Are resort DM's really that reckless?

[ukslim]

Yes... there is a certain degree of 'trust' involved in diving... I can't and won't argue with that... but there's an old saying in poker that goes, "Trust everyone but CUT THE CARDS."... It isn't the things that go right that put you at risk... it's the occasional "OOPS"... and one has to ask themselves why a 3rd party should bear more responsibilty for your safety than you yourself does?

There's umpteen common situations where you place responsibility for your safety in someone else's hands. Whenever you ride a bus, take a train or an aeroplane - you're relying on people to have maintained the machinery properly, and to be following correct procedures during the journey. Most people don't demand to see inspection logs for the plane they're about to board. They don't check the tyre pressure of the bus they're getting onto.

I'm too inexperienced in diving to know to what extent this principle carries through - less far than I anticipated by the sound of it. I don't particularly want to see the service history of the air compressor. I want to trust that the PADI logo (or whatever other organisation) means they're held to certain standards.

If no organisation does that then I feel there's a business opportunity for an organisation that does. As a beginner diver relying on rental kit and willing to pay for expert assistance, I'll pay extra for peace of mind that says "You don't have to interrogate this dive operator before you trust them".

 

[ukslim]

Thanks, String, for the clarification on what PADI means. What you said is entirely consistent with what PADI's website says. It does mean that, as far as I can see, there's a gap in the market for a dive operator kitemark organisation.

I still laugh at this "led into a potentially dangerous situation". Would these same people on land follow a tour guide on a short cut across a minefield because they "thought" there was a safe route? Or climb up a cliff to save some time as "it'll be fine"? Or run across 8 lines of traffic because "i do it all the time"? If not then why would they entirely disengage their brain underwater and do something similar?

Analogy: I was down your way in the Brecon Beacons a couple of years ago, with a stag party, canyoning in the river Mellter. The guide would take us onto a crag and say, "if you like, dive into that pool". Now, we had the option to back down, but he was telling us it was safe to jump in. I would not leap from a height into an arbitrary pool of water. On his advice, I did so, it was fun, and nobody was killed or injured.

He was trained in mountain rescue. We were under his care. That was the deal.

 

[String]

There's umpteen common situations where you place responsibility for your safety in someone else's hands. Whenever you ride a bus, take a train or an aeroplane - you're relying on people to have maintained the machinery properly, and to be following correct procedures during the journey.

...and trains crash, planes crash, buses crash. In short you are accepting some element of risk by getting on it and deciding in your own mind exactly how much risk to accept. If you consider it low enough to be worth it then you take the journey.
For example, im happy to accept some risk in flying but there are some airlines from some countries i deem too high a risk and wont use.

In short, you're doing risk assessment all the time and i cant understand why people expect diving to be any different.

 

[ukslim]

...and trains crash, planes crash, buses crash. In short you are accepting some element of risk by getting on it and deciding in your own mind exactly how much risk to accept. If you consider it low enough to be worth it then you take the journey.
For example, im happy to accept some risk in flying but there are some airlines from some countries i deem too high a risk and wont use.

In short, you're doing risk assessment all the time and i cant understand why people expect diving to be any different.

I agree with all of that, but your level of trust in the organisation and individuals involved is an input to your risk assessment. You fly BA because you believe it has the processes and the capital to fly you safely. You don't fly Aeroflot because you suspect they might cut corners.

If an arbitrary stranger tells me to swim into a cave, I'd think twice. I expected that a divemaster was more trustworthy than an arbitrary stranger. You're telling me they're not. It's a surprise to me, but you're in a better position to know than me, so I believe you.

There I go again, trusting people

 

[J.R.]

No more than if i follow a DM on a bar crawl through my own choice im being "taken" on a bar crawl. There are no such definitions.

I think one the problems we're running into here is some of the industries "glory names" and thier implications. In the Navy... a Divemaster is just that... the guy responsible for diving activities... in recreational SCUBA a Divemaster is often more of a title than an definative job description. While there are times when a Divemaster actuall DOES have title and job description align... more often than not "guide" is truely the more appropriate title.

It's kind of like PADI's "Master Diver" rating... AOW with Rescue and a few specialty courses... does this make for a "master diver"??? Doubtful... but the name becomes a product identifier... and some buy into the romance more than the fact.

I still laugh at this "led into a potentially dangerous situation". Would these same people on land follow a tour guide on a short cut across a minefield because they "thought" there was a safe route? Or climb up a cliff to save some time as "it'll be fine"? Or run across 8 lines of traffic because "i do it all the time"? If not then why would they entirely disengage their brain underwater and do something similar?

Yup... the "I'm just a passenger on the bus" mentality... the sad part is that these "riders" are somebody else's buddy... and I have to wonder if they did a proper "buddy check" before diving... got their hand signals straight... talked about how they would dive together... what their own mutually agreed turn around point was... or if they even bothered to check and see if their buddy was sporting a secondary reg... or an AirSource.

The part that bothers me most about the "somebody should protect me from..." mentality being experessed is the fact that it APPEARS as though these divers are totally unaware of the fact that they have (or should have) a one on one buddy... which I assume is not the group's divemaster... they also seem to fail to recognize that... in assuming that the DM has some responsibility for *their safety* they are also implying that they, themselves, have responsibility for their buddy's safety... yet no where is there any mention of their buddy... or what role their buddy plays in decision making... it's almost like there is a belief that "in a group" means the DM is everybody's direct buddy...

 

[String]

I agree with all of that, but your level of trust in the organisation and individuals involved is an input to your risk assessment. You fly BA because you believe it has the processes and the capital to fly you safely. You don't fly Aeroflot because you suspect they might cut corners.

I dont know enough to fly the plane, dont know enough to build a plane, dont know enough to maintain one but i do know enough from talking to others what are considered safe and what aren't so base my choice on that.
Diving should be no different, inexperience is no excuse for going past your own personal limits and idea of risk.

 

[ukslim]

OK there might be a nomenclature issue here. I had assumed (it's a dirty word, but it's accurate) that we were talking about being guided by someone with a PADI Divemaster qualification Divemaster or at least the equivalent. The wording on that page says that it qualifies you to lead dives, which strongly suggests to me that anywhere that claims to be a PADI operation shouldn't send out guides who don't have that qualification. Sure, they could take the weasel approach and say "we're only being PADI when we're instructing", but I would be disappointed by that.

So, I go out on a dive led by someone with that qualification. I should expect his advice to be sound.

That does NOT mean that I expect him to take on buddy duties, nor that if my buddy and I get separated from him we're helpless. It means that where he leads, we expect to be within the limits he knows we have.

It's not "need handholding every step", it's "when the handholding is offered, it should be reliable".

Look, I'm qualified to go mountain walking - in so far as I have legs and I know how to navigate. But there are mountain paths I wouldn't tackle alone, nor with a similarly qualified buddy. With an appropriately knowledgeable guide, I would tackle those routes.

 

[NudeDiver]

For example, if DM's want to go into a overhead then ensure its in the briefing and ensure they ask people if they are uncomfortable BEFORE the dive. This is meeting in the middle and is what, IMHO, is required. Offer those who dont want to dive a refund or a separate dive. You know, be safe. Be responsible.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Now you just have to find a way to get people to pay attention to the dive briefing

 

[NudeDiver]

Why would a person go to a drive through window to get a coffee, only to leave it and not drink it? ... You get a coffee because you want a coffee. If you want a coffee at home, you make a coffee at home (or most people anyways). This woman at least had the presence of mind to open the coffee before she left and got onto the road. I am not arguing anything to do with the case or settlement, just that your comment was *******.

Ah, but it does illustrate the fact that she voluntarily engaged in risky activity. While sure, some people want to drink hot liquids while driving down the road, that doesn't mean it is without risk. People like to have sex without condoms too, but it's not without risk either. It doesn't make sense to sue condom manufacturers because their product makes sex uncomfortable, and therefore, they are responsible for one's child support payments.

Her "presence of mind" didn't help her much since she managed to spill it on herself anyway, now did it?

Well, I guess it did - she made herself a lot wealthier than she would have otherwise been. Maybe I should go get some coffee....

 

[NudeDiver]

A few reasons for that. Firstly, local laws. Egypt for example (along with Greece and other places i can think of) its illegal to dive without a registered local. The main reason for this is to stop them stealing artefacts or completely destroying the reef and so on.

Oh, I know WHY this is the case. I was just pointing out that people are not always diving with a DM because they WANT to, as a previous poster indicated.

The first thing myself and other instructors i know tell students is do NOT put complete faith in me or anyone else.

I often don't agree with String, but here I do. Putting "complete faith" in someone means turning off your thinking brain. I wouldn't expect ANYONE to put complete faith in ANYONE or ANYTHING. I know I don't.