The terrible loss of life aboard the Wave Dancer sent major shock waves throughout the global scuba diving community. Predictably, amateur armchair critics immediately set about assigning blame and nailing down the "real" cause of the tragedy, even as others just as quickly moved to summarily dismiss the incident as an unfortunate but "unavoidable" tragedy. In either case, such initial from-the-hip calls seem to have been made on the basis of little if any factual information, nor proper regard for their immediate impacts upon emotionally scarred survivors or victims' loved ones. Anyone out there ever wonder why members of professional accident investigative teams - the US National Transportation Safety Board for example - studiously avoid comments that even hint at assigning or absolving blame until a full investigation has been completed? We would urge all those prone to a rush to judgment in the case of the Wave Dancer - on both sides of the fence - to take a deep breath, and allow the Belize Maritime Authority to complete its investigation in an atmosphere that promotes rational and objective analysis, and that looks not at just this aspect or that, but the totality of the facts. It is when (and only when) that task has been completed and the resultant findings made public that meaningful critical analysis of this tragedy by others should be undertaken or given any credibility. Whatever the formal "verdict" of the Belize Maritime Authority turns out to be in this case, it is a virtual certainty that some very pointed questions will be given intensive scrutiny in coming months by Belizean authorities, and many within the sport diving community. The answers that emerge will have far-reaching ramifications for the entire live-aboard dive travel industry, influencing the way in which certain aspects of live-aboard dive operations - particularly those in regions subject to sudden, severe weather disturbances - are conducted in the future. Particularly pertinent questions in this regard include: - What indications (in terms of approaching or developing storms) make it advisable to cancel a dive expedition before it begins?
- Once an expedition is underway, what weather information (i.e., 'strike probabilities', storm strength, speed, direction) and other factors should guide the decision as to when it becomes advisable to "pull the hook" and run for safe harbor, and what standards should be applied to the use of such information in making that critical decision?
- Should live-aboard operators, as an essential aspect of their operations, maintain agreements with local authorities such that pre-arranged, designated adequate shelter (and sufficient transportation) for entire crew and compliment of guests is readily available at all likely points of disembarkation should conditions warrant such action?
- Under what circumstances should a docked vessel be considered a safe, or unsafe, shelter?
- What elements of vessel design should be given priority for live-aboard dive operations conducted under open ocean conditions in which storm conditions are likely at times?
- What criteria should dive travel consumers emphasize when assessing or comparing quality, safety, fairness, and reliability of live-board operations? What independent sources of information are available to the public to support such decisions?
Such questions can - and should - be asked generically at this time, without reference to what may or may not have happened in the case of the Wave Dancer. If there is anything we can learn from a thorough analysis of such questions that might lead to immediate actions designed to generally increase the inherent safety of live-aboard dive boat operations, it is incumbent upon us to do so now. And the diving public should be involved in - even demand - this re-evaluation process. In the long run, it's your neck, and history tells us that it is unrealistic to simply assume that a commercial industry will invariably give top priority to public safety when it comes to choices that affect the "bottom line". We've learned that the hard way many times over, most recently with the auto and tobacco industries. We believe that the majority of live-aboard charter captains are generally highly able and responsible. We also believe that most operators place a priority on the safety of passengers and crew, and take all reasonable precautions including thorough emergency planning. Nonetheless, the fact remains that this is a largely unregulated industry, and there is no guarantee that any dive operator, including well-funded and well-advertised ones, can provide safe and reliable services. It only takes one live-aboard to bring you a lot of grief if you choose the wrong dive operator. Thus, as pertinent as the above-posed questions themselves remain, it would seem every bit as germane for those who presently (or might in the future) entrust their lives to a live-aboard dive operation to ask at this time, "Should I just leave decisions to the questions posed above entirely to the judgment of individual boat operators and/or Captains, or would I be better protected by having an independent panel of maritime safety experts develop standardized policies and procedures (perhaps customized somewhat for different geographic areas) to serve as "the book" in such matters? The legal certification requirements for captains and vessels can and do vary widely among the many nations in which dive charter operations are conducted today. In the words of one seasoned live-aboard captain, "Too many innocent divers are completely incognizant of the dangers they are setting themselves into on some of the floating 'deathtraps' masquerading as luxury dive vessels with fine and pompous decor over completely unsafe vessel designs, construction, and layouts…Stability, load limits, communications, safety drills and procedures are all part of…(large vessel requirements)… but the light vessels are all without these considerations and operate with complete abandonment from many commonly held and respected safety and common sense practices." And there is a very big difference between expertise at steering or navigating a boat, and knowing when to put the holiday on hold, pull the hook and run for shelter in various parts of the world. Essentially, safety consciousness is simply good seamanship but weather and ocean conditions vary greatly in different parts of the world, and captains well-versed in recognizing danger and responding properly in one part of the world may not be nearly so proficient on a new assignment elsewhere. After 40 years at sea, sailing with many duly licensed "captains" on many seas, there are those with whom I would entrust my life without a second thought, and those whose judgment was demonstrated such that I would not trust them to paddle me across a hotel pool on a raft. I am sure that I am not alone in this sentiment. Thus, independently-developed guidelines or standards for live-aboard dive boat design, layout, operations, and emergency planning and procedures might go a long way in both promoting safety and instilling confidence among prospective diver-clients before they plunk down substantial amounts of hard-earned cash and leave home for remote dive destinations they have studied in Cyber Diver Dive Travel Reviews - confidence that no matter who they are diving with or where, they will sail aboard a properly designed and operated vessel and, should the need arise, they will be guided by a well-considered emergency response plan and well-trained and knowledgeable crew who act early with properly maintained safety equipment. Let us hope that apathy, corporate lawyers and the moral deficiency that persuades some to turn a blind eye to mistakes will not hamper the investigation into what actually caused the death of 20 passengers and crew aboard Wave Dancer. Let us hope that if the Wave Dancer tragedy was caused by corporate greed, human error, negligence or just simple stupidity, as is often the case in passenger vessel accidents, the lessons will be studied, learned and applied to a dive industry that defiantly resists safety regulations despite growing evidence that it is entirely incapable of regulating itself. Let us also admit that while global safety standards will certainly help to enhance live-aboard diving safety, the Wave Dancer tragedy will not be the last live-aboard accident. As one maritime safety official puts it, "You can't beat human greed and error." It's your life; the decision as to what level of risk you are willing to assume is entirely yours. To enhance your personal safety, you need to go well beyond the sun 'n fun holiday considerations such as meals and air-conditioning. You need to develop effective criteria for assessing the relative quality, safety, fairness and reliability of live-aboard operators. As a diver and prospective live-aboard client, you have every right to ask operators to document for you that their vessels are safe, their crews properly qualified and trained, and their plans to protect you adequate should a major storm or medical emergency threaten. In particular, you should be aware that your life is literally in the hands of the boat captain while at sea. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for you to ask, "What is the safety record of this company? Has anyone ever been injured or killed while diving aboard this vessel? How was that emergency handled? Who will be my captain and exactly what are his or her qualifications, and hands-on experience in the area we will be sailing?" These are fair questions. Here's another one: Will I receive a full cash refund if, for whatever reason, YOU cancel my dive trip, or a partial refund in the event that YOU cancel a day or more of my diving? If the answer to that question falls into the "Sorry, no refunds" corporate greed category, FIND ANOTHER LIVEABOARD! There are many honest, independent live-aboard operators who do not expect you to pay for services they were unable to provide. Remember, before you are allowed to confirm space, live-aboard operators demand, "Sign this waiver and show me your money". "Fair enough," you might well say, "But if you want my money (and that of my 15 companions), first, delete the fine print in the waiver that entitles you to take my money for services you did not provide, and then show me why I should trust you with my life!" |
