divers terms

[HammerNoMore]

That's to start.

 

[Ishie]

No, I know.

I'm not too far removed from it, but I'm recalling my first twenty dives did not have me near a status I would consider dive master, nor did my AOW class, which I took around fifty dives (screwed up nav once because I was chasing a sea lion, let too much air out of the lift bag doing search and recovery, causing dive buddy to nearly stroke out trying to get it to the surface). Finally getting that pesky buoyancy under control though.

I'm waiting a while for dive master, I think... though all my dives are logged, including a couple I aborted and a couple ab dives, because they're learning experiences that improve my overall diving.

 

[DiveGolfSki]

...Also, you need to know that in the case of a diving/maritime accident or lawsuit, the logbooks of any divers in the area of the incident are subpoena-able documents. Having lied in your description could cause a miscarriage of justice. Altering logs after they are subpoenad is a crime - for which Martha Stewart got to make some new friends at Camp Cupcake recently (she altered her phone logs after they had been subpoenad).

Whoa, slow down a bit. Are you a lawyer? Martha was under investigation for securities fraud (and a host of other charges), a very serious criminal charge. She was found quilty of lying to government (hmmm, how did Bill Clinton get away with that one?). Altering subpoenaed evidence is a crime (perjury perhaps?).

Logbooks are subpoenable documents BUT anything is subpoenable (diver logs, captain's logs, etc.) in a civil lawsuit (or a criminal one). In any "diving/maritime accident or lawsuit", courts will look at merits of a case such as how a dive operator evaluates a diver. The presentation of his C-Card, signing the waiver of responsibility (may not stand up in court if your relatives sue) and, in your example, the presentation of log books (a more onerous burden of proof placed on a diver) in determining fault. Unfortunately, we live in a very litigious society and it's only a matter of time when the dive industry becomes inundated with protective measures against lawsuits (have you ever read the warning labels on a ladder?).

However, I don't believe log books are ever considered irrefutable proof since they're accuracy can easily be challenged. Maybe, someone out there who is a lawyer and has researched some cases can shed some light on this.

This is getting too serious. I think you've made your point that dive logs are a valuable tool in providing some evidence of your skills and a good historical record (e.g., air consumption, weight requirements ... hmm, I seem to need more weights now.... etc.) but let's not give them more weight from a legal perspective ... I'd hate to see diving become as requlated as flying (see FAA's Sec. 61.51 - Pilot logbooks). Do you?