David Strike wrote:

> > Not much of a risk here, but that's why we carry insurance.  If this
> > happened to my boat, which is insured for considerably more than it's
> > worth, I'd throw a party.
>
> Not if you were in the middle of a deep ocean.

True, but if we stick to the subject, you'll note comments regarding
proximity to land, ie, within swimming distance, at least with fins.  Having
to make that swim might cost me a tank, backplate and regulator, but if it
means my boat is gone for sure and ever, it's a bargain.  Unfortunately, or
fortunately depending on your perspective, I'm too honest to arrange an
accident.

> > BTW, if this is the kind of risk you worry about, then
> > watch out for armed sailers too.
>
> Piracy is a growing problem around the world.

I've wondered about this.  Believe it or not, it's a declining problem here.
Locally, piracy related directly to the drug trade.  When fast boats were
not enough, since the authorities had faster ones, the drug trade tried
shallow draft boats to let them escape across places the government boats
could not go.  When the goverment countered that one, they started taking
private boats and killing their crew and passengers.  This is not your
normal theft where giving them what they want improves your survival
chances.  These people wanted no witnesses because it was the privately
registered boat that they wanted.  When the boats became known as drug
vessels, they were abandoned.  This created a very bad situation.  To this
day, I carry a firearm aboard my boat any time it's going to be out of sight
of land and, do not approach or allow the approach of any boat except in the
most certain of emergency situations.  If the boat is sinking, I'll pick up
it's occupants from the water, but will not approach any boat otherwise.
Instead, I call for assistance from the coast guard.  It's a terrible state
of affairs, but our lives are worth more than someone else's boat.
Fortunately, the coast guard and everyone here are well aware of the risk
and, just like everything else that has been tried and discovered, the drug
runners have moved on to something else.  I would not be surprised to see
piracy on the rise world wide but at least here in S. Florida, it's on the
decline.  Thank goodness.

> > > A freak current sweeps you out to sea.  There is no look-out to see
your
> > > dillemma!

> But possible - and only one of many. many scenarios.

Certainly possible.  So is a downcurrent that will take you below any depth
you can return from.  At this point, we're firmly in the territory of risk
ranges.  At the sites I would risk this, the risk is at the low end of the
range, within my tolerance.  I think it probably would be within yours as
well, but you'd have to be there to understand and decide.  In my opinion,
the risk at La Cieba, on the airplane wreck, was greater than it is on most
moderate depth sites in my immediate area.  Hope that gives you a
perspective.

> Who uses a float?  (And if 'boats and operators' don't know what a dive
flag
> means then how will one on a boat provide more protection than one on a
> float?)

A float, or towed flag is required of all divers not diving from a boat, ie
all shore dives, done in Florida.  The rule is similar in most states of the
U.S.  There's a requirement that divers be within a reasonable distance of
the float/flag at all times.  The problem is, they're close to the surface
and not easy to see.  There have been instances of divers and/or snorkelers
hit by boats that never saw them or their floats/flags.  A boat is a lot
more visible.  It's something that all boaters are used to looking for and
avoiding collisions with.  Further, the dive flag on my boat, even my small
one, is elevated several feet above the highest surface of the boat.  On my
bigger boat, it's about 12 feet from the surface of the water.  On the
smaller one, more like 6 feet or so.  Either way, that's a lot better than 1
to 2 feet, which is normal for a towed float/flag.

> Read a few more manuals!!  It has nothing to do with the Queensland Code -
> although the same requirements are mentioned - it's a universal code of
> common sense diving that's been applied befire Queensland even considered
> having a code!!!

I've read several and it's in more than one.  I mentioned the Queensland
code only because you pointed it out to me when the code was modified not
too long ago, after one of several problems you and I have discussed
privately.  In short, it has as much to do with the Queensland Code as I
said it did.  It's in there.  I think my statement that it's not a bad idea
for any boat covers everything else.  I guess you missed that part of my
statement.

> I'm not denying anybody's right to put themselves at risk.  I'm merely
> pointing out that dead boat diving carries with it an un-necessary degree
of
> risk.

Fair enough.  There's no way to argue this or, for that matter, any reason
to.  Most risks of diving are "un-necessary" but nevertheless acceptable to
some, less acceptable to others and not at all acceptable to still others.

> >It's not always easy to find someone interested in serving as a
> > lookout without paying them to do so.  What I was talking about,
however,
> > which I thought I made fairly clear, is what are the site conditions
that
> > make dead boat diving significantly less safe where you are than it is
> where
> > I am.
>
> I think that you'd find the water here to be as unbreathable as it is in
> your part of the world.

Yep.  Water is also as unbreathable with 5 people on the boat above as it is
with none.  That's not the environmental issue.  You mentioned ability to
exit anywhere, an environmental factor that certainly makes a difference.
You also mentioned the availability of help, oxygen and similar issues, all
considerations that make a difference.  I tried to describe the situation
here for as many of the variables as you mentioned and I could think of.
Those are the conditions that will make the difference in our context.

> > BTW, where's the lookout when you do your shore dives at Shelley Beach?
> > Aren't the risks of a shore dive very similar to those you describe for
a
> > dead boat dive (assuming you're close enough to swim to shore)?
>
> I believe that I already stated that when I wrote: "Many of these
questions,
> of course, apply to all forms of diving - including shore dives!  But, to
my
> way of thinking, there are far too many variables
> for the risks in 'dead boat' diving to be regarded as acceptable - and
hence
> commensurate with "good diving practice"!"

> It's all a question of reducing the number of variables and hence the
risk.
> To my way of thinking a person will either claim to accept the increased
> risks inherent in dead boat diving and continue to do it - or they won't.
> But, it seems to me, they're doing a dis-service to themselves and others
if
> they try and put forward arguments to the effect that it's good diving
> practice.

I don't believe I used the term "good diving practice."  I believe you
introduced that concept.  You've a right to your opinion.  Obviously, I
conclude otherwise.  I've acknowledged that there is increased risk, covered
as many of the factors that are significant to the decision as I can think
of and included reasons why diving from a dead boat, here, may be safer than
shore diving here.  You conclude that my factors are not sufficient to bring
the risk within an acceptable range.  I have no problem with your choice for
you.  We've known for some time that risks I will accept do not match those
you will accept, in some cases for reasons we've fully shared.  Not a
problem for me.  With a little luck, we'll both live long enough to discuss
it again . . . if we chose to.  Fortunately for everyone else, neither you
nor I are going to force anyone to go diving on my boat, or not go if
invited.  Each gets to make up their own minds.

Lee