Commentary #001

When most people think of dangerous occupations in Canada, they usually think of commercial fishing, logging, mining, or construction. Occupational diving rarely enters the discussion, yet the industry’s fatality trends should concern everyone involved in underwater work. Between 1992 and 2022, Canada recorded approximately 54 occupational diving fatalities. About 47 of those deaths involved divers using SCUBA or Hookah systems originally developed for recreational diving, while only a small number involved Surface Supply operations.

Although SCUBA-based occupational diving represents a relatively small segment of the overall workforce, the fatality trend suggests a rate of more than 200 deaths per 100,000 divers not using Surface Supply equipment. Those numbers alone should prompt the industry to ask difficult but necessary questions. Why do most serious incidents and fatalities continue to involve equipment designed and developed for recreational diving?

Are the controls currently in use reducing risk to an acceptable level, or have some risks gradually come to be treated as more acceptable than they should be in parts of the underwater workplace?

This commentary is not intended as an attack on SCUBA itself. SCUBA can be an effective mode of diving in lower-risk occupational environments where hazards are limited and controlled. The real concern is whether it is too often used in environments where the hazards exceed the level of protection, communication, control, and emergency support the mode can reasonably provide.

A useful comparison is work at heights. When a worker is below the threshold that requires fall protection, the risk of serious injury is generally considered acceptable without additional protective systems. However, once that height is exceeded, additional controls become mandatory because the consequences of failure are far more severe. Occupational diving should be viewed in much the same way. As hazards increase, stronger controls and more robust diving systems are needed to reduce risk to an acceptable level.

I understand the hazards of working at heights because I spent years as a fall protection trainer. Workers attending mandatory training often questioned why it was necessary. After introducing myself, I would ask how many had worked at heights without fall protection. After some hesitation, several would usually admit that they had. I would then ask a second question: “Please raise your hands if you have ever fallen off a roof?”

The room would immediately fall silent. No one ever raised a hand, and the point became clear without much further explanation. Do people often accept risk because they believe the incident will never happen to them? When working on your own home, that may be seen as a personal decision. But once the work becomes part of a workplace operation, the responsibility changes completely.

If you fall from your own roof at home, you and your family bear the consequences. If the same incident occurs in the workplace, the impact extends far beyond the individual. The purpose of workplace safety is to prevent unnecessary injuries and fatalities through proper planning, safe work practices, supervision, and appropriate controls.

Years ago, the province asked me to visit a worksite where a dive was underway in the harbour beneath a ship’s hull. When I arrived, I saw a diver partially dressed as the standby diver and the dive supervisor nearby. I asked the supervisor how the divers were doing, and he replied, “They’re doing great.” I then asked whether he could check with them directly. He told me they were underwater and would have to return to the surface to speak with him. I explained that a supervisor should always be able to communicate verbally with the diver and that the diver should not have to surface to discuss concerns. I recommended stopping the SCUBA dive and continuing only with Surface Supply. It was clear that the recommendation was not initially well received. The next day, the team returned with Surface Supply equipment and completed the job without incident. Two weeks later, the supervisor called to apologize. He told me that since switching to Surface Supply, production had improved, the quality of work was better, and the divers were enjoying the work more. He thanked me and said his team would continue using the right equipment for the job.

Occupational diving must be viewed the same way. The level of protection should not be based primarily on a diver’s personal willingness to accept risk. Responsibility must shift toward selecting the diving systems, controls, and operational practices most appropriate to the hazards of the work environment.

One of the ongoing challenges in occupational diving is that the line between recreational diving and workplace diving has often become blurred. This overlap can affect how risk is understood, how equipment is selected, and how hazards are accepted in the underwater workplace. Recreational diving allows individuals to make personal decisions about the level of risk they are willing to accept. Occupational diving is different. Once diving becomes part of a workplace operation, the focus must shift to reducing risk to an acceptable level before the diver enters the water. That responsibility extends well beyond the diver and is shared throughout the organization.

This is not about assigning blame. It is about recognizing patterns, asking difficult questions, and being willing to examine whether current approaches truly provide the level of protection occupational divers need. High-risk industries improve when serious incidents are examined not as isolated events, but as possible signs of deeper problems within the system. Occupational diving should be willing to do the same.

The issue is no longer whether this pattern exists, but what changes are needed to prevent it from continuing. When most fatalities are concentrated in one segment of the workforce, the priority should be prevention and improvement. That means choosing equipment, controls, and operating standards that match the hazards of the work and reduce risk to an acceptable level.

The next commentary will explore the pros and cons of different approaches to safety and how they can affect diving outcomes. It will consider how military and occupational diving often operate under different mandates, and how those differences may influence risk acceptance, decision-making, and safety in the occupational diving sector.