Self Reliant/Solo pre-requisites vs DiveMaster pre-requisites

[Bob DBF]

Being hung up on "solo means one" seems to obscure the issue.

The misuse of words always seems to have that effect. If members had used self reliant, rather than solo, when describing an instructor with students, the inevitable corrections would not have taken place.

One needs to be self reliant when diving solo, however that does not make self reliant and solo interchangeable words. PADI certifies self reliant diving, rather than solo, because they train buddy diving, and are not advocating solo.

Part of the "solo mindset" is that there is only one diver, oneself, how does that work with a class?


Bob

 

[Esprise Me]

But doesn't PADI also require 100 dives before you can be certified as self-reliant? And isn't that more than you have to take to certify as a PADI DM or instructor?

 

[MichaelMc]

Emphasis added:

Being hung up on "solo means one" seems to obscure the issue.
The below have related needs for 'self reliance'.
Some have an aspect of "I'd be safer by myself, but helping them is important to me."

@DeepSeaExplorer, As to "what about" deco dives and 1/4 turn back, they are not this topic.

@Bob DBF, a good point on terms.
Yet 'solo' vs 'self reliant' is a bit muddied by the Padi's aversion to "intentionally having no one you can rely on". ETA: By which I mean accepting that risk/situation from the start.

Preferring "my (otherwise perfectly reliable) buddy swam off with the cute girl/guy, how ever will I stay safe down here, if I choose to continue the dive." ::eye roll::

I'd argue an instructor down with an unknown student falls in the 'intentionally taking on a dive with no (as yet provably) reliable buddy".

I think some have been describing dive staff as often 'effectively solo', an expression which places the emphasis on the risk side. As opposed to them being 'self reliant' which makes some presumptions about how well they are prepared for that situation. Saying dive staff are 'effectively self reliant' says the possible problem is solved before we even examine it.

ETA: It's likely best to say dive staff may well be diving "without an effective buddy", if a tad longer.

 

[Bob DBF]

I think some have been describing dive staff as often 'effectively solo', an expression which places the emphasis on the risk side. As opposed to them being 'self reliant' which makes some presumptions about how well they are prepared for that situation. Saying dive staff are 'effectively self reliant' says the possible problem is solved before we even examine it.

So the dive staff uses solo as a scare word to mischactorize the situation. If the dive staff are not effectivly self reliant, which shows preparedness not outcome, then they should probaby find another line of work. I'm not saying the job of a dive proffessional is easy, lord knows I made a point of avoiding it, but there is no reason to refer to a situation that dosen't exist.

ETA: Saying dive staff may well be diving "without an effective buddy" is likely best, if a tad longer.

I'd go for accuracy over brevity, in the interest of accuracy.



Bob

 

[MichaelMc]

So the dive staff uses solo as a scare word to mischactorize the situation

In a context with clients, I'm not sure who the dive staff would be trying to scare by saying the staff were solo.
Unless you mean staff that teaches solo, scaring staff that is not yet solo trained. Which seems a high enough level of conversation that scare tactics would be less effective.

If the dive staff are not effectivly self reliant, which shows preparedness not outcome, then they should probaby find another line of work

I'd agree. Or they are ill prepared for their current work.

Given their current work may be 'get in the water with no effective buddy, with a diver you may need to rescue', the training for 'starting out with no effective buddy', aka solo, would seem a half step toward being prepared. With the second step and responsibility of being able to also rescue that person on you own.

ETA: Ignoring the 'scr*w anyone I run into needing air/help' sub-version of solo.

 

[JackD342]

There has been a lot of talk about an instructor with students but no DM not having an "effective buddy." Seems several contributors expectations of what an "effective buddy" should be able to do in an emergency are applicable more to a Rescue Diver class than to an Open Water class - no, most (all?) new diver training does NOT approach that level of skillset.

Let's review what buddy specific skills ARE taught in a PADI Open Water class, so understand what is gained between entering and exiting the course:

1. Pre-dive safety check. (buddy check)
2. 5 point ascents and descents.
3. Tired diver tows.
4. Alternate air source use, both donor and receiver.
5. Cramp release.

Did I miss anything? So which of those skills might you think is a disaster waiting to happen with a new diver on OW dive #1 or beyond?

In my opinion, by far the most important item on the list is covered by the fact that I have another diver with me - any diver. If I have an OOA emergency for some reason, there is a student with a tank and an octopus very close by, and my emergency is handled - I am not relying on them for ANYTHING other than being there if I need them. And let's face it, if I have a DM in the water with me, they are probably the diver in the group that is furthest from me, not close by like a buddy. So a student is still my contingency plan for OOA when I have another pro in the water with me, not a DM.

 

[jlcnuke]

Imo, the skinny of things comes down to a solo (or self-reliant diver diving alone) has only their carried gear and their brain to rely on.

An instructor has at least one person with gear for redundancy,
as well as another at least somewhat educated brain regarding diving.

That's what makes the two situations massively different.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

It doesn't make sense in that DMs are often required to go do things that do require solo diving, like setting up a dive flag (screwing an anchor into the ground). That's the reality. However, they do have an alternate air supply when guiding: the octo of one of the people they are guiding. I am not familiar with the IANTD version of solo diving, but PADI, SDI, and SSI, all require 100 dives for self-reliant/solo/independent diving.

So taking reality into account, the requirements don't make sense.

 

[MichaelMc]

@JackD342, It sounds as if you are saying a diver in an emergency only needs a spare air source need by. If that is the case, can we dispense with all the skills evaluation in solo/self-reliant classes and just strap an extra tank on people?

Now, it may well be that a DM/Instructor has those skills, from experience. But that only seems assured if you make DM/Instructor come after self-reliant/solo.

It seems difficult to argue that the students need to learn to be effective buddies, while saying the instructor needs no effective buddy, just an air source, without being explicit about why. Such as the skills, and possibly gear, those classes promote.

I teach no solo/self-reliant classes and given the cost and time to be a DM/Instructor I do not thing they add significant hurdles for the diver or profit for the dive shop. ETA: they might slow the zero-to-hero path though.

ETA: I'm not arguing the DM should be the instructor's buddy. I'm arguing both need to be self-reliant, as they may be with other than their own top-flight students. And that sometimes they are actually alone in the water, which sends a bit of a mixed message. Unless they say: 'after X dives, I got training in Y, and have Z redundant gear, as can you later if you have the aptitude for it.'