Do not ever say you are a rescue diver

[boulderjohn]

What's wrong with saying so? Please be precise.

The question was the common statement that every dive is a decompression dive. Is that true? The answer is, no, it is not true.

When we use a language, we have to use the language the way it is intended and understood. When Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet, he had Romeo try to stop a fight between Mercutio and Tybalt by saying that their argument was "nice." In those days, "nice" meant "silly." We don't read that play and shout out, "You are wrong, Shakespeare, because 'nice' does not mean "silly!'" We instead accept that as the word "nice" was used by the general population of the time, it meant "silly."

Similarly, as the general diving population uses the term, "decompression dive" is a shortened version of "dive that has required decompression stops." That's what people mean when they use the phrase. For the general population, the word "decompression" in that phrase means "required decompression. stops." That is what is intended, and that is what is understood.

When you say all dives are decompression dives, you are saying instead that "all dives include decompression, but not necessarily decompression stops." That is a different meaning than what others intend and understand. You are misusing the language and confusing meaning.

But the difference is greater than just language. When a dive profile reaches the point that decompression stops are required, it becomes a fundamentally different dive from an NDL dive. If a diver gets to within a few minutes of no decompression limits and begins an ascent, there does not appear to be any limit on the ascent profile, as long as the diver does not linger deep enough long enough to violate the NDLs. It is possible for a diver to spend 80 minutes on the ascent and still go right to the surface at the end, although a safety stop would be a good idea. Once a diver violates NDLs, it is a different story. Ascend too slowly and/or spend any time at an intermediate depth, and the depths and times of any required decompression stops will change.

In summary, when people speak of scuba dives, they use the phrase "decompression dive" to describe a dive with required decompression stops, and in that context, saying that "all dives are decompression dives" is incorrect, because not all dives require decompression stops. Next, there is a fundamental difference between a dive that requires decompression stops and a dive that does not, and lumping all together as if they were the same is simply incorrect and creates confusion.

 

[Wibble]

And the corruption of the word Master?

 

[tursiops]

And the corruption of the word Master?

Use the search function; this has been covered quite well. Master can be an adjective or a certification level, and neither means perfection. The only corruption involved is when people intentionally misuse the word to denigrate someone. Same as the relentless and unfounded insistence that the A in AOW means someone is advanced, rather than the actual meaning that it is someone who has advanced past OW.

 

[boulderjohn]

And the corruption of the word Master?

Are you referring to the fact that many people confuse a specific, standard, educational term with a term used in more general contexts?

The term "master" or "mastery" in education is based on "mastery learning," a concept that has been in education for well over a half century and is most closely associated with Dr. Benjamin Bloom. You can get a description of it here.

The concept was well established long before it was adopted by most agencies in scuba instruction. In traditional education, time is the standard, and performance is the variable. We teach for a specified period of time, measure the performance, and give it a grade. In mastery education, performance is the standard, and time is the variable. We continually monitor the student's performance and continue to instruct for however long it takes to achieve an identified standard of performance for that level of training.

The word mastery has a very specific meaning in that context. As students progress through instruction, they must meet certain benchmarks of performance. When they meet such a benchmark, we say they have mastered that skill to the degree expected at that level of training (the benchmark).

What does that mean? When we see a 12-year old perform a sport exceptionally well, we might say he or she has mastered it at the level expected of a 12-year old. That level of performance would not be considered mastery in 5 years, but at that level of training, that youth has achieved mastery. That is how the term is used in the field of education.

Unfortunately, some ill informed people insist on using the term from a context outside of education, and they insist that the term can only be applied to those who have reached the very highest levels of performance. A top level youth soccer player would be ridiculed for not performing at the level of a world cup champion. Applying that definition to an educational context would indeed constitute corruption of the term, and it would cause confusion because of that misuse of language.

Is that what you meant?

 

[Bob DBF]

And the corruption of the word Master?

Why yes, it should only be used when addressing underage males.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

When I said that I practice the philosophy that no one dies when I'm in the water, I meant it. Here's an example from summer of 2021.


Drowning doesn't look like it is depicted in the movies. Years ago, I took some friends fishing on the little North Fork of the Santiam River in Oregon.

We were fishing some small rapids just above a point where the river narrows and partially goes under a huge rock. As we were fishing, an inner tube floated by with three kids in it. I looked up and the older girl simply said, in a rather low voice, "Help us." We jumped into the river and grabbed her, pulling all three out of the rapids. They got out, and hiked up to the road where they would get their ride home.

We then went downstream, to the pool on the other side of that huge rock. As we neared the pool, we saw a fellow try to drag himself out of the water. We again assisted this man out of the water. He was bruised from head to foot, bleeding from a few cuts on his scalp too. He had worn a lifejacket, and that's why he popped up in that pool after the current dragged him under that rock.

In the video above, this gal was having trouble, and trying to get into a lifejacket in the water. It turned out to be impossible alone, and so I assisted. But realize that her calm demeanor meant nothing, and this is sometimes how a drowning victim looks just prior to going under.

SeaRat

 

[fnog]

Why did the DM let one of his group be overbalast ? Did he not see this before check dive, and foresee he should keep an eye on the guy (in case he could not convince him that he would carry the extra 2kg and give that as needed during dive) ?

 

[SlugLife]

The whole "think of every dive is a solo dive" concept, generally refers to a mindset of not depending or relying on other divers to save you. When difficulties strike, there may be no buddy capable of assisting you. There are many reasons why that may happen; incompetence, inattentive buddies, swam-off, out of reach, lost-visual contact, buddy having their own problems, buddy low-on-air, buddy-panic, ultra-low visibility, buddy-communication problems, etc.

(If none of those things have ever happened to you while diving, you probably have little dive-experience, little buddy-experience, or go by the name "mac".)

Most incidents become accidents, when about 3-things go wrong at once. For example, "(1) person has OOA incident (2) buddy swam off and is unavailable (3) diver panics, forgets CESA or dove too deep for CESA" I've had #1 (equipment failure) and #2 in the previous example. At the time I mostly dove within my safe-CESA depths, but not always. Maybe some people like the adrenaline, but "I'm too old for that sh!t" and soon after was carrying redundant-air on every dive.

If you are able to be self-reliant, or "your-own-best-dive-buddy," who is capable of handling most problems and self-rescue, then your own chances of dying underwater decrease dramatically. Whether you're with a buddy or not. Next, it helps make you that much more able to assist another diver. For example, they're OOA or severely entangled, I could physically hand them a full 19cu of air and a cutting-device-or-two, without dipping into what I need. Much of what you have available for self-rescue could be used to assist another diver.

Then there's the whole issue of the "buddy hazard" which can come in many forms. Even that dude who says on the surface "hey, lets go explore that cave" when neither of you have cave training. Any time two divers are dead on the same dive, there's a good chance one of the divers got the other (and themselves) killed.

When you start looking at cave-diving and a few other subsets of scuba, you might notice a couple areas of scuba which have highly-disciplined buddy-dive training, and all of that is a really good thing. Two highly-disciplined buddies is an amazing thing, but the #1 thing you don't want happening is one diver trying to figure out how to self-rescue while rescuing their buddy.

 

[Bob DBF]

The whole "think of every dive is a solo dive" concept, generally refers to a mindset of not depending or relying on other divers to save you.

The issue I have with every dive being solo, is that a solo diver has no responsibility to a buddy, which is at odds with buddy diving. It might be better put as a self reliant mindset which would include buddy diving, and actually how I was taught to buddy dive decades ago before all these fancy words were used.

 

[BlueTrin]

I think if you worded it: you should prepare every dive like if you could dive it solo

It would be more palatable, but then in a basic, no deco stop, buddy diving scenario you just abort in case of separation, so it’s still different?