Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
>Jammer,
>
>a few points: 1) While I agree that I am responsible for the gas in the
>tank I am breathing and that I am not responsible for the gas in the tank
>you are breathing, on an open boat I DO have a responsibility for
>labeling a tank in such a way as someone else knows that the tank is not
>a "boat" tank but, rather, a "personal" tank -- i.e. unavailable for
>public consumption.
Our tanks were completely different from the boat tanks. They were
different colors, they were different sizes, and, in the case of my
buddy, had her name written on them. You could see that they were not
boat tanks from the other end of the boat.
On top of which, I disagree. If we show up at the boat with identical
tanks, same size, same color, no distiquishing marks of any kind, who is
responsible at 10 feet and dropping?
IMO, I am. Period. No exceptions, no excuses.
It's up to me, and me alone, to determing which tank is mine, and that
responsibility cannot be abdicated. Given identical tanks, with different
gasses in each, if I breathe the wrong one, it's not anyone's fault but
mine.
The reason I posted the story was to demonstrate reasons for my opinions,
which were reinforced by the episode.
I don't care if you abdicate your responsibility for your gas, and that
leads to your breathing the wrong gas.
>
>For instance, assume a boat which is often an "open boat" sort of
>arrangement. Normally, the boat supplies tanks to the divers. If you're
>breathing some non-normoxic gas mixture, the boat can not supply you -
>you have to bring your own.
>
The opposite was the case here. While we had brought our own from
Seattle, the boat supplied both air and EAN.
>Now, let us further assume that the boat does NOT have a compressor on
>board and that they're doing two dives. When a diver comes out of the
>water, they move their gear to another tank for the next dive. If I'm
>not the first person back onto the boat, and my tank is unmarked, who is
>going to ensure that some other person doesn't move their gear over to my
>tank and then go diving with it?
>
Haven't you been listening? (No flame intended, but I'm getting
exasperated.)
THEY ARE!
It's not their responsibility to ensure that I have the appropriate gas,
and never will be, under any circumstances. It's up to me, not them, to
assure that I have the correct tank, regardless of markings, incorrect or
correct, boats, assurences from the captain, or the phase of the moon.
Since I won't speak for "them", I can't tell you who they hold
responsible, but I assure you, it's not me. Or rather, they may hold me
responsible if they wish, it merely won't go anywhere...
>If that person is an open-water trained diver, then is it THEIR fault
>that they don't yet know enough to analyze a gas mix before using it? Is
>it THEIR fault if there's no distinguishing marks to say, "Warning! This
>is NOT a tank to be used by anyone but the owner!"
>
Not entirely the case here, but that's a quibble. The captain told him
"all my tanks have air in them."
All his tanks were clearly marked as being his tanks, they all had the
name of the lodge on them, they were all the same color, and our tanks
did and were not. It was clear that his tanks were from his lodge and our
tanks were not, and he had been told that all those tanks had air in them.
>In order to be responsible, one must first be aware and second be
>knowledgeable. Hopefully all of us are both, but there are many unaware
>divers that just climb on the boat, strap on a tank, and go diving.
>There are even more of the unknowledgeable because they haven't had the
>classes yet.
>
Again, I disagree.
Your position seems to imply that I am responsible for the level of
knowledge of other divers, and that it is up to me to protect them from
hazards they know nothing about, because I have a higher knowledge level.
If I speed, not knowing the speed limit, the fine remains the same.
It is my responsibility to know.
The difference here is that the trial is much faster, there is no appeal,
and the fines are automatic.
>Can they be responsible for things that they haven't been told about?
>
Mother Nature cares nothing about our level of knowledge, and she will
hold us all to the same standards, regardless of training.
My whole theory of responsibility is geared for HER court, and
(hopefully) prepares me to meet HER standards- I can honestly say that on
this issue, I care nothing about lower courts. Therefore, I don't care
who the open water diver thinks is responsible for his breathing gas, I
don't care who IANTD, PADI, NAUI, or ANDI thinks is responsible, I don't
care who the dive shop, the captain, or Dad thinks is responsible. Since
the High Court doesn't take that into account when adjudicating cases, I
am going to ASSUME the responsibility for my defense in that court.
I don't care if others do not. I assure you, if I die, I don't care who
gets sued as a result.
>Labeling is a _good_ thing under the conditions that you've talked about
>- a cattle boat. If I was going to dive only in isolation or only on a
>boat that caters to knowledgeable individuals, and only I was going to
>fill the tank, then labeling might be a waste of time.
>
>The problem on the boat wasn't that tanks were labeled, it was that they
>were mislabeled. That's the same as handing someone a tank of CO and
>telling them it's a safe gas to be breathing - in both cases the diver
>has been misled about the contents. An unlabeled tank, by convention, is
>the same as a tank being labeled "79% N2, 21% O2 (with a little
>impurities)." Having an unlabeled tank with someone other than that is
>the same as mislabeling it.
Yes, I agree with this. If you're going to label your tanks, label them
correctly.
Our tanks were "labeled" (my definition, not anyone else's) with our
names, (which were correct) and the mix they contained (which was also
correct).
The good captains tanks were labeled with his lodge's name, (which was
correct), and standard-of-the-industry nitrox stickers (which were not
correct).
The issue everyone likes to fight about is the standard under which our
tanks were labeled.
I'm just a simple carpenter, but that seems to me to be the wrong issue.
My position is that our tanks were labeled, although not to your
standards, and his tanks were *MIS*labeled, although by your standards.
My argument is with your standards, not the need to label tanks. I do
label my tanks, I label them with the mix they contain.
There is a separate issue, one I haven't finished thinking about yet,
about the need for one's buddy to be able to identify the mix you are
breathing from several feet away, under water.
At first glance, this seems like depending on a buddy as some type of
final insurance against mistakes, which would be trying to shift the
responsibility...
I'm not through thinking about it.
My position is also that personal responsibility needs to be preached to
all divers, new divers during Open Water classes, Cave divers in whatever
rituals they engage in, Wreck divers, Tech divers, and anyone else who
can spell the word diver, because they are the ones who will pay the fine
in the Final Court, not whoever-they-think-is-responsible. I think that
Rule #1 should be Rule #2, as in:
#1. You are responsible.
#2. Don't hold your breath.
There is one last issue, a trivial one. (Trivial in contrast, anyway. It
certainly is in-admissable as an issue in Her courtroom...)
No one has any business using my equipment, even if it is identical to
their equipment. This can be shortened to "No one has any business using
my equipment."
Note the little dot at the end of the sentence.
I'm still interested in what you people think (with certain exceptions)
about the issue of watching your buddy's mix underwater.
Doesn't that shift at least some of the responsibility?
I've renamed this thread, so I can sort out the comments about this issue.
---------
"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]