David Strike wrote:
> Hi, Christian. I posed the question in all seriousness. Believe it or
not
> but I actually agree with your sentiments as far as some diving
destinations
> are concerned. (I can think of a couple of places in Fiji, for example,
> that have sites that really should only be attempted by more experienced
> divers. In fact, the more that I put my mind to it, the more dive sites I
> can come up with!) :-)
>
> In Victoria, (a southern state of Australia), the diving industry have
come
> up with a system for grading dive sites that's intended to discourage
people
> from attempting dives beyond the level of their capabilities. The
question
> still remains however. How do you actually apply or police such a system?
>
> Log books and certification cards are, it seems to me, a poor measure. So
> how should it be tackled? (Assuming that you meant what you wrote?) :-)
I'm going to kick myself for this later, but I suspect Bob and I would agree
on the answer to this (I'll find out soon enough). My answer is "you
don't." I think it's enough, actually more than enough, to identify the
risk elements of a particular dive and assign some kind of uniformly
understood (at least locally) rating to them. I don't think it's anyone's
responsibility to take that a step further and even attempt to ensure that
everyone abides by the the standards. Natural selection has done a pretty
good job of design modification so far, why not let it continue.
You'll note that I said "actually more than enough." There is a reason for
this. I don't believe that a government exists that can resist the
temptation of trying to police something that, in my opinion, should not be
policed at all. Since they can't help but try, I'd rather not provide a
standard for them to try with.
BTW, regarding the EPIRBs, none that I found were waterproof below about 10
meters. Assuming that I did not miss something, and I tried not to by going
directly to the ACR site, I wonder how the Aggressor people make use of the
EPIRBs they are advertising.
Lee
|
