
exclude them from taking training classes and passing skills tests??? Do you
think they should just be mailed a tech card, because its their right???
Probably, you will agree that each of these new potential tech divers should
have to go throught the academic portion, and skills portion, of tech
training.  Should we insist that they can swim across the pool???Or is this
an invasion of their rights???Oh, maybe we do need to know they can swim a
certain distance, and we must also know that they are not epileptic or must
not have some other extreme medical contraindication.
I am not saying that only "some" people have the right to tech dive. I am
saying that the training and certification needs to include skill sets, and
minimum fitness standards, and if a person does not pass them now, they can
train more until they do.  If they pass these standards, hundreds or
thousands less will die, as this becomes mass marketed in the next 5 years.
This will be significant to the people who are saved by the testing, and to
the families who will now not lose loved ones.

The second issue is already happening---from the huge number of accidents
over the last 2 years, good boats are getting to be afraid to take tech
divers out, because of the very low standard of ability to tech dive that is
presently exhibited. In florida alone, tech divers from some shops have
become jokes, because they have no more abilities than PADI or NAUI divers,
just a lot more equipment and horrendously unsafe proceedures and gear
configurations, and alot more macho attitudes. ....and becuase the boat that
agrees to take them out----is essentially playing russian roulette.  So now,
because so many divers are opposed to standards of fitness, we may soon find
the only way to go out on a tech dive, is to buy your own boat, and have
your wife or girlfriend or brother  be your crew----sounds REAL SAFE to me,
what do you think???And I'm really thrilled with the idea that your personal
freedom protection is going to cost each of us the price of a new 35 foot
boat.

My idea will NOT keep a diver who is medically fit from diving. It will make
sure they have trained enough to pass the fitness portion. And training
standards will become tighter, meaning the tech divers will actually have to
pass skill tests, and can not just be given a card because they paid the
money ---i.e., they will not get passed through until they have really
learned the material, and have become adept at using it.

Regards,
Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: GarlooEnt <GarlooEnt@ao*.co*>
To: dlv@ga*.ne* <dlv@ga*.ne*>; TOM.MOUNT@wo*.at*.ne*
<TOM.MOUNT@wo*.at*.ne*>
Cc: Wahoojan@ao*.co* <Wahoojan@ao*.co*>; Wahoo2001@ao*.co*
<Wahoo2001@ao*.co*>; CAPTZEROOO@ao*.co* <CAPTZEROOO@ao*.co*>;
techdiver@aquanaut.com <techdiver@aquanaut.com>; wreckdiver@wr*.co*
<wreckdiver@wr*.co*>
Date: Friday, February 27, 1998 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: Divers Supply, IANTD, Tom Mount and tragic
technicaldiving -Reply



>dan
>you know a few years ago there were a few people who wanted to dive on a
>wreck. the wreck was under the control of  a government office & there
>attitude was that:
>no diver could :dive to those depths safely without the use of surface
supply
>or inside a sub". they also would not let anyone dive to those depths on
air.
>***********NOW DON'T GET INTO A SNIT JUST YET- I AM NOT GOING TO ADVOCATE
DEEP
>AIR DIVES HERE I AM JUST RELATING A HISTORY LSSON TO YOU********
>they finaly lost there case & the judges remarks were quite interesting
>
>         he  quoted a statement from the Idaho law review in his decision
>
>            "a venturesome minority will always be eager to get off
>              on there own, and no obsticles should be placed
>              in there path; let them take risks, for godsake, let
>              them get lost,sunburnt,stranded,drowned,eaten by
>              bears,buried alive under avalanches.
>                --that is the right and privilege of any free amewrican."
>
>the wreck was the monitor the decision allowed Gary Gentile to defeat the
>federal governments attempt to control the way & where we dive. i find it
>intersting that you seem to think it's okay to control what people do using
>what you and some others find as "appropriate'' rule of behavior.
>
>just a few cents fro the sidelines
>hank
>In a message dated 98-02-25 12:32:01 EST, you write:
>
><< Subj: Re: Divers Supply, IANTD, Tom Mount  and tragic technicaldiving
>-Reply
> Date: 98-02-25 12:32:01 EST
> From: dlv@ga*.ne* (Dan Volker)
> To: zimmmt@au*.al*.co*, techdiver@aquanaut.com (techdiver)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Zimmerman <zimmmt@au*.al*.co*>
> To: techdiver <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
> Date: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 10:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Divers Supply, IANTD, Tom Mount and tragic
> technicaldiving -Reply
>
>
>
> >> apparently tried to go back down to save Andre, who was NOT fit.).  You
> may
> >> feel its the right of an obese diver without aerobic fitness to dive
> deep,
> >> but IF WE KNOW HIS CHANCES OF DEATH ARE EXPONENTIALLY GREATER than that
> of a
> >
> >It doesn't matter what WE know, it matters what HE knows.  If HE knows
> >of the added risk and still chooses to push forward that is HIS decision.
> >
> >Who are YOU to decide what risk level is too much.  The risk of divers
> >in general is EXPONENTIALLY GREATER than those who stay on land to
> >play golf.  Should someone come along and tell us we can't dive
> >at all?  Or should we be grown-ups and let those involved decide
> >what risk level they choose to assume?
> >
> >> fit diver, then is it RIGHT to endorse his potentially suicidal choice
by
> >> certifying him???
> >
> >It is not your RIGHT to play big brother, only an advisor.
> >
> >> And is it right to allow him to be lost to his wife and
> >> children, just because he wanted to "prove" he could do something.  And
> if
> >
> >Talking in general here, you seem to be saying that a fit diver can
> >get certified b/c they want to progress, but an unfit diver only
> >wants the certification to "prove" something?
> >
> >As I've said before (in rec.scuba), caring about people is a damn worthy
> >and laudable trait, but part of that caring means not trampling their
> >rights to make decisions for themselves.  Make them aware of the risks,
> then
> >make them aware again.  After that its up to them.  You either respect
the
> idea
> >of personal repsonsbility, or you decide people can't handle it, and thus
> >are not responsible for themselves.  Frankly I can't endorse the latter
> even
> >though we see it every day.  The only way to encourage the former is
> >to demand it and accept nothing less.  If you want people to be
responsible
> >for themselves then you have to let them do it, not keep stepping into
> >their lives and trying to make their decisions for them.
> >
> >
> >Mike
>
> Mike,
> All I'm really doing is adding one more training aspect to the
> certification.  I imagine you will agree that EVERY new diver should be
> "forced" to go through a "training class" and "training dives" to
ultimately
> be granted the certification----your opinion above could be taken out of
> context, to imply the "personal Freedom" loving divers  want to have their
> deep certification cards mailed to them, and they don't feel they should
> have to learn any skills, any information, or demonstrate any ability---it
> is simply their right to dive deep if they want, and IANTD or TDI ought to
> just mail them a card if they pay for it.
> I do not think this is what you are suggesting, but it is still related.
All
> I want to do is add a fitness standard to the skill set that must be
> completed. Anyone willing to "train" to become a tech diver, should be
able
> to accomplish the minimum fitness standards, if they want to tech dive bad
> enough. The ONLY divers that will get excluded, are the horrible fat slobs
> with zero aerobics, no will power to fitness train for their goal, and the
> ones that smoke several packs of cigarettes or ounces of pot daily---these
> need to be excluded for their fitness failures, or the rampant deaths
their
> certifications will result in, will cause dive charter boats to equate all
> tech diving certification as suspect, and they will deem it unsafe for
them
> to take tech divers out. Mike, this is ALREADY happening.  I can give you
> the names of MANY dive boats in Florida who have seen so many deaths, they
> will NOT take tech divers out any more. If you don't want to adress this
> problem, because of the personal freedoms it conflicts with, you will be
> working toward forcing each of us to have to buy their own boat, and dive
> with an unskilled crew sitting on our own boat.  This will get scary.
> Regards,
> Dan
>
>
> --
> Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
> Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
>
>
> ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
> Return-Path: <owner-techdiver@aquanaut.com>
> Received: from  relay19.mail.aol.com (relay19.mail.aol.com
[172.31.106.65])
>by air08.mail.aol.com (v39.9) with SMTP; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 12:32:01 1900
> Received: from bighorn.terra.net (bighorn.terra.net [199.103.128.2])
>   by relay19.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
>   with ESMTP id MAA13440;
>   Wed, 25 Feb 1998 12:31:44 -0500 (EST)
> Received: (mail@lo*)
> by bighorn.terra.net (8.8.6/jr3.8) for
> id LAA00829; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:02:25 -0500
> Precedence: bulk
> Errors-To: owner-techdiver@aquanaut.com
> Received: from bighorn.terra.net (root@lo*)
> by bighorn.terra.net (8.8.6/jr3.8) with EXEC for techdiver
> id KAA00089; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:54:13 -0500
> Received: from osage.gate.net (root@os*.ga*.ne* [198.206.134.25])
> by bighorn.terra.net (8.8.6/jr3.8) with ESMTP for <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
> id KAA00073; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:54:02 -0500
> Received: from gate.net.gate.net (wpbfl3-35.gate.net [199.227.125.226]) by
>osage.gate.net (8.8.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA92780; Wed, 25 Feb 1998
10:42:57
>-0500
> Message-Id: <199802251542.KAA92780@os*.ga*.ne*>
> From: "Dan Volker" <dlv@ga*.ne*>
> To: <zimmmt@au*.al*.co*>, "techdiver" <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
> Subject: Re: Divers Supply, IANTD, Tom Mount  and tragic technicaldiving
>-Reply
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:48:50 -0500
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1008.3
> X-MimeOle: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Engine V4.71.1008.3
>
>  >>
>

--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.

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]