The solution to DM versus Guide designation is simply- change the name from Dive Master to
Dive Guide. By calling the person a Dive Master, newer divers have a
REASONABLE EXPECTATION that their function goes far beyond just guiding divers on a site. Changing the name to
GUIDE would clear up any confusion in that regard. Of course the reason they keep the name,
Dive Master, is because Dive Ops want to give people that come to the resort to dive a measure of
SECURITY. That is purposely misleading. By putting a person CALLED, and TRAINED, as a Dive Master in the water
with divers, the Dive Op assumes responsibilty that
EXCEEDS that of just being a Dive Guide. Dive Ops don't want to do that because they know that some
NEW divers will not dive with a person that is just a guide, which means the Dive Ops will not fill up boats. Simple, real simply,
change the name.
Another thought, have a sign in sheet at the dive shop, that all divers must sign, that highlights the role of
THEIR ONBOARD DIVE MASTER . You have to sign a liability waiver when you sign up that indicates your assumed risk, so just have the function of DM described. If they don't want to do that, then have a prominent sign on the boat that describes
DM's function. hmmmmmm, why do you think they don't do that?
There can be no doubt that a DM's responsibilities extend beyond those of a mere water-taxi driver. These responsibilities include briefings regarding local conditions, rules & regs, limitations etc... Additionally in the event of an emergency, the DM should have the wherewithal to arrange rescue and emergency services and provide EFR.
However, your statement should also hold true regarding the divers' certifications; there must be some expectation that a certified diver makes sure he/she has a buddy, does buddy checks, adheres to their own comfort and certification limitations, does not run out of air etc... this must be expected/assumed for all certified divers. Who says the guy with 25 or 30 dives is not less competent than the guy with 8 dives? Should the DM watch them too?
To be clear, I agree that it sounds as though this DM may have been negligent in not apparently taking this matter more seriously when the diver went missing, but when a couple are on a boat together and they appear to be hooking up with an experienced diver, it may not have been obvious that the victim was actually supposed to be with the DM? or, Perhaps there were words exchanged on the boat that were interpreted as "I'll go down to 100' then pop up and join my fiancé an our new friend". What exactly were the signals that were used when the query was raised about the buddy?
Another thing that bothers me is this (and remember that I do not know the site); if the victim managed to get to 100m+, and the rest of the group were about 70m above that depth, where would one start looking for the victim? Even if the dive was thumbed at that time, and the victim popped-up 2 minutes later, what could be done for someone that had just done a non-stop ascent (@ a rate of 150'+/min) from 105m without air?
Sadly, the complete truth of this incident, including all these key bits of information might never be known.
Best Regards
Richard