On Fri, 20 May 2005 22:54:47 +0800, Robert Delfs <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>I spent several months this year drafting a new Code of Conduct for
>Divers and Guidelines for Marine Tourism Operators in Komodo National
>Park - before now, there were no written rules for divers or operators.
> I met with the head of the park yesterday, and these rules will
>probably be enacted as park regulations sometime in June.  (When that
>happens, I'll put the rules up on a website, and we'll be sending
>information out to dive magazines and some of the websites too.)

As a card carrying member of the Iconoclast Society, I must register
my opinion that what you later termed "rigid rules", because any
such are likely to be the guidance of Fools.


>operators who closely follow the PADI system wondered why we just
>didn't adopt PADI's guidelines and rules in toto.

Are you saying they thought you looked stoooopid?  :-)


>At a minimum, it's important that divers understand clearly
>that diving in Komodo can be dangerous and that the safety net is thin.

Wouldn't a suggestion like "Know your limits (and limitations) and
dive within it" suffice?  Diving is a dangerous sport even if you
dive exclusively in a swimming pool.  Divers should have known that.


>
>While it is assumed that most dives in the park will be guided, we
>believe that it is the operators' responsibility to determine the ratio
>of DMs to customers, whether safety divers are needed, and whether to
>allow "solo" diving - taking into consideration the site, the
>conditions, and most of all the training, experience, fitness - in
>short the capabilities - of the divers.  Operators also must tailor the
>site selection and dive plans to the least qualified, least
>experienced, and least fit divers in the group, or else divide the
>group and arrange alternative dives suited to the capabilities of both
>more and less experienced divers.

That sounds like a sensible consideration.
>
>Similarly, there are no specific depth limits in the park - that also
>up to the operators and the divers to judge responsibly themselves.
>There is no park requirement for buddy diving either - it's up to the
>operators to decide whether to enforce a strict buddy system, allow
>"same ocean same day" buddy diving, or whatever.

The only trouble with the "up to the operators" passing-the-buck
approach is that no operator will want to assume the LIABILITY of
allowing someone to do something not allowed by other divers, when
that diver gets into trouble.

>
>(The idea that pairing the two least experienced and least skilled
>divers on a boat together and expecting one of them to be able to
>assist or rescue the other in an emergency has never seemed
>particularly persuasive to me.

Bingo!!   In the dive fatality case studies (conducted by some
organization in Canada IIRC, in the 70s and 80s), there were
more "double fatalities" and "triple fatalities" because of a
combination of a diver's inability/inexperience to rescue the
other;  and the over-reliance of one buddy on another, such
as dad and son.


>There are some rigid rules that will be strictly enforced.  Every diver
>will have to carry an inflatable SMB, a light or flashing emergency
>strobe, and a sound signal device ON EVERY DIVE in the park, without
>exception.  (On night dives, a minimum of two lights per diver are
>required.)

That's an overkill that reminds me of our Homeland Seruity farce
from the 9/11 fallout.  That reminded me of Peter Hughes' Fleet
used to have "rigid" requirement, written by their lawyers, of
requiring CYLUME sticks -- lights won't do, even if you carry
THREE -- their reason was batteries could go out, but the chem
sticks could be seen from a distance for a long time.   At any
rate, I protested strenuously, and they did away with that
requirement shortly there after, I think.  Haven't done any
night dive in over 6 or 7 years (too warm and cozy to want to
jump back in after dinner), so they MAY STILL have that rule.


>All boats will have to carry oxygen sets and radios, and
>the rules for tender operations are quite detailed.  In principle, any
>diver exhibiting DCS symptoms (other than headache in isolation) is
>going to be treated as a DCS victim until cleared by a competent
>medical person - no easy thing, but in the past there have been too
>many people with likely DCS hits in the park who went untreated because
>dealing with a DCS victim seemed too hard.

I agree with totally on requiring the dive BOATS to be well-
equipped to handle emergencies of all kinds.  Afterall, it's
their BUSINESS to provide diving and safety support.


> Operators tend to believe that the new (to them) divers
>who are most insistent in their emails on having maximum freedom to
>dive their own dives are often the last divers they would want to have
>in the water without supervision, and often they're right.

And I tend to think they are right!

>
>"What we saw your divers doing is the reason we wanted to ban gloves in
>the park," I said to this operator.  He winced when I reminded of the
>incident, but explained:  "I had no idea this would happen.  Those
>divers were all from Germany, they told us they were all very
>experienced. I checked their log books, all of them had at least 250
>dives, some many more.  We won't even take anyone with less than 50
>dives on our boat.  And they were all fine on the first two dives at
>Banta Island.  How could I know that would happen?"
>
>It's hard to say, but my first assumption is that while it may be true
>that all those divers all had at least 250 logged dives, none of them
>had ever dived in even a moderately strong current before.

That's the most LIKELY case.  Even with 250 current drift dives
(as in Cozumel), divers may still not be able to handle the really
strong currents.  My rule of thumb when some newish diver ask me
about diving the Barracuda Reef in Coz is to wait till they have
at least 500 dives -- just in case they run inot the WORST
current they might run into there.  (Most of the time the currents
there is mild, but one has to be prepared for the worst!).

So, I vividly recall a former member of Scuba-L and Scuba-SE,
(who shall remain nameless) after that recommendation from me,
promptly did the Barracuda when he had less than 50 dives
under his belt, while MISSING booking the dive he was supposed
to book diving with me (agreed upon weeks in advance).  I was
thoroughly pissed.  So was he and his girl-friend about me
fussing at him screwing up the booking of ONE dive we were
supposed to do together, for Punta Sur.

Some of the least experienced divers are sometimes the most
eager to dive "way over their head"!

Speaking of German divers.  They are like a troop.  I dived with
some groups when I was a lone ranger in some shark dives in Nassau
and was put in their group as a filler.  They all play "follow the
leader", more or less in a single file, as if in a march formation,
never bother to stop to look at anything.  :-)


(Lakes?)
>There are rarely any currents at Banta Is. where the check-out dives
>with these divers took place.  So we talked about how we might
>encourage operators, in addition to doing check-out dives in a
>sheltered place,  before taking new divers to a fragile and unique site
>like Castle Rock, might do at least one dive on a less fragile and
>special high current site where there are rocks and  dead coral to grab
>onto if needed, and where the operator can assess the divers' abilities
>to handle currents without the reef paying such a high price.

I think I would prefer to tell them bide their time and WAIT till
they are ready.  You can't teach a horse to do a backstroke the
first time you bring it to water.
>
>Robert Delfs

Da Feeesh aka la Poisson.