I'm glad you replied to this post, even though it took more than 2 weeks and some of the details are already fading from my memory. Too be honest, I'm disappointed with your reply. Especially since I didn't think you were as bad as implied in the OP and I already stated that I would dive with you again.
You claim that as "humble divers, we always learn from the lessons of each dive". However, other than the opening apology which you attributed to mis-communication (and not a mistake), there's no acknowledgement of any other lessons learnt during the trip. For example, which dive centre asks their customers to provide their own indemnity forms? You gloss over the inconvenient facts and use the rest of the post to justify your actions on the day itself, and imply that us (the customers) were unreasonable, inexperienced and/or had unrealistic expectations. Sigh.
The best thing you could've done was to own up to the oversights which resulted in this less-than-perfect thread, clarify the facts
and promise to deliver a better customer experience the next time round.
...we were not able to wait at the jetty indefinitely for passengers to come on board. It is part of our standard practice to stand-by outside for all the divers to be present before we move the ship alongside.
Uh.. you admitted that there was a "traffic jam" at the river, hence we were waiting for almost an hour before the boat arrived. I don't see how this was a mis-communication error, nor how this statement is relevant. This statement seems to imply that we
were late? Or does it mean that once we miss the 8am window, there was a 1+ hour queue for the boat to come into the jetty?
The fact is, instructions were to arrive by 8am, our last diver was late (arrived about 8.15), and we only managed to board to boat at 9+. Unfortunately, I didn't take note of the exact time we boarded the boat, I only remember waiting a long time.
Despite his warnings about strong currents then, some also tried to macho their way into the troubled waters, and almost got drifted...
Not really. Uncle George did warn us about the currents and asked
our coordinator if we wanted to continue, and since our main objective at Sister's Island was the wreck, she replied that we would like to try it. We did not disobey Captain's orders and our diver certainly did not "macho" his way into the troubled waters. I do not appreciate a professional company insinuating that it was the customer's fault, or using such words to describe their customers.
After the first satisfaction dive, it was after 12 noon. In total 12 tanks were used. With 7.2 cuft per min filling rate or 200 l/min, to refill from 0 to 3000psi or from 0 to 80 cuft, refilling takes about 11 min. It did not take 3 hours to refill the 12 tanks.
You're right, it didn't take 3 hours to refill. The fact is, it took almost 2 hours to refill. So what's your point?
The 2 hours were ok for me, since I like my SI between dives to be at least 2 hours. What I didn't appreciate was that you didn't refill my tank! It was still 40 bars after "refilling" and I had to swap tanks just before the 2nd dive, which still came in at only 150 bars!
One is that the anchor did not bite, which can cause the boat to drift to shore like the case of the MV Nautica, which was reported in the papers.
Really? Mentioning a competitor's boat in your argument? Sounds like a cheap shot to me.
Experienced divers know to move away when the anchor drifts. On that day, the water was clear enough that it was obvious the anchor was drifting.
I suppose this is to address the "anchor being pulled while divers were still in the water" feedback.
First of all, how would you know that the water was clear enough? You weren't in the water. It was decent for Singapore's waters, but that equates to maybe 2-3m of visibility.
I also don't appreciate the "experienced divers" argument. We're certainly not professional divers, and if staying away from a drifting anchor was that important, please mention it during the dive briefing! Recreational divers use the anchor (or a shot line) as a visual reference to surface at/near the boat. This would be preferable to doing a free ascent without any visual reference, as there is a very real risk of drifting into the busy channel. The visibility was about 2-3m, so if not for the anchor chain, there would be no other reference for divers in the water to know if they were near the boat or in the channel.
According to our friends in the water, the anchor passed very close to one of the divers at the safety stop. As the group had shot a SMB, there's no excuse for the boat crew to say that "experienced divers know to move away when the anchor drifts", because you can bloody see the SMB and know there are divers down there!