Posted by MHK on August 11, 2000 at 13:34:13:
In Reply to: Re: I think you're wrong Jim . . . (MHK please read also) posted by Jason on August 11, 2000 at 13:18:42:
The question is: why even have the
regs at all if you're not going to trust them in the first
place, but once they're in the water will trust them to stick
to their word?
Because the perception, the pre-sinking publicity and the pretense is that this wreck is a easy, diver friendly wreck and it is anything but that. By making an OE cert a requirement all of those perceptions get blown away when you sign up for the trip and you are told that you need to be OE trained..
Moreover, I also do not discount the legal issues. I think it's clear to me that since negligence can not be waived, I strongly believe that the first fatality of an untrained diver his estate will clearly claim that it was negligence to allow an untrained diver into a oe environement. To the extent that diver is on record as acknowledging that he should not penetrate and then does so anyway, that cause of action will likley be defeated.
But my approach isn't about getting indemnified, because I would never run or work a trip to the Yukon unless I had all oe diver's. My concerns are for the industry taken as a whole.
I would do thing much differently, but that is beyond the scope of our discussion points.
If I were the charterer, and as a result have the right to institute any policy that I want, you could be damned sure that without oe training you wouldn't be on my trip. But I don't expect everyone to have the same standards that I have.
Later