Divemaster Responsibilities

[Web Monkey]

I would not take a "real" DM's word and follow blindly into the abyss as I was taught to plan and conduct my own dives; but I would certainly be even more cautious, even suspicious, regarding the advice or directions given by a "guide".

You would, and I certainly would, but a lot of people trust authority figures regardless of what they were taught in class.

We (wife and I) have a number of friends and relatives in their 40's, 50's and 60's who dive every few years somewhere warm on vacation, and just go to see the pretty fish.

They understand that they're not safe on their own and therefore always select a dive lead by a "DM". They have no idea that they're not "safe" and when I mention that the DM may not be able to keep them safe, and in fact may do dangerous things, they look at me like I'm crazy.

Terry

 

[Qnape]

The whole Dive Guide thing is a red herring. That is not a phrase that was has been in common use. It is, I believe, just another example of PADI-speak aimed at ex post facto reduction of liability. Virtually all people working as DMs or so called DGs are, in point of fact, Certified Instructors; holding them to a lower standard on some occasions is kind of like holding a physician to a first responder standard just because its not office hours.

Thank you - that makes perfect sense to me. I had never heard the term before reading it here. If anything, I guess some might feel use of the term in place of DM might increase diver self-reliance / reduce dependancy on DM's for safety. And, of course, help reduce liability for operators by reducing the expectations of both divers in the field and jurors in a court of law.

 

[mikemath]

To take the issue of safety out of it for a moment, consider a tour of Machu Piccu in Peru. I would pay more for a tour conducted by an "archaealogist" than for one conducted by a "guide". Why should be obvious - you are paying for a display of the experience, knowledge and insights that can be provided by a trained professional, not the memorized recitations of a guide. If a tour company duped me in this regard, I would trash them at every opportunity.

The question at hand is about the role of a DiveMaster, not the skill level. There is no indication that the DM in question was not certified--in fact, it was likely that they were a full Open Water Instructor, as is common on boat DiveMasters. It is almost certain that this person was experienced and had training in safety procedures. Having such a person along on a dive and tasked with safety and general dive planning increases safety, but it does not mean that everyone is equally safe. Those who deviate from the plan (dive deeper than planned) or leave the area visible to an in-water DiveMaster are electing to be less safe than those who do not. The assumption of that risk is borne by the individual diver. Many divers will elect to assume that risk to be more independent or to have more flexibility in their dive plan.

To extend your allegory, suppose your archaeologist/guide was conducting a tour, pointing out things with the group he was guiding and helping to ensure they didn't damage the ruins or hurt themselves. If someone in the group wanders off on their own, unknown to the guide, and tripped off one of the cliff faces, would you hold the archaeologist responsible for not monitoring every person in the group? If that same archaeologist was overlooking the site from a vantage point and saw someone getting dangerously close to an edge, he could have yelled to warn the individual, but could not have pulled him away from the edge. Both situations involved an equally knowledgeable guide, but each made a judgment about their vantage point and role in the group. Neither could be reasonably expected to provide complete safety to everyone in the group. There's a similar tradeoff between direct in-water supervision (ability to directly assist, but limited perspective on those who elect to go out of range) and surface/boat supervision (less ability to directly assist, but greater perspective).

If a DiveMaster gives an appropriate dive briefing including their role on the dive, acts in a way that is appropriately conservative during the dive, and renders emergency assistance to the best of their ability should the need arise, I believe they completely fill their role as an DiveMaster. They cannot be everywhere at once, and should not be expected to assume all risk and safety responsibility for all divers. If a DiveMaster pushes a student beyond their capabilities with full knowledge, they assume liability for that irresponsible decision. If a DiveMaster is aware of a potential or actual emergency and either does not address it or fails to act properly, they again assume liability for their inaction or ineffective action. But they should not be expected to be aware of every emergency. A dive area can be large, visibility can be limited, and the human field of vision is only 60 degrees, usually less with a mask.

 

[Web Monkey]

To extend your allegory, suppose your archaeologist/guide was conducting a tour, pointing out things with the group he was guiding and helping to ensure they didn't damage the ruins or hurt themselves. If someone in the group wanders off on their own, unknown to the guide, and tripped off one of the cliff faces, would you hold the archaeologist responsible for not monitoring every person in the group?

If the tourists had said they had only learned mountain climbing last week and the guide said "Don't worry, follow me" and took them up the steep face of El Capitan, where someone fell and died, I'd certainly hold him responsible.

Terry

 

[mikemath]

If the tourists had said they had only learned mountain climbing last week and the guide said "Don't worry, follow me" and took them up the steep face of El Capitan, where someone fell and died, I'd certainly hold him responsible.

Terry

I agree with that. As I said:

If a DiveMaster pushes a student beyond their capabilities with full knowledge, they assume liability for that irresponsible decision.

 

[Thalassamania]

... they should not be expected to be aware of every emergency. A dive area can be large, visibility can be limited, and the human field of vision is only 60 degrees, usually less with a mask.

I think that they should be expected to aware of what is going on, it can mean needing to have your head on a swivel at times ... but that's the job.

 

[pilot fish]

It's a made up term, which, ex psot facto, is designed to shield them from liablity. It will not stand up in court if that DG was misrepresented as DM. Another reason they are using DG's as Dm's is because some people will not dive with a shop that only provides a DG. Recreational divers like us, who are not in the water that often , feel safer with a DM

And you're right, it IS fraud!

Thank you - that makes perfect sense to me. I had never heard the term before reading it here. If anything, I guess some might feel use of the term in place of DM might increase diver self-reliance / reduce dependancy on DM's for safety. And, of course, help reduce liability for operators by reducing the expectations of both divers in the field and jurors in a court of law.

 

[pilot fish]

Your example falls on the question of, what is his job on that tour? Just showing cool stuff. A DM has a very different function. When you have a DM leading a dive it is to a higher safety standard that a DG. Putting a DG in charge of a dive but calling him a DM is fraud, that is meant to mislead divers.

The question at hand is about the role of a DiveMaster, not the skill level. There is no indication that the DM in question was not certified--in fact, it was likely that they were a full Open Water Instructor, as is common on boat DiveMasters. It is almost certain that this person was experienced and had training in safety procedures. Having such a person along on a dive and tasked with safety and general dive planning increases safety, but it does not mean that everyone is equally safe. Those who deviate from the plan (dive deeper than planned) or leave the area visible to an in-water DiveMaster are electing to be less safe than those who do not. The assumption of that risk is borne by the individual diver. Many divers will elect to assume that risk to be more independent or to have more flexibility in their dive plan.

To extend your allegory, suppose your archaeologist/guide was conducting a tour, pointing out things with the group he was guiding and helping to ensure they didn't damage the ruins or hurt themselves. If someone in the group wanders off on their own, unknown to the guide, and tripped off one of the cliff faces, would you hold the archaeologist responsible for not monitoring every person in the group? If that same archaeologist was overlooking the site from a vantage point and saw someone getting dangerously close to an edge, he could have yelled to warn the individual, but could not have pulled him away from the edge. Both situations involved an equally knowledgeable guide, but each made a judgment about their vantage point and role in the group. Neither could be reasonably expected to provide complete safety to everyone in the group. There's a similar tradeoff between direct in-water supervision (ability to directly assist, but limited perspective on those who elect to go out of range) and surface/boat supervision (less ability to directly assist, but greater perspective).

If a DiveMaster gives an appropriate dive briefing including their role on the dive, acts in a way that is appropriately conservative during the dive, and renders emergency assistance to the best of their ability should the need arise, I believe they completely fill their role as an DiveMaster. They cannot be everywhere at once, and should not be expected to assume all risk and safety responsibility for all divers. If a DiveMaster pushes a student beyond their capabilities with full knowledge, they assume liability for that irresponsible decision. If a DiveMaster is aware of a potential or actual emergency and either does not address it or fails to act properly, they again assume liability for their inaction or ineffective action. But they should not be expected to be aware of every emergency. A dive area can be large, visibility can be limited, and the human field of vision is only 60 degrees, usually less with a mask.

 

[TMHeimer]

Compare to a teacher taking high school kids on a trip. They are given free time after checking into the hotel, with a usual in room (on boat) curfew and other limits like don't drink (or, don't dive too deep). One (some) of them get wasted at a nearby bar. If they return safely without the teacher's knowledge, the teacher is not responsible (the teacher can't follow each group of kids around town--the alternative is just to keep them all safely in their rooms (on the boat). If the teacher finds out and follows the correct procedure, such as punishment, alerting parents & Principal), the teacher is covered. If not, the teacher (DM) is in deep doo-doo.

 

[pilot fish]

That is not the normal course of what a teacher is responsible for, nor trained for. Not job description for a high school teacher. The DM is trained to keep all divers together, advise agaist going to 100 ft, or 200 ft, and be trained in rescue, if the need should arise. Teacher teaches. Apples and grapes.

Compare to a teacher taking high school kids on a trip. They are given free time after checking into the hotel, with a usual in room (on boat) curfew and other limits like don't drink (or, don't dive too deep). One (some) of them get wasted at a nearby bar. If they return safely without the teacher's knowledge, the teacher is not responsible (the teacher can't follow each group of kids around town--the alternative is just to keep them all safely in their rooms (on the boat). If the teacher finds out and follows the correct procedure, such as punishment, alerting parents & Principal), the teacher is covered. If not, the teacher (DM) is in deep doo-doo.