which diver are you ?

"Ross Garrett" wrote

> Heck Lee...you know that's true :^) What we paid for was scant
> physiological
> knowledge, scant experience with the mechanics of equipment and scant
> experience in the water. That's hardly a measure of competence. But I
> wasn't
> promised anything more than that.

Yes, I know it's true, but I also know that it's not supposed to be.
Certification is supposed to mean you are competent to dive unsupervised.
While it doesn't mean that you're competent to do any dive, it does mean you
are competent to know the difference between one you can do and one you
shouldn't.

> I think my cert course in 1973 was more involved than what they ask of new
> divers today, but it still was more a distribution of knowledge to use
> when
> I became competent rather than a course that only allowed me to "graduate"
> when I **was** competent.

I'm positive my 1969 NAUI course included more information and more
experience, including buddy breathing, harassment drills and decompression
computation. On the other hand, there were only three courses offered at
the time, snorkel, scuba and instructor.

> All they have contracted for is to give you a start based upon their
> own selected criteria. What you make of that is the province of each
> individual diver.

I don't agree. If you're a certified driver, you are tested and certified
for competance. If you are a certified captain, you are tested and
certified for competence. If you are a certified pilot, you are tested and
certified for competence. If you are a certified diver, you are tested and
should be certified for competence. We, the diving industry's customers,
should settle for nothing less.

> I don't think an agency or a dive shop can ensure that every single diver
> carrying a c-card is competent.

I do. If they're not, they should not be issued a card.

>For instance: I might have been extremely competent 20 years ago, but now
>have become careless, allowed my
>physical condition to deteriorate and not kept up with new knowledge about
>diving and equipment.

But you're still competent. Competence and care are not the same thing.
You can be competent and careless. You can die that way as well. You don't
need to keep up with the most current equipment. If you're competent with
the equipment you have, you're no less competent because the next guy has
something better. Physical condition is not something I include in
cometence, even though it is clearly related.

> I just believe that the card means very little, that a logbook means even
> less, and that agencies don't turn out competent divers, or promise to or
> even attempt to, but rather divers who are somewhat equipped with enough
> knowledge to become competent.

Then they should be confronted with their failure. I have to say, my
primary gripe in all of this is that the shop that claims a card is not
adequate evidence of my ability to dive is, frequently, closely affiliated
with the same agency that issued the card in the first place. Often, they
issue them themselves. Their lack of confidence in the quality of the
education they provide speaks clearly to their lack of competence.

> The truth is that someone competent in a Alexander Spring may be
> completely
> incompetent in the currents of Raja, or the depths of Punta Vincente Roca.

That's quite true and, in this instance, I suppose we agree. On the other
hand, I've always felt that one of the biggest holes in the training of new
divers is the ability to assess risk. Somebody trained to assess risk would
know that there are difference in diving in confined water versus waters
exposed to current, would consider how to deal with it and, hopefully, would
either figure it out or get help in learning before exposing themselves to
extreme current conditions.

Lee

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ZdXAe.9092$aY6.4473@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> "Ross Garrett" wrote

>> I don't think an agency or a dive shop can ensure that every single diver
>> carrying a c-card is competent.
>
> I do. If they're not, they should not be issued a card.

For an agency to stand behind their cards, as if they truly represent
accomplishment in scuba proficiency and knowledge, to the point where a shop
or other operator could look at a card and ensure to themselves that the
person was competent, they would have to:

1) have expiration dates on cards
and
2) test divers annually before renewing the card for another year.

To me it's a can of worms better left alone, despite the fact that it
becomes a problem or hassle for divers who are competent and do increase
their level of proficiency, yet still get caught in the greater net needed
to monitor those who do not (I'm talking specifically about checkout dives).

>>For instance: I might have been extremely competent 20 years ago, but now
>>have become careless, allowed my
>>physical condition to deteriorate and not kept up with new knowledge about
>>diving and equipment.
>
> But you're still competent. Competence and care are not the same thing.

Competence in this context is having the necessary ability, knowledge,
qualities or presence of mind to have the capacity to perform in a
given manner. And you can lose that. And I would suggest anyone who
disregards new information or allows themselves to become less than fit is
in some degree incompetent in terms of scuba proficiency.

Example: When I, and you, were a new diver, no one knew hydration was an
important safety measure for scuba divers. If I don't pay heed to that kind
of developing knowledge I am indeed, in degree, incompetent.

I would also suggest that anyone who was carded in 1988 and hasn't dived
since, or has only dived infrequently since, is *probably* incompetent as a
scuba diver, and that result is not the fault of the certifying agency.

>> I just believe that the card means very little, that a logbook means even
>> less, and that agencies don't turn out competent divers, or promise to or
>> even attempt to, but rather divers who are somewhat equipped with enough
>> knowledge to become competent.
>
> Then they should be confronted with their failure.

It's not a failure if their purpose is to impart knowledge and familiarity,
rather than develop safe divers. And that is what I believe their purpose
is, and what their course/testing judges.

I actually took a pretty good YMCA course, but all it did was give me the
initial knowledge and familiarity to go out and try to develop into a good
diver without killing myself the first two or three times in the water.

> I have to say, my primary gripe in all of this is that the shop that
> claims a card is not adequate evidence of my ability to dive is,
> frequently, closely affiliated with the same agency that issued the card
> in the first place. Often, they issue them themselves. .

Clearly true. And this is representative of the fact that agencies are not
in the business of developing safe scuba divers, but only in the business of
imparting some small measure of knowledge about scuba diving to the student
so they can go out and learn to be competent without falling prey to the
most obvious dangers....DCS, embolism, drowning, etc.

That is all a card says about any one of us. We listened in class, read a
book, watched a video, took a test, played in a pool with scuba gear and
dropped into some mundane surf, lake or quarry and cleared our mask. And it
was deemed by the instructor that we did so in a way that measured up to the
criteria set by the agency they represent.

I think the difference that you and I have is that I don't believe the
purpose of the certification process is to develop competent scuba divers,
and it seems to me that you believe it is, or should be.

I wouldn't argue that your way would be great, but I find significant
problems with implementing and monitoring such a program.

Lee Bell wrote:
> Reef Fish wrote:
>
> > ? But you're dealing with Mr. Ding-Dong, the chief Head-in-the-sand
> > ? (well, actually some dark orifice that's not sandy) resident of
> > ? rec.scuba who specializes in ARGUING with whatever topic you care
> > ? to name -- ESPECIALLY when he has no knowledge or experience about
> > ? them, such as dive computers, dive physics, dive physiology, etc.
>
> And yet, unlike Bob, I keep getting the answers right. Imagine that.

That IS hard to imagine. Was that why out of the DOZENS and DOZENS
of DIVING topics, from diving physics, dive computers, buoyancy
control, diving physiology, dive locations, and EVERY topic Lee
had ever chosen to tangle with me, he was ALWAYS wrong -- not a
single exception!

That's why Lee had to dig REALLY DEEP in his hole to come up with
the EPIRB topic which he thought he was right (Lee also has a
very bad (and selective) memory, and he is always quick-on-the-
draw in sticking foot in his mouth):

>
> I wonder if Bob has figured out what an EPIRB is yet.

I happened to have MY post from February 20, 2001, in which
Ding-Dong's MISTAKEN assertion about EPIRB was corrected by me:

Lee>Just so you might know a little more in the future, ACR makes
Lee>406 megahertz EPIRBs, which also broadcast on a homing frequency
Lee>of 121.5 megahertz. Prices vary a bit, but are generally close
Lee>to $1,000 U.S. per unit.

RF> WRONG! That's because you know only about two models neither of
RF> which is likely to be the one used by the Aggressor to be given
RF> to each DIVER.

On February 23, 2001 Lee was STILL in the fog about what EPIRB was
going to be used by the Aggressor on the Tahiti Aggressor.

Lee> The Mini 300 appears to be the unit the Aggressor Fleet has.


Meanwhile, I had PHONED and talked to Wayne Hasson, CEO of the
Aggressor Fleet (and he knew me well since we first met and dived
together on the Cayman Aggressor in 1990) and asked Wayne what
EPIRB was going to be used, what other boats it might be used
after its introduction on the Tahiti Aggressor, etc.

When in doubt about ANYTHING pertaining to the Aggressor Fleet,
I always asked Wayne about it (and learn from the horse's mouth
so to speak). The Aggressor's EPIRB was no exception, especially
because Lee generated so much heat about it in Lee's arguments
based on Lee's misinformation!


All of this was POSTED on the Scuba-SE discussion LIST, where
Lee has been known for quite a while now as DING-DONG, a name
bestowed on him by the most knowledgeable diver and GENTLEMAN
on that LIST, and said diver was siding with me against Lee
on every step of the EPIRB discussion when all of us were
seeking information to determine what EPIRB was going to be
used by the Aggressor.


Lee, in his characteristic self, after having ERRED and flamed
others when he was the one who erred, and after *I* found the
correct answer from Wayne Hasson, who happened to be LIVING
in Ft. Lauderdale at the time, and so was the supplier of the
EPIRB units that were going to be used, Lee wasted NO TIME at
all to palm himself off as the knowledgeable person, by posting
the UPDATED/CORRECT fact

on March 18, 2001 to uk.rec.scuba:

>ACR, a company located in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, U.S.A.
>currently makes a 121.5 MHz EPIRB certified to 200 fsw that
>sells for $200 U.S. It and a directional locater unit are
>already in use by the Aggressor fleet.

Less than a month before March 18, 2001, Lee was claiming:

Lee (2/20/01)> 406 megahertz EPIRBs, costing $1,000

Lee (2/23/01)> The Mini 300 appears to be the unit the
Aggressor Fleet has.


Lee (7/12/05)> I wonder if Bob has figured out what an EPIRB is yet.

Why should Bob be able to figure out what an EPIRB is, if he
only talked to Wayne Hasson (the person who chose the EPIRB to
use on the Aggressors) shortly after February 20, 2001, when
Lee Bell didn't even KNOW the existence of mini-EPIRBS.

Why should Bob know anything about what EPIRB is used by the
Aggressor Fleet? He only DIVED with the EPIRB on the Tahiti
Aggressor in 2002, the year the Tahiti Aggressor started its
operation diving the Tuamotu group of French Polynesian islands.

-- Bob.

Mr Reefe''''''re

If an HP blows you will run out of air a lot faster than a LP hose.

If you have enough air, you should be able to do a normal ascent
operating normally. But this is where the "buddy system" becomes
handy. If you believe in that system. Otherwise get a Spare Air.
Otherwise, then you could easily do a normal ascent with someone
else's octopus.

I had a "buddy" blow a HP hose on a night dive in Bonaire. He paniced
and did a fast ascent. He later admitted he always had air on his
second stage.

A tank with enough air...I think 1000 psi will give you the chance to
do a normal ascent if you do not "panic".

I bet the reefer will panic and will get DCS, but that will be less
embarassing that his brown stain inside his wetsuit.





On 7 Jul 2005 18:42:54 -0700, "Reef Fish"
<Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>Dan Bracuk wrote:
>> Joe <Joe> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in:
>> :Besides if a hose is going to blow, this is the dive to have it
>> :happen.
>>
>> How would your hose know it was a checkout dive?
>
>Joe probably meant he wouldn't know what to do if a hose broke
>during a dive.
>
>Does Joe know what to do if a HP hose broke? If a LP hose
>broke? Does he know the difference between a HP and LP hose?
>
>-- Bob.

Joe wrote:
> Mr Reefe''''''re
>
> If an HP blows you will run out of air a lot faster than a LP hose.

LOL! I was right when I wrote,

RF> Does Joe know what to do if a HP hose broke? If a LP hose
RF> broke? Does he know the difference between a HP and LP hose?

Yup Joe. The scuba baby sitter R 4 U!

The correct answer is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you said.
The HP hose has a much smaller bore and it takes almost 20
minutes to exhaust a tank if it broke. That's why when my
depth gauge blew out of my console on my Tobago liveaboard
trip, I had plenty of time to descend to the bottom to fetch
the blown out gauge before returning to the boat.

If your LP hose broke, you had better hurry and get to the
surface!

>
> If you have enough air, you should be able to do a normal ascent
> operating normally. But this is where the "buddy system" becomes
> handy. If you believe in that system. Otherwise get a Spare Air.

ROFLMAO!! Bad enough to need a buddy as a crutch. Spare DEATH?


> Otherwise, then you could easily do a normal ascent with someone
> else's octopus.

Joe, this is no time to teach you how to scuba, or to anticipate
problems and have ready-solutions if and when something goes wrong.

It's all part of the education of a SELF-RELIANT diver, sometimes
called a Solo Diver. If you HAVE to rely on your buddy, then
you may be a liability to both.

>
> I had a "buddy" blow a HP hose on a night dive in Bonaire. He paniced
> and did a fast ascent. He later admitted he always had air on his
> second stage.

Your buddy was as ignorant as you were about the HP hose, wasn't it?
Such a buddy team is what contributes to many double-fatalities
in the annals of scuba fatalities, or mismanagement of accidents.

>
> A tank with enough air...I think 1000 psi will give you the chance to
> do a normal ascent if you do not "panic".

Good for you. With which hose broken?

>
> I bet the reefer will panic and will get DCS, but that will be less
> embarassing that his brown stain inside his wetsuit.

Joe, you are FUNNY!

I guess you never read my post in which I described one of the
many skills that were NOT taught by any scuba agencies:

RF> I can think of
RF>only ONE occasion of having to a similar "advanced" skill, when
nature
RF>called for a sudden "number 2" during a dive in Cozumel, from a
6-pak
RF>boat without a head. I had NO prior practice in THAT lycra-suit
RF>stripping in current "skill", so I did the more elementary version
of
RF>the free-floating manoeuvre on the ocean bottom, hidden behind a
coral
RF>head (no pun intended here), downcurrent from the group ...
RF>Still a much more challenging manoeuvre than the free-floating doff-

RF>and-don of a BC, which is a piece of cake.

-- Bob.

>
> On 7 Jul 2005 18:42:54 -0700, "Reef Fish"
> <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Dan Bracuk wrote:
> >> Joe <Joe> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in:
> >> :Besides if a hose is going to blow, this is the dive to have it
> >> :happen.
> >>
> >> How would your hose know it was a checkout dive?
> >
> >Joe probably meant he wouldn't know what to do if a hose broke
> >during a dive.
> >
> >Does Joe know what to do if a HP hose broke? If a LP hose
> >broke? Does he know the difference between a HP and LP hose?
> >
> >-- Bob.

Alan Street wrote:
> In article <i31ed1l97vbbcd0g952t62cq309hlma6ij@4ax.com>, Joe wrote:
>
> € Mr Reefe''''''re
> €
> € If an HP blows you will run out of air a lot faster than a LP hose.
> €
>
>
> Bzzt.
>
> Wrong answer.
>
> € A tank with enough air...I think 1000 psi will give you the chance to
> € do a normal ascent if you do not "panic".
> €
> € I bet the reefer will panic and will get DCS, but that will be less
> € embarassing that his brown stain inside his wetsuit.
> €
> €
>
> Feesh is a lot of things, but an inexperienced diver isn't one of them.
> He might bore you to death during the surface interval, but I'd much
> rather have him as a buddy underwater than you.


Alan, I'll take that as a compliment even though I can't imagine
any diver who could possibly make a WORSE buddy than Joe.


OTOH, I must disappoint you, Alan, that you'll too narked to be
my buddy on my regular dives to 200 fsw, even if I consented to be
your baby sitter.

-- Bob.

In article <1121446770.502766.54340@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>, Reef
Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:

€ Alan Street wrote:
€ > In article <i31ed1l97vbbcd0g952t62cq309hlma6ij@4ax.com>, Joe wrote:
€ >
€ > € Mr Reefe''''''re
€ > €
€ > € If an HP blows you will run out of air a lot faster than a LP hose.
€ > €
€ >
€ >
€ > Bzzt.
€ >
€ > Wrong answer.
€ >
€ > € A tank with enough air...I think 1000 psi will give you the chance to
€ > € do a normal ascent if you do not "panic".
€ > €
€ > € I bet the reefer will panic and will get DCS, but that will be less
€ > € embarassing that his brown stain inside his wetsuit.
€ > €
€ > €
€ >
€ > Feesh is a lot of things, but an inexperienced diver isn't one of them.
€ > He might bore you to death during the surface interval, but I'd much
€ > rather have him as a buddy underwater than you.
€
€
€ Alan, I'll take that as a compliment even though I can't imagine
€ any diver who could possibly make a WORSE buddy than Joe.
€

It is a compliment. I (sometimes grudgingly) give credit where credit
is due. As for Joe, what's scary is that he isn't an individual, but a
population.


€
€ OTOH, I must disappoint you, Alan, that you'll too narked to be
€ my buddy on my regular dives to 200 fsw, even if I consented to be
€ your baby sitter.
€

I don't need a baby sitter, but I do like comprehensive back-up systems
(I work in a branch of Reliability, after all .

As for being narced, are you saying one can safely learn to drive drunk?

€ -- Bob.
€

Alan Street wrote:
> In article <1121446770.502766.54340@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>, Reef
> Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> € Alan Street wrote:
> € > In article <i31ed1l97vbbcd0g952t62cq309hlma6ij@4ax.com>, Joe wrote:
> € >
> € > € Mr Reefe''''''re
> € > €
> € > € If an HP blows you will run out of air a lot faster than a LP hose.
> € > €
> € >
> € >
> € > Bzzt.
> € >
> € > Wrong answer.
> € >
> € > € A tank with enough air...I think 1000 psi will give you the chance to
> € > € do a normal ascent if you do not "panic".
> € > €
> € > € I bet the reefer will panic and will get DCS, but that will be less
> € > € embarassing that his brown stain inside his wetsuit.
> € > €
> € > €
> € >
> € > Feesh is a lot of things, but an inexperienced diver isn't one of them.
> € > He might bore you to death during the surface interval, but I'd much
> € > rather have him as a buddy underwater than you.
> €
> €
> € Alan, I'll take that as a compliment even though I can't imagine
> € any diver who could possibly make a WORSE buddy than Joe.
> €
>
> It is a compliment. I (sometimes grudgingly) give credit where credit
> is due. As for Joe, what's scary is that he isn't an individual, but a
> population.
>
>
> €
> € OTOH, I must disappoint you, Alan, that you'll too narked to be
> € my buddy on my regular dives to 200 fsw, even if I consented to be
> € your baby sitter.
> €
>
> I don't need a baby sitter, but I do like comprehensive back-up systems
> (I work in a branch of Reliability, after all .
>
> As for being narced, are you saying one can safely learn to drive drunk?

Are you talking to yourself? YOU are the narked (narced if you insist)
one. I've NEVER been in that state diving, NOR driving.

Obviously you Alan had plenty of experience in both. You are so ....
incoherent ... at ALL times. <

-- Bob.

Reefer you never responded how you removed your brown stain from your
wetsuit.

The other "stuff" about your theories about LP and HP behavior is as
full of sh*t as you are.

I would NEVER get any advice here from any of you Bozo's.

You crazy this newsgroup is for entertainment purposes only. No useful
information here about Scuba.

You are wrong in both instances because you have never seen a hose
blow up underwater...it was obvious from you ignorant responses.

Have a nice dive,


Please do us a favor, Keep going deep diving.









On 14 Jul 2005 19:04:45 -0700, "Reef Fish"
<Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>Joe wrote:
>> Mr Reefe''''''re
>>
>> If an HP blows you will run out of air a lot faster than a LP hose.
>
>LOL! I was right when I wrote,
>
>RF> Does Joe know what to do if a HP hose broke? If a LP hose
>RF> broke? Does he know the difference between a HP and LP hose?
>
>Yup Joe. The scuba baby sitter R 4 U!
>
>The correct answer is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you said.
>The HP hose has a much smaller bore and it takes almost 20
>minutes to exhaust a tank if it broke. That's why when my
>depth gauge blew out of my console on my Tobago liveaboard
>trip, I had plenty of time to descend to the bottom to fetch
>the blown out gauge before returning to the boat.
>
>If your LP hose broke, you had better hurry and get to the
>surface!
>
>>
>> If you have enough air, you should be able to do a normal ascent
>> operating normally. But this is where the "buddy system" becomes
>> handy. If you believe in that system. Otherwise get a Spare Air.
>
>ROFLMAO!! Bad enough to need a buddy as a crutch. Spare DEATH?
>
>
>> Otherwise, then you could easily do a normal ascent with someone
>> else's octopus.
>
>Joe, this is no time to teach you how to scuba, or to anticipate
>problems and have ready-solutions if and when something goes wrong.
>
>It's all part of the education of a SELF-RELIANT diver, sometimes
>called a Solo Diver. If you HAVE to rely on your buddy, then
>you may be a liability to both.
>
>>
>> I had a "buddy" blow a HP hose on a night dive in Bonaire. He paniced
>> and did a fast ascent. He later admitted he always had air on his
>> second stage.
>
>Your buddy was as ignorant as you were about the HP hose, wasn't it?
>Such a buddy team is what contributes to many double-fatalities
>in the annals of scuba fatalities, or mismanagement of accidents.
>
>>
>> A tank with enough air...I think 1000 psi will give you the chance to
>> do a normal ascent if you do not "panic".
>
>Good for you. With which hose broken?
>
>>
>> I bet the reefer will panic and will get DCS, but that will be less
>> embarassing that his brown stain inside his wetsuit.
>
>Joe, you are FUNNY!
>
>I guess you never read my post in which I described one of the
>many skills that were NOT taught by any scuba agencies:
>
>RF> I can think of
>RF>only ONE occasion of having to a similar "advanced" skill, when
>nature
>RF>called for a sudden "number 2" during a dive in Cozumel, from a
>6-pak
>RF>boat without a head. I had NO prior practice in THAT lycra-suit
>RF>stripping in current "skill", so I did the more elementary version
>of
>RF>the free-floating manoeuvre on the ocean bottom, hidden behind a
>coral
>RF>head (no pun intended here), downcurrent from the group ...
>RF>Still a much more challenging manoeuvre than the free-floating doff-
>
>RF>and-don of a BC, which is a piece of cake.
>
>-- Bob.
>
>>
>> On 7 Jul 2005 18:42:54 -0700, "Reef Fish"
>> <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Dan Bracuk wrote:
>> >> Joe <Joe> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in:
>> >> :Besides if a hose is going to blow, this is the dive to have it
>> >> :happen.
>> >>
>> >> How would your hose know it was a checkout dive?
>> >
>> >Joe probably meant he wouldn't know what to do if a hose broke
>> >during a dive.
>> >
>> >Does Joe know what to do if a HP hose broke? If a LP hose
>> >broke? Does he know the difference between a HP and LP hose?
>> >
>> >-- Bob.

In article <1121545749.262640.11550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>, Reef
Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:


€ >
€ > I don't need a baby sitter, but I do like comprehensive back-up systems
€ > (I work in a branch of Reliability, after all .
€ >
€ > As for being narced, are you saying one can safely learn to drive drunk?
€
€ Are you talking to yourself? YOU are the narked (narced if you insist)
€ one. I've NEVER been in that state diving, NOR driving.
€

I don't suppose you'd like to try a little experiment some time. If you
ever get the chance, bounce down to 170 on air and hang out for a few
minutes, talking along a buddy who's breathing 21/35. Breathe off his
back-up (or long hose, depending on the religious persuasion of the
buddy) and tell me if you notice a difference. Then go back to air and
note the difference again.

€ Obviously you Alan had plenty of experience in both. You are so ....
€ incoherent ... at ALL times. <
€
€

Nice to have the old Feesh back. I don't think I could stand him being
nice for too long