Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
>Dan, > >If nothing else how about answering the 2 *** questions at >the bottom? > >> Probably, there will always be a training agency that represents your view, >> and you will have what you want----lets just hope for your sake, this won't >> have to be TDI. A new improved IANTD, or other much more rigorously >> involved tech training school, with its own agency, will be the way of >> smarter, better, safer diver, in my book. > >The "safety" ultimately comes from the diver, not the school. IMO Mike, We are in Agreement here.... But a good training program is more likely to result in the safety of the diver, than a poor one. > >Just as the agency doesn't make the instructor, the instructor >does not make the student. The agency provide the tools and >the miniumum guidelines for what a course for a topic must >cover, it is up to the instructor to teach it well. Likewise >the instructor provides the information to the student, and >it is up to the student to use that information well once they >leave the classroom. Classroom performace is just like >mutual fund performace, ie, past performance makes no >guarantees about future performance. And right now there are too many very poor tech instructors, and the really good ones are not readily discovered by the potential new student. > >So in the end the responsibility lies on the diver. Not >the instructor, and not the agency. I'm not argueing this. And if someone wants to forget the tech training, read a book, or not, and do tech dives, fine. If that's what they want, let them buy the equipment, and go out and do it. I'm fine with this. It will only reflect on them, which is also fine. This will always be possible, unless at some point in the future, the Feds jump in, but we are still fairly far off from this, I hope. > >The responsible diver seeks out the best training. > >The responsible diver evaluates their fitness level and >how that affects the risk of their dive profile. > >The irresponsible diver does not. It seems you want to >present the irresponsible diver with nothing but the best >training, thinking that will somehow force the irresponsible >diver to change their nature. Or they will not receive >the certifcation. Mike, I'm just dealing with what minimum standards should be in a tech agency---one that will have a good safety record. The irresponsible divers will go somewhere else, because it will be easier, and that's up to them. > >Am I following your reasoning? > >I do not think that system works. You cannot create >a system that is guaranteed to not let some irresponsible >diver slip thru. And the now uncertified divers will still find a >way to hurt themselves; you cannot prevent that, as much >as you would like to. You cannot protect a fool from themself, >you only spend a lot of time and effort and make a mess in >the process. Face it, fools are far too clever. They will think >of things you NEVER thought to protect them from. And in the >process you open yourself to liability since you presented >the appearance of trying to assume responsibility for the >actions of someone else. In this more stringent agency structure I'm talking about, no promises could be made about safety beyond what is made today by IANTD or TDI. None could be. But I think a better safety record would result, and I think the VAST MAJORITY of people on this list will agree with me on this. We could make it harder for people to adopt really stupid proceedures, by the mind set and proceedures that would be drilled in to them during certification. Certainly there will be people who can sidestep any safety precaution set up in a training plan, but the idea here would be to limit stupid behavior, instead of create an incentive for stupidity to flourish (can you spell T-D-I :) .. > >> And there "will be" a training agency, with much more stringent >> guidelines, for skills, fitness and medical screening, and they will have >> DRASTICALLY LOWER incidents of accidients in the ocean---this will mean they >> will ultimately have better insurance coverage for less money, and that many > >Funny, I would have thought lower insurance coverage would have come >from striking a more defensible contract with the customer. I have no interest in changing the legal aspects as they are now. > >Which standard is easier to defend? That you taught a diver what >they paid you for, or that you promised that diver would be >forever "safe" ? This more "ideal" and safer agency, would make no claim that if it certified you that you would be safer than any other agency---but they would have documentation of their accident statistics, for you to peruse, along with those of the other options. If a diver joined the WKPP, and adopted their style and gear configurations, as well as safety proceedures, I'd have to believe he/she would be a safer diver for it, but no one at WKPP would walk up to them and say, OK, now your a safer diver.....they would have some new "safety tools", and it would still be up to them to use these tools wisely. > >> boats may begin to recognize their safety potential, while they may refuse >> to take out tech divers from the "We Certify Anyone" agency. > >Just for grins why shouldn't a boat take anyone out? MIke, you must not be friends with any charter boat Captains. I am, and I can tell you, if they lose a diver, they are never the same again. Most can not take the emotional strain of taking divers to a reef or wreck where they have a resonable belief that a death may result, from the extreme nature of the dive, and the training and ability level of the diver----this without any concept of law or insurance---just morality. Then, if you add the insurance and legal issues, as well as a Coast Guard review whenever a major accidient occurs, you would find that most boat captains will NOT want the brand of tech diver you would like to unleash on the world. > >Obvious answer: concern about injury. > >Followup question: Why concern? Concern about human life, or > concern about liability. Both. But the ones I'm friends with, are more concerned about life. Insurance covers liability---this is a much smaller issue to them. Ask Jim Abernethy or Anna Abernethy how they feel about this---they have one of Palm Beach's most successful dive operations. Use jasa@ga*.ne* > >Brutally honest answer: as much as the other, concern about liability. > >In the scenario I described, the liability issue goes away. The >customer knew the target dive environment , paid for transport, >and the boat provided said service and ONLY said service. > >No breach of contract, no liability. Like I said, most boat captains are afraid that bad divers may die in deep water, and they need assurance that their divers are "good divers", before they take them out. This is the high road Mike. If I owned a boat, I would use it for tech dives only for tech divers that have demonstrated to me that they are very good. The liability issue is lame. > >In your scenario I gotta walk 10 miles uphill, both ways, in snow >with Force fins, and Double Genny 120's, with PST 120 stages on >each side, with 5 long hoses bungied behind me, fire dive from >a chopper all to get a c-card, so the boat will LET me pay >them for a service for which they promise to keep me safe, so >that when I die my relatives will sue them for taking me on >a dive which they will assert I was not ready for, and that the >boat should have read my mind and known that. > I'm not saying any of this. >I just can't fathom why people want to promise so much more >than they can realisitically deliver. I know it comes >from concern for others, but you can go a LONG way toward that by >asking for logs, warning divers of the danger, being sure they know >the risks, without at the end of the day promising more than >simply providing a transport service. > >you take this attitude and most of the rediculous liability >crap surrounding diving, which hurts ALL of us, the >crap goes away. Mike, its NOT a liability issue. Its what's right. No promises can be made by the agencies about safety. They can only provide the diver with the best "tools to stay alive", that they are capable of. Period. You are suggesting either few "tools", or no tools, are really the responsiblity of the agency or instructor. With this in mind, you'd be better off just telling people how to tech dive with no training at all. > >> The more stringent requirements of the agency(s) I'm going to send people >> to, will also carry much more weight with their families, than the one you >> suggest. > >Your agency promised me my loved one would be safe. My agency >just promised to teach them what they wanted to know. I may >"feel" better about your agency, but I am also more likely to sue >and WIN against your agency. And BOTH agencies have every opportunity >to present a good and thorough course designed to meet the needs >of the student. No promises were made. > >> But its a free enterprise world, so what you want has already come >> true, in the form of TDI, anyway. > >Dan, you haven't shown the slightest understanding yet of what >I want in an agency. Instead you are trying to conveniently >pigeon hole this issue away onto your list of "bad things". >Its a long and incorrect stretch to insist that believing in personal >responsibility equates to desiring bad training. > >But we get lost in debate and lose the focus of the discussion. > >****** Simple question Dan, are you responsible for yourself? > Each diver is responsible for himself, except in the case of a student on a training dive, in which case the instructor bears a significant portion of the responsibility. And yes, I'm responsible for myself. > >****** If you are, it follows that you make your risk decisions for >yourself. Why can't you let others do the same? After many hundreds of deep tech dives, Darwin has given me a pass. This is not about me, its about new people who are looking for a way to learn---and right now, they can easily choose a bad future for themself---I want them to have a better chance to chose a good future. Regards, Dan Volker www.sfdj.com > >Mike > -- 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]