Divers vs Underwater Tourists

[Walter]

WOW! It looks to me as if folks have totally misunderstood the original post.

I didn't see anything offensive in it at all. I saw someone expressing an opinion about a problem (accidents and close calls) and trying to offer a solution.

Divers vs underwater tourists. I think the terms were used to make the concept easier to discuss, not to get under anyone's skin. The terms don't matter, call everyone with a c-card a diver, what matters is does the person accept personal responsibility for their own safety on dives or do they expect someone else to keep them safe. If you expect someone else to keep you safe, you probably shouldn't make assumptions about lots of things - who is your dive buddy? If you are diving with a group and have not specifically made an agreement with a specific person to buddy up, you are diving solo within a group. Assuming someone is looking out for you can result in you being alone if trouble creeps up. Ask questions about the dive plan. If the plan exceeds your experience/comfort, you should have concerns and you should address those concerns when you are discussing the dive plan. Don't assume the dive guide (even when he's called a DM) is looking out for you. Don't assume your buddy is checking your air. Don't assume your buddy is checking your depth. Don't assume your buddy is checking your ascent rate. Don't assume..... If you want your buddy to check these things discuss it before the dive.

Personally, I take responsibility for my own safety, I'm not trusting enough to put that much faith in people.

However the paradox is this: at what point is a person supposed to feel confident enough to quit using the DM?

In my opinion, everyone should reach that point before they receive their c-card.

Wasn't that point supposed to be when they earned their cert?

Yes. Unfortunately, many divers are certified without reaching that point. That's one issue I have with training standards.

Granted, this could be flawed logic too, but there appears to be a couple of assumptions here. The first is that a diver is incompetent and cannot plan their dives and "take responsibility" for themselves on their first outing, hence they need the DM.

It's a horrible assumption, but unfortunately, there's good reason for the assumption. Many divers fit that mold quite nicely.

You may have a point, but aside from insulting those less experienced than you consider yourself, I'm not sure what it is. It is nice to know with what contempt you hold new divers who are responsibly trying to learn the sport by making sure they are diving with someone more experienced than themselves.

Every post you make has such a condescending tone, that what I get most out of this thread is the level of self-conceit you have.

I haven't seen that at all.

I dove with only dive instructors and DM's for most of my first 50 some dives, predominately because I knew I wasn't an experienced diver . . . currently I'm just returning to diving after more than 18 months of not diving because of an accident. I've called on a very experienced DM budddy of mine to dive with me for the next dozen dives or so.

Sounds like you are agreeing with the basic concepts expressed in the first post.

Oh, how badly I must suck in your eyes.

I think he would commend your wisdom.

If the original post had made no mention of "underwater tourists" and had merely explained what it means to "know your limits and don't exceed them," the post would have been essentially the same and while there would be disagreements on points, no feathers would have been ruffled and the general concept would have met with widespread agreement.

 

[Peter Guy]

I've been bemused and amused by this thread also. My, my a number of you are very, very touchy on the subject of being "a diver" as opposed to being "a tourist."

I believe I am "a diver" by just about any normal definition in that I tend to do an OW dive at least once every two weeks (and generally more than that) and get a total of about 150 dives a year.

Now I also have a "full cave" card -- but that really doesn't mean I'm a "cave diver" in the same way that DiveAholic is a cave diver. Because I only get to dive in caves a few times a year I really AM a "line following tourist" and, quite honestly, quite happy to be one. I just don't have the opportunity to dive in caves regularly and need to be VERY aware of my own limitations.

This is also true of other "technical" diving. Yup, I have the cards but I am NOT a "technical diver" in the sense that it is easy and routine as OW "recreational" dives are easy and routine. I know my limits and as I venture out into different environs, I AM a "tourist" in the sense the OP meant.

Re the OP's point about being able to dive locally -- I think it is a very interesting issue/question. IF you like to dive (that is, you plan a vacation so that you can dive), why don't you dive locally -- at least once a month just to keep skills up?

I'm from the Seattle area and we have good diving within 30 minutes of my house. I've been in the Monterey area the past few days and was fascinated with the diving there. I met a couple who said they were "vacation divers" and really enjoyed diving -- they live near the beach in So. Cal. but they won't dive there. Why? The diving is fabulous AND you get to keep your skill level in tune.

If you actually LIKE to dive, why wouldn't you dive locally -- at least once in a while?

 

[Kingpatzer]

I'm shaking my head over this thread, which I think illustrates just about all the ways people can be misunderstood on the internet! If you guys knew the OP, you'd take a deep breath and relax.

Perhaps, but what we have to go on are the OP's words -- which set the tone and tenor of the discussion. When one uses condescending language to start a discussion, the natural conclusion is that the other intends to condescend.

Wouldn't we all agree that people who dive regularly tend to have better skills and are more relaxed in their diving? Sure, there are exceptions, but in general, if you do 100 dives a year, you're going to be a different kind of diver from the person who does 3.

To use your own words, you refer to the person who dives 3 times a year as a diver. That instantly puts your comments into a different categorical bucket than the OPs -- who seems to deny the correctness of the person diving 3 times a year calling themselves a diver.

I think we might even agree that, below some level of regular experience, a person shouldn't count on having their skills sharp or being able to respond well to any kind of urgent situation . . .

Again we agree. But the OP's statements indicate that such people, should the take the responsible step of engaging a dive professional, or at least a much more experienced diver to help them stay safe given their own personal lack of experience are "not divers," and given his post and follow-ups, viewed as lesser beings.

And I also think it's a good idea for people to be able to reflect on their training and their amount and recency of experience, and decide whether they are truly a diver capable of safe, reliable independent function underwater, or whether they had better have someone with frequent rescue experience at hand. Thus the person who would find himself in Gray's "underwater tourist" classification would consider hiring a DM to accompany them in the water, rather than count on some random person (or some DM trying to supervise 8 such folks) to help if anything goes awry.

The problem is the whole category of "underwater tourist." Had he created categories along the lines of 'experienced diver,' and 'novice diver,' there would be no dissent from anyone. We all agree that novice divers need supervision to be safe, and that getting it is right and proper. Where the OP goes awry is suggesting that a diver who knows they need that help, and does not care to become as experienced as the OP, is worthy of the OP's derrision.

I don't think there's anything offensive or arrogant about those statements, and I believe that is pretty much what the OP intended to say, just as all chickdiver intended to say was that people who can dive the caves on a daily basis are going to be different cave divers from people like me, who are lucky to pull off three cave trips a year.

There is not . . . but what you have said is different both in content and tone from what the OP wrote. In terms of content, he did not speak about novice and inexperienced divers as divers. He denied them access to that status. In terms of tone, he di so in a way that is easily read as conceited.

We are both reading something into the OP's words. You, having some personal knowledge of him, are reading in a noble intent marred by poor verbiage. I (and others), not knowing him are reading his verbiage as intentional. Given the tenor of his follow up posts, I see no reason to avoid reacting negatively without some additional personal knowledge of the OP.

When someone does writes about others in a manner that shows little humility and less empathy, it is to be expected they will be read in that manner as well. Moreover, it is expecting quite a good deal from the audience to grant a pass to someone who so explicitely denied one to others.

 

[Epinephelus]

Ah, just remembered this from a year ago. Uncle Ricky posted a dive scoring formula, and even a program where you could answer a series of questions and it'd give you a score for the dive. I reckon a "tourist" dive would score about 1, while "real" dives would score more...

Now, if only I could remember what all the variables were, or find that program.
E.

Found it! See this post.

 

[JeffG]

I prefer to use the term. "Cozumel Commando" (I first heard it being used by WreckWriter)

 

[HBO MD]

Perhaps the issue is one of merely "acknowledging what you don't know". I have always considered the DM to be familiar with the area I wish to dive. He/she brings an understanding of the local conditions, wildlife etc that I couldn't possibly be familiar with. Hence I rely on someone's knowledge to make my overall experience of the site safe, pleasurable and rewarding. If that is tourism, so be it. Ultimately, I am responsible for my own personal safety, but I will gladly accompany someone to "learn from their experience".
Additionally, I think you are confusing aptitude, level of experience, knowledge and overall skill. There are clearly those divers who are so limited, that irrespective of the number of badges they possess will still be clumsy, awkward and dangerous to themselves and others. We have all encountered these types, as they go the deepest ,do the most damage and spend a great deal of time regaling us with tales of amazing underwater feats. Yet there are those with fewer years of "experience" that are thoughtful, skillful and perform well. That are not embarrassed to learn from others.
Part of knowing your skill set, is also acknowledging your limitations and areas which need improvement. Challenging these limitations typically leads to mishaps irrespective of labels.
The bottom line is safety. I can recall when BC's were considered only for the inexperienced by those divers who embraced evolution...as long as it wasn't accompanied by change.
We are in essence a community of divers made up of all types of skill sets. Let's forget about wasting energy on assigning labels and just dive responsibly and safely.

 

[ScubaSteve]

If you are a new diver and only dive in tropical locales on vacation you are an underwater tourist not a diver and you should hire a DM to be your buddy (and only your buddy) on every dive.

So what about the person that has logged 3000 dives but has chosen to only dive while travelling on vacation? I do not think this is a well thought out plan at all. They may not be new but they certainly only dive a couple times a year. Define NEW.

There are quarries, lakes, whatever reasonably close to most people. If you are a diver, new or otherwise, you will take advantage of these to learn to dive in addition to your tropical dives while on vacation. You are a diver and are responsible for yourself whether you are new or not.

So, diving the quarry at home makes you a diver? I have seen some pretty bad "divers" as you call them, and some pretty good "tourists" as you call them.

Again, not a well thought out plan at all.

This is taking personal responsibility for your own actions. You can't change the way the dive industry is operated. You can't change PADI or the practices of tropical operators. You can't learn to dive and be considered a diver if you only dive a few times a year on vacation.

See above points. Not a well thought out plan.

If everyone either put in the time actually diving or simply hired a personal DM as buddy many of the needless accidents we hear about would be avoided without hoping that someone else will make up for your lack of personal responsibility.

You have absolutely no idea if the accidents would be improved. You are taking a huge leap of faith. Again, not a well thought out plan.

Personally, I think it's silly for people to think of themselves as divers and to have an industry tout them as such when they are actually just underwater tourists. I got on a horses back once and rode around for a while. I don't consider that I'm a horse rider or that I know anything about riding horses. In the dive world...I'm a diver!

Good for you. That does not mean that the plan you are proposing is well thought out.

I'm all for DM's and Instructors and charters being professional but the way the industry is put together it's just amazing that every other underwater tourist makes it out alive.

It is also amazing that some of the "divers" that I have seen in ALL locales has made it out alive. You cannot decide what a diver is capable of solely on dive count. Again, not a well thought out plan.

 

[JeffG]

So what about the person that has logged 3000 dives but has chosen to only dive while travelling on vacation? I do not think this is a well thought out plan at all. They may not be new but they certainly only dive a couple times a year. Define NEW.

Cool...a 500 yr old diver.

So, diving the quarry at home makes you a diver? I have seen some pretty bad "divers" as you call them, and some pretty good "tourists" as you call them.

Diving makes a diver better. So who is better? The 10 dives a yr dude at a warm water resort or the guy that does 50 quarry dives and 10 warm water resort dives?

I know where I would put my odds.

It is also amazing that some of the "divers" that I have seen in ALL locales has made it out alive. You cannot decide what a diver is capable of solely on dive count.

You shouldn't use survival as a guide to determine skill.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Cool...a 500 yr old diver.

Well, the polident would help keep the reg in their mouth....so there is an upside to that.

Diving makes a diver better. So who is better? The 10 dives a yr dude at a warm water resort or the guy that does 50 quarry dives and 10 warm water resort dives?

I know where I would put my odds.

I agree except when a diver spends their diving career reinforcing bad habits. A new diver can be a better diver IMO but simply has less experience.

You shouldn't use survival as a guide to determine skill.

This we agree on. But, this was done in the original post.

The bottom line is, there are many divers out there that have simply survived this long under water by pure luck. Many very bad divers submerge everywhere. On the other hand, there are many GOOD new divers (again the definition of NEW is still needed). Do they compare to a GOOD diver with 500 dives...not likely. Do they compare to a BAD diver with 500 dives? I would take those odds.

 

[Dr Neil]

Aren't we all just underwater tourists? Unlike the locals, we do have to return to terra firma.