Unsafe diving operations

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3

1. British Diving Safety Group

   The relationship between the deceased and the commercial diving project falls outside the organisation’s expertise to advise on.

   Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.View source

1. British Diving Safety Group

   The diving contractor should seek legal advice about applying volunteer safety requirements to the commercial diving project.

   Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.View source
2. Health and Safety Executive

   The recreational diving ACoP applies only to diving projects under DWR, not purely leisure dives by members of the public.

   Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.View source

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

1. Sub-Aqua Association

   Revised medical screening forms and existing training changes are considered sufficient to mitigate the risk of immersion pulmonary oedema in diving.

   Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.View source

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

1. Ministry of Defence

   Carrying a second dive set in safety boats is not required where doing so is impracticable, with the nearest safe location acceptable instead.

   Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.View source

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

1. NDAC Ltd

   Responsibility for current diving-operation safety arrangements lies with DTSL, the new operator, which should be contacted for further information.

   Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.View source

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

1. UK Diving Medical Committee

   The current self-certification system, including requests for further information and specialist advice, is considered sufficient; no change is needed.

   Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.View source

1. UK Diving Medical Committee

   Obtaining full, unadjusted medical records for all divers is impractical because general practitioners refuse non-NHS forms.

   Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.View source

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.10

1. Dulwich BSAC 102

   The second dive was considered safe because correct nitrogen calculations and surface-interval procedures complied with current guidelines.

   Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.View source

1. British Sub-Aqua Club

   Progressing from 16.5 to 20 metres after a gap was not considered unreasonable, and no evidence showed the recommendation posed diver risk.

   Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.View source
2. British Sub-Aqua Club

   No single or simple message could highlight the specific dive-planning concern because dives vary with conditions and individual skills.

   Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.View source
3. British Sub-Aqua Club

   Conducting Sports Diver lessons out of sequence was considered reasonable because prerequisite skills are taught at Ocean Diver level.

   Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.View source
4. Dulwich BSAC 102

   Weight-belt and equipment configuration was considered a matter of personal choice because no governing guidelines exist and training covered weight removal.

   Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.View source
5. British Sub-Aqua Club

   The weightbelt and BCD configuration was considered uncommon as a safety concern.

   Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.View source
6. British Sub-Aqua Club

   Existing training requires practising removal of divers’ own and buddies’ weightbelts at every stage and encourages regular practice.

   Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.View source
7. Dulwich BSAC 102

   Written risk assessments are not considered necessary at known sites because current guidelines and established dive-planning and briefing practices apply.

   Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.View source
8. Dulwich BSAC 102

   Free-flow was not considered a special risk below five degrees Celsius, and existing cold-water regulators and briefing arrangements were considered adequate.

   Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.View source
9. British Sub-Aqua Club

   Site signs were considered awareness measures, while operators acknowledged their warnings were overly cautious for year-round cold-water DSMB practice.

   Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.View source