HMC and Scuba - Anyone done the one-tank?

[MikeInPgh]

Wife and I will be cruise on the Zuiderdam the week of Oct 22. I was thinking about doing the one-tank boat dive at HMC. Has anyone done this? Was really looking at it as a tune up dive more than anything.

 

It is my understanding that it is reef dive. Any decent fish life? Is it worth taking the camera?

 

And what about snorkeling at HMC? Is it any good?

 

Thanks

 

Mike

[Tarkus]

i did on my 28-may sailing - with exactly the same intent (a tune-up for the rest of the cruise) - and was wonderfully surprised by the quality of both the dive site and the operator. bigger, newer boat than you'll usually see, and while there weren't a ton of fish there were some really wonderful swim-thrus and coral formations.

 

i highly recommend it - not just as a tune-up but as really first-rate diving in-and-of itself.

 

oh, and definitely take your camera... if you want to see some of the pics i took there have a look here: http://davidpresley.com/dive-hmc20050529.html

 

:)

[divinggirl]

I agree with Tarkus--it was a fantastic dive, so much that I booked a second one on the island after the first! They are extrememly shallow, maybe 40 ft max, but that's really as deep as you need to go. The reef is patchy with lots of sandy bottom, and if you look carefully you can see fields of garden eels peeking out of the sand. The fish life is very diverse and the reef very healthy. As it's a protected area, there is a resident lobster that is ENORMOUS and the DM's know where he hides. There was talk last Aug of maybe adding a deep dive (80 ft), but Tracy the DM said, of course, HAL was concerned about liability. Enjoy the beauty of HMC in and out of the water!

 

ANd the equipment is as good as it gets-I think it must have been new in Aug '04, the condition was so good. Integrated BC's with pellet weights, high-quality and obviously well-maintained gear.

Nikki

[debsea]

I totally endorse the recommendations of everyone who has posted here. DH and I did this dive on our Zaandam New Year's cruise. We were the only divers and had the divemaster to ourselves. Nicest diveboat we've ever been on, complete with a fresh water rinse. Plenty of fish, eels, lovely swim-throughs. We booked the early dive, then had plenty of time to relax on the beach.

[kryos]

There was talk last Aug of maybe adding a deep dive (80 ft), but Tracy the DM said, of course, HAL was concerned about liability.

I can't imagine there would be much exposure to liability on a dive targeted for certified divers, unless of course gross negligence on the part of the operator were involved. SCUBA is like skydiving. When you have students, you have lots of exposure to liability because even a small mistake that causes a student to be injured could be construed as negligence on the part of the operator. Even simple negligence could be grounds for a law suit. The student probably wouldn't even have to prove gross negligence.

 

When you are "certified" for a sport, you assume most of the liability for engaging in it yourself. This is because you've been trained, and if you earned certification, it can be assumed that you know the risks and how to protect yourself from them. Of course, equipment rental adds some additional measure of liability, but they are renting equipment on the shallow dives, so what would be the difference on a deeper one? As long as the operator can prove that his equipment is maintained and tested according to the strictest of standards, he should be okay.

 

That's the funny thing today. Everyone is so scared of liability issues that eventually you're not going to be able to contract for any even the slightest of so-called dangerous activities. It's sad because I think our whole legal system needs to be overhauled in this regard. If you examine case records, I'd bet you'll find that many law suits brought in this regard are lost by the Plaintiff. But, the problem is that there is no way for the defendant to recover all the costs he must expend in defending himself from a frivilous law suit. I know I did a survey a couple of years back concerning law suits brought against skydiving establishments, and with very few exceptions ... most of them first time jumpers ... all of the plaintiff's lost their law suits. Skydiving was considered a dangerous activity, and their injuries would be considered in line with such an activity and something they accepted the risk for in advance. But, of course, that didn't stop them from suing ... and from making the operators of the skydiving facility have to incur the hefty cost of defending the suit.

 

It's a shame.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[cruisecrasy]

I can't imagine there would be much exposure to liability on a dive targeted for certified divers, unless of course gross negligence on the part of the operator were involved. SCUBA is like skydiving. When you have students, you have lots of exposure to liability because even a small mistake that causes a student to be injured could be construed as negligence on the part of the operator. Even simple negligence could be grounds for a law suit. The student probably wouldn't even have to prove gross negligence.

 

When you are "certified" for a sport, you assume most of the liability for engaging in it yourself. This is because you've been trained, and if you earned certification, it can be assumed that you know the risks and how to protect yourself from them. Of course, equipment rental adds some additional measure of liability, but they are renting equipment on the shallow dives, so what would be the difference on a deeper one? As long as the operator can prove that his equipment is maintained and tested according to the strictest of standards, he should be okay.

 

That's the funny thing today. Everyone is so scared of liability issues that eventually you're not going to be able to contract for any even the slightest of so-called dangerous activities. It's sad because I think our whole legal system needs to be overhauled in this regard. If you examine case records, I'd bet you'll find that many law suits brought in this regard are lost by the Plaintiff. But, the problem is that there is no way for the defendant to recover all the costs he must expend in defending himself from a frivilous law suit. I know I did a survey a couple of years back concerning law suits brought against skydiving establishments, and with very few exceptions ... most of them first time jumpers ... all of the plaintiff's lost their law suits. Skydiving was considered a dangerous activity, and their injuries would be considered in line with such an activity and something they accepted the risk for in advance. But, of course, that didn't stop them from suing ... and from making the operators of the skydiving facility have to incur the hefty cost of defending the suit.

 

It's a shame.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

 

Very well put - most articulate and to the point - lawyers need to be 'reined in' and cldn't agree more that the whole justice system needs an overhaul and soon before most folks are afraid to invite even their own relatives over to their hse for fear of the liability..! 'It's a shame'...is right on and add to that 'a disgrace' also!!!

[cruisecrasy]

I can't imagine there would be much exposure to liability on a dive targeted for certified divers, unless of course gross negligence on the part of the operator were involved. SCUBA is like skydiving. When you have students, you have lots of exposure to liability because even a small mistake that causes a student to be injured could be construed as negligence on the part of the operator. Even simple negligence could be grounds for a law suit. The student probably wouldn't even have to prove gross negligence.

 

When you are "certified" for a sport, you assume most of the liability for engaging in it yourself. This is because you've been trained, and if you earned certification, it can be assumed that you know the risks and how to protect yourself from them. Of course, equipment rental adds some additional measure of liability, but they are renting equipment on the shallow dives, so what would be the difference on a deeper one? As long as the operator can prove that his equipment is maintained and tested according to the strictest of standards, he should be okay.

 

That's the funny thing today. Everyone is so scared of liability issues that eventually you're not going to be able to contract for any even the slightest of so-called dangerous activities. It's sad because I think our whole legal system needs to be overhauled in this regard. If you examine case records, I'd bet you'll find that many law suits brought in this regard are lost by the Plaintiff. But, the problem is that there is no way for the defendant to recover all the costs he must expend in defending himself from a frivilous law suit. I know I did a survey a couple of years back concerning law suits brought against skydiving establishments, and with very few exceptions ... most of them first time jumpers ... all of the plaintiff's lost their law suits. Skydiving was considered a dangerous activity, and their injuries would be considered in line with such an activity and something they accepted the risk for in advance. But, of course, that didn't stop them from suing ... and from making the operators of the skydiving facility have to incur the hefty cost of defending the suit.

 

It's a shame.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

 

Very well put - most articulate and to the point - lawyers need to be 'reined in' and cldn't agree more that the whole justice system needs an overhaul and soon before most folks are afraid to invite even their own relatives over to their hse for fear of the liability..! 'It's a shame'...is right on and add to that a 'disgrace' also!!!