When did it become okay to bend or break the rules?

[K Mejean]

Ugh. This puts liability on the landowner. How can he/she determine what goes on after the diver enters the cave? This is why we can't cave dive at some places and pay an exorbitant amount to dive at others. Landowners should grant access, what we do once we're on their property is solely our responsibility. I would prefer that natural selection be the only policing of divers, my second choice is Jeff Hancock, landowners are pretty much at the bottom of the list just above government.

I agree with your position here. I don't think the landowner is able to know what happens after the diver has entered the cave. So then I have to ask how are you or I supposed to know? What do we do about it? Is it our job to appoint the scuba police? I am simply trying to point out that unless you or I are the diver in the cave neither one of us has responsibility for the actions of the diver in the cave. Let nature take its course. I'm with you. I think you and I agree on this subject. Maybe my lack of ability to communicate is the issue. All I am after is for some others here on this forum to quit trying to shut the mouths of those willing to challenge the status quo. Whether they are right or wrong in their beliefs they should be able to state their opinions and experiences.
The land owner holds no more responsibility for my actions than you do except they get to decide who to allow on their property. So I think we should all quit worrying so much about the people that will not learn or get training and be reponsible for ourselves.

[Kelly Jessop]

How do you answer that in a public forum knowing there is a chance that someone will read it and take with them an absolute!

I have to agree with your comments,and no matter how much people want to refute the validity of your comment,there is a lot of truth. I recall someone telling me about their dive 3 dives post-training into the dark water tunnel...visual into LR Mudtunnel because they read about others doing it etc etc. I'm not antiforum posting,but I think a realization of what you do can be emulated.

[Gene Powell]

I agree with your position here. I don't think the landowner is able to know what happens after the diver has entered the cave. So then I have to ask how are you or I supposed to know? What do we do about it? Is it our job to appoint the scuba police? I am simply trying to point out that unless you or I are the diver in the cave neither one of us has responsibility for the actions of the diver in the cave. Let nature take its course. I'm with you. I think you and I agree on this subject. Maybe my lack of ability to communicate is the issue. All I am after is for some others here on this forum to quit trying to shut the mouths of those willing to challenge the status quo. Whether they are right or wrong in their beliefs they should be able to state their opinions and experiences.
The land owner holds no more responsibility for my actions than you do except they get to decide who to allow on their property. So I think we should all quit worrying so much about the people that will not learn or get training and be reponsible for ourselves.

How will they know? They will read this forum!!! Geeze!

[Gary]

It is my personal belief that it is up to the landowner to police the actions of those diving there.

Landowners made to police? simple solution: they close access to all caves.

The certification agencies and cave diving safety agencies train the divers. They go to the landowners and say: see it can be done safely. They won't die and you won't be sued because there are standards of accepted practice that protect the divers safety wise - and the landowners legally.

This is what keeps sites open.

However, it is pretty obvious that not everyone is trained. And some that are trained don't always follow the rules.

Landowners who charge admittance owe a certain duty of care to ensure that those they allow to dive there are actually certified. It probably is in their best interest to not ignore obvious violations of what they know is safe cave diving standards. If someone falls and hurts themselves they can still get sued - even if they are not at fault. They are going to get sued when someone dies. It is in their interest to make sure they are in no way contributing to obvious negligence on the part of the diver.

I figure it is kind of the duty of the certifying agencies to police their certified divers. If it isn't their legal duty it is at least in their self interest towards keeping dive site open.

When there is an issue with a certified diver who is an obvious danger to themselves (or worse to other divers) the certification agencies should not depend on the landowners to recognize the danger and forbid entry they should be yanking the person's certification --- but that would lead to them taking responsibility that might turn on them later. What are they supposed to do then? There is a guy out there with their stamp of approval on a C-card telling landowners it is OK for this guy to dive. Now that they have revoked that approval what do they do? Send notices to every cave site and dive store that this diver's card has been revoked? (even though the diver may have certifications from multiple other agencies as well?)

So once again it falls on the landowner. Or on the diver to follow the limits he/she has been taught.

And sites more/less toward shutting down depending on their fear of new legal precedent that may put them at risk. Or install new more stringent requirements like "trimix" at sites where a cave card should suffice - or guide systems - or Abe Davis awards.

Or (hopefully) to not accepting individual agencies certifications for admission based on the agency's teachings, cave preservation, safety, etc. - but that isn't very likely because it is a lot easier to close access then to track which agencies are doing a good job.

[BobK]

Bob,

Ken is telling me that I'm dangerous. I'm simply replying htat I believe that he, not I, is the problem. If that's not allowed... well,. that seems a little one sided.

I understand. I just think that responding with the reasons you don't feel you are dangerous is a better choice. Otherwise this tends to devolve into name calling which is no fun to read. I've even done some of that and I strive not to repeat it.

FWIW, I don't think you are dangerous, and have even taken some of your info under advisement. I am always willing to be convinced with rational arguments.

[MengTze]

... I'll put together an article on gas management and sent it to NACD, CDS and NAUI, and see if any of them are willing to publish it. In the interim, I jsut hope that there's no death from solo scootering. And I wait with bated breath for the convoluted assignment of blame for the poor undertrained person's death on one of the 5 rules.

What, setting the scooting to 7 and carrying an AL80 is not cutting it anymore?

[mattmexico]

Never Ever !!

Matt