As divers, we spend lots of money on dive school to learn surface-supplied diving techniques, safe procedures to follow and bad practices to avoid. And then one day we graduate, get cast out onto the job, and someone says, “Here, strap this tank on, go down this rope, and finish the job.†No umbilical, no comms, no unlimited air supply. Just get the tank on, finish the job—and, by the way—hurry up about it. Minutes later, while you’re swimming the downline, a disconcerting thought goes through your head, “Is this what it means to be a commercial diver?â€
At dive school, and later through experience, we learn to anticipate problems that might arise. We play worst-case scenarios in our minds, trying to foresee every contingency under which something might go wrong. This inclination will grow and become part of an internal warning system that can prevent a remedy from becoming a deadly snare; it’s an inner voice that whispers to you and when something doesn’t look right it shouts volumes in your head.
But, strangely, when it comes to Scuba there is a tendency to ignore the alarm bells because we are deceptively fooled into thinking that, because of the lack of fancy gear—and because of Scuba’s association with recreational diving—nothing bad will happen. After all, there isn’t anything complicated about it. It’s not high-tech gear. We’re not in a bell at 400 feet breathing mixed gas on a reclaim system. So, it shouldn’t pose much risk, right?
But, Scuba is an insidious killer and the danger signs are clearly there.
I’ve said this before in another venue and it’s worth repeating: the whole purpose for employing surface‑supplied diving techniques is to give the diver the added advantage of topside support. Diving on Scuba removes that advantage. The diver has a limited air supply, no communications, and typically no hot water. And without communications, the diver cannot speak to topside in times of trouble, nor can the supervisor monitor the diver’s breathing or receive information on his activities underwater. And because the diver is not tethered to the vessel, he falls prey to the mercy of currents and tidal flows, which have been known to wash men away before help arrives. And without the use of a full‑faced mask, if the diver becomes unconscious, then he will drown if his regulator drops out of his mouth. All of these deficiencies spells lack of control. And when you have lack of control, disaster looms. In short, the number of things that can go wrong on Scuba extends well beyond any argument that would justify its use. As a result, Scuba has one of the highest death rates there is.
That Scuba is a confirmed killer is not unknown to diving contractors throughout the world, and yet, every year we see reports that another diver has died while using Scuba.
So why do contractors still insist on using it?
The excuses given are many, but there is one that stands out above all the rest. In 1974, the Association of Offshore Diving Contractors (AODC) convinced the UK government that there were always going to be some jobs where the use of surface‑supplied diving gear presents a greater hazard to the diver than Scuba. That excuse ultimately manifested itself as one third of all fatalities on the UK Continental Shelf during a ten‑year period (1974-1983), and is one of the excuses still in use today in the United States.
But underlying Scuba’s tenuous link to safety are tremendous economic and logistical advantages that surface gear lacks. It reduces the expense for topside support; it’s easier to transport and more convenient to set up—no humping 600‑foot surface umbilicals around on deck. These powerful economic incentives have nothing to do with safety; they simply aid the contractor while trying to undercut competitors during contract negotiations.
If this issue were left up to the divers, would they vote to ban its use? That scenario has never been tested because the divers who actually do the job underwater are not given that vote, nor are they consulted. The people who are consulted are the diving contractors who help write the law that keeps Scuba, and its economic benefit, in place. Meanwhile divers continue to die.
There are certain burdens that must be met by government and industry, and promoting safety is one of them. The line often taken by this cooperative is that safety comes first. We’ve all seen the “Safety First†slogans plastered on the bulkheads. But if the policy planners, who dictate our roll in the industry, are really serious about cutting the death toll, then what better way to achieve that goal than to eliminate one of the leading causes? At some point, preventing the replication of accidents has to rise above the din of exhortation. If a string of unnecessary deaths does not constitute a legal or moral imperative to ban a practice with a deadly history, then its fair to ask: under what set of circumstances would government and industry intervene to protect the man in the water? And if this alliance is unable to say what those circumstances are, then doesn’t that make a farce out of its claim that safety is its number one priority? Doesn’t such behavior point directly to a conflict of interest that raises grave doubts about its number one priority and who they are really serving? Is it the common diver who has no say in the promulgation of regulations, which materially affects his health and welfare, or is it the diving contractors, who benefit financially from helping to write those laws?
Mark Longstreath recently wrote: "To date, working divers have not had a voice in how the regulations are set. These have been made by the companies and clients. If a diver spoke up, he was likely to be blacklisted. This has to change..."
But how do divers get change? With harsh language? Exhortation? Pleading? Certainly, they can bang on doors, petition legislators, and ask contractors to voluntarily terminate unsafe procedures. But if effecting change were that easy, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about the same old issues that we faced 30 years ago. It took the diving industry 20 years to rid the North Sea of Scuba. Today, in many parts of the world, economic decisions still overpower safety concerns, while contractors and legislators sit on the fence, and divers continue to die. That's a bad scenario, and, to me, this means that we are well passed the point of debate.
I think the Divers Association should consider another approach to this problem.
First: the Divers Association (DA) should identify what it regards as the most egregious safety issues facing divers today worldwide. Then, like Martin Luther and his 95 Theses, the DA should post its list of unsafe practices in a special section on its website for everyone to see. Whether it is the use of Scuba, the Three-Man Dive Team, live-boating, surface diving beyond 50 meters—the DA should clearly state why it wants to eliminate or change these practices. There should be no confusion about the DA's position. Poor safety records should be backed up with statistical records to buttress the DA's stand.
Second: In an adjoining section of the website there should be a place where companies who ignore or operate against the DA's position are identified through a process of verification. After verification, the president of the DA should send a letter to the contractor and the OGP stating that the diving company is practicing in an unsafe manner and is unnecessarily putting divers' lives at greater risk. Divers around the world would be able to go online and view which companies are improving or worsening with regard to these unsafe practices.
Third: The DA should encourage working divers to provide evidence (log book entries, photos, dive sheets, etc.) to the Association to prove that violations are occurring. The divers’ names should be protected to prevent blacklisting and constructive termination. This will be a way for divers to do something to improve their situation and become active watchdogs in their own industry.
Companies that stop these unsafe practices will see their names removed from the list by sending a letter to the DA stating that they have terminated the practice.
This is our profession and we need to act now, not wait for politicians and company men to give us what we deserve: a safer industry.
Recommended Comments