PADI Police in force

[AfterDark]

I hooked up with someone unknown to me for a dive. Turned out he is a PADI DM. He told me because he is a PADI pro or some such thing he couldn't take me on dives below 70fsw. I'm OW with 1900+ dives since 1968. I just shrugged my shoulders and told him "you do what you want". He told me several times he undoubtedly knew I was capable and skilled but if something happen beyond our control he might lose his DM status for bending the rules.
So I go without him on dives below 70fsw and we dive together above 70fsw. I almost haven't got the patience for this anymore.

 

[on_two_wheels]

I think we would need more info to accurately say what may or may not have been the appropriate response. If this was, in fact, a coastal dive with a MAX depth of 80 fsw but shallower depths available, that's one thing. If, as TSandM asked, it was a wreck dive and nothing else below (e.g. the yukon) then I would totally support not diving it. However, to demand the boat find another dive site for one person sucks if the other 20 want to do that dive.

 

[RJP]

I hooked up with someone unknown to me for a dive. Turned out he is an [-]PADI DM[/-] idiot. He told me because he is a PADI pro or some such thing he couldn't take me on dives below 70fsw.

Typo fixed...

 

[merxlin]

I hooked up with someone unknown to me for a dive. Turned out he is a PADI DM. He told me because he is a PADI pro or some such thing he couldn't take me on dives below 70fsw. I'm OW with 1900+ dives since 1968. I just shrugged my shoulders and told him "you do what you want". He told me several times he undoubtedly knew I was capable and skilled but if something happen beyond our control he might lose his DM status for bending the rules.
So I go without him on dives below 70fsw and we dive together above 70fsw. I almost haven't got the patience for this anymore.

But here is the difference:

He told me because he is a PADI pro or some such thing he couldn't take me on dives below 70fsw

- If he is "taking you on a dive" he is assuming some liability, and when the flotsam hits the fan, he could be seen as being negligent. Look at all the lawsuits where people are suing DM's because they were in the water at the same time and had something happen.

In the OP's case, the DM was not leading the dive (at least as far as I can tell) and most CA dive boats make you responsible for your own profile. These are two separate sets of circumstances.

 

[RJP]

In the OP's case, the DM was not leading the dive (at least as far as I can tell) and most CA dive boats make you responsible for your own profile. These are two separate sets of circumstances.

I read/assumed that the DM was somehow affiliated with the boat, and while not specifically acting as a guide/leading the buddy pair in question was somehow responsible/involved in selecting the site and/or otherwise involved in the running of the charter.

 

[boulderjohn]

. Look at all the lawsuits where people are suing DM's because they were in the water at the same time and had something happen.

I think you meant to say this:

Look at all the ScubaBoard posts in which people express an unfounded fear of lawsuits where people are suing DM's because they were in the water at the same time and had something happen.

I don't believe there actually are any. I am not sure it has ever happened.

In one thread on this topic a few years ago, some attorneys did searches and found nothing of the sort. The only lawsuits located were against working DMs, and there were very few of those. I only know of one that was successful, and in that case the DM's actions were indefensible.

I am going on memory, so I would stand corrected if someone could give specific examples otherwise.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

I hooked up with someone unknown to me for a dive. Turned out he is a PADI DM. He told me because he is a PADI pro or some such thing he couldn't take me on dives below 70fsw. I'm OW with 1900+ dives since 1968. I just shrugged my shoulders and told him "you do what you want". He told me several times he undoubtedly knew I was capable and skilled but if something happen beyond our control he might lose his DM status for bending the rules.
So I go without him on dives below 70fsw and we dive together above 70fsw. I almost haven't got the patience for this anymore.

Another reason for me to dive with my students and other SEI OW divers. They are technically certed to 100 ft. As long as they have the experience and are comfortable with it in my estimation, we can go to 100 ft and be within standards.

 

[merxlin]

I think you meant to say this:

Look at all the ScubaBoard posts in which people express an unfounded fear of lawsuits where people are suing DM's because they were in the water at the same time and had something happen.

I don't believe there actually are any. I am not sure it has ever happened.

In one thread on this topic a few years ago, some attorneys did searches and found nothing of the sort. The only lawsuits located were against working DMs, and there were very few of those. I only know of one that was successful, and in that case the DM's actions were indefensible.

I am going on memory, so I would stand corrected if someone could give specific examples otherwise.

What, so anecdotal evidence is no longer proof?

You are probably right John. I'll do some searching and see what I can find. I wonder if any of the certifying agencies keep a statistic like that, and if they release that information? I also wonder how many settlements are reached (if any) without going through the court system?

I will admit I am influenced by a recent incident in the Galapagos where the DM is being blamed in the press (not officially) for a death because he didn't prevent a diver from going in the water when she had been sick the previous day.

 

[boulderjohn]

What, so anecdotal evidence is no longer proof?

You are probably right John. I'll do some searching and see what I can find. I wonder if any of the certifying agencies keep a statistic like that, and if they release that information? I also wonder how many settlements are reached (if any) without going through the court system?

I will admit I am influenced by a recent incident in the Galapagos where the DM is being blamed in the press (not officially) for a death because he didn't prevent a diver from going in the water when she had been sick the previous day.

My understanding from countless threads on this is that a DM in the diving independently in the vicinity has no obligation to do anything and is no more liable for actions than anyone else would be. If the DM assumes an official role such that the party is counting on his or her expertise, it is another matter altogether. (It can be an informal agreement between two people, not necessarily employment by an operator.)

 

[Gombessa]

Correct. It's a RECOMMENDATION ONLY, not a hard and fast rule. This DM is way off base to say it's a rule.

For dive ops who make it a policy to require AOW for deeper dives, it is very convenient to head off arguments by falsely (or ignorantly) claiming that diving to a depth >60ft is an OW certification violation.

On speaking with PADI's training council, it's absolutely correct that this is only a "recommendation for new divers," and PADI is VERY reluctant to try to quantify exactly what constitutes a new diver, ultimately falling back to "not diving beyond your training or experience."