Do you consider yourself an 'Advanced' diver?

[Dave Zimmerly]

The more I dive, the more I realize what I didn't know before.

At 70 dives since 2002, I still have much to learn, the greatest being humility on the knowledge I gain of being a better diver.

Dave (aka "Squirt")

 

[MSilvia]

the annual report does nothing to support your claim.

I wasn't making a claim, I was attempting to refute yours.

You can not go on pure numbers alone. The percentage of advanced and technical divers that die is far higher.

Percentage? You didn't say anything about a percentage. You said, "these types of divers die far more often than newbies". I'm sorry I misunderstood, but I took that to mean that in any given period, more of each of those two types of divers will die than newbies.

If you add up the number of Advanced, Instructor, Technical and Specialty dive fatalities as one "advanced" group, they do in fact outnumber open water diver fatalities in the DAN Report.

True, but I'd be more inclined to lump Advanced and Specialty reports in with Open Water divers, as there isn't really much to distinguish one from the other. In any case, your claim said nothing about specialty and instructor divers, or about lumping them together.

I think you should check your facts...

I'd be more than happy to. Since you suggested we check the stats, and recommend I get my facts straight, and have tried to discredit the source I'm citing without citing any source whatsoever yourself, how about giving me a nudge in the right direction? Where should I look for these scientific statistics you're so well acquainted with?

Additionally, DAN's numbers are skewed because it does not keep great records of divers diving outside of "recreational" limits or those that are considered technical dives.

Actually, they do, and also freedivers and commercial divers. If you review the report I provided a link to before, you'll see the data.

Finally, DAN itself says they are not an investigating agency and that their information is unverified and frequently incomplete. They rely on things being reported to them by divers themselves... not exactly scientific...

True, but it's strong anaecdotal evidence, which I'd again be happy to cast aside if you can recommend a more credible source to support your claim. (Not that your assertions aren't credible, but I'd like to see something more concrete)

since many "technical" divers think DAN is a joke, it is likely that they do not share information with DAN.

Tech divers think DAN is a joke? Where'd you come up with that notion? Maybe you're thinking of PADI?

I don't know any technical divers off the top of my head that don't carry a DAN card, and those that do certainly don't choose to pay for their own chamber rides so they don't have to tell DAN about their accidents... I think they're as likely to get info to DAN as any other group.

 

[MSilvia]

I really would be interested in seeing some data to support you claim ghostdiver1957.

Also, in the interest of piecing together some more meaningful data, I'd like to get some numbers on what percentage of divers hold what certification levels (which I'd ideally group into OW, post-OW recreational, recreational instructor, and certified past recreational limits) with that data, it would be easier to get more meaningful information along the lines of "number of annual deaths per 100000 divers by certification category". That would normalize the data nicely, I think.

 

[wardric]

I think Ghostdiver was makin' a joke with some truth in it and that it has been taken too seriously...

Newbies have accidents, Advanced too, even "expert" have accidents. But not for the same reasons.

 

[ghostdiver1957]

I am all for more meaningful statistics. The problem seems to be that none of the Agencies keep records of accidents or fatalities (except for those where they are being sued,) and they certainly aren't going to share that information with us. As for DAN, while their efforts are noble, the categories they use in much of the information they provide is to generic to have any real meaning. The level of diver certification listed on a c-card, and thereon presented to DAN does little to decipher the actual experience level of the diver involved in the accident or fatality.

I can't provide hard statistics for what I'm telling you, as unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge none exists. DAN is what we are stuck with, but DAN's numbers are about the equivilent of me guessing at how much money is in your bank account. The annual report is a great read for divers to learn from the mistakes of others, but the final numbers are so inaccurate and incomplete that to say they represent the truth is a bit of a stretch. I make my statements based on years of industry knowledge, reading many reliable reports on dive web sites, magazines, OSHA reports, local newspapers from around the country and books published by credible authors. Those who are attempting to discredit me likely already know that I'm right and just want to make an argument for arguments sake.

Those that have come out in support, I appreciate it... and Happy Diving to you all.

 

[MSilvia]

It's not JUST for arguments sake, although I do like a good argument when people make blanket statements without supporting evidence.

I mostly challenged your statement because in my experience, new divers tend to be the ones most likely to get themselves in "over their heads". While advanced and technical divers frequently undertake more challenging and "risky" dives, they're also more aware of the risks, of how to mitigate those risks, and have the skills and equipment to plan and execute the dives safely.

Personally, I'd be more concerned for an open water diver at 50' whose LP inflator hose wasn't attached tightly than I would be about a trimix diver whose first stage blew out at 175'. The tech diver would have practiced the snot out of that scenario, and probably had three or more backup plans, while the OW diver probably never considered that that might happen, and is likely to be overweighted and starting to panic.

In other words, I'm unconvinced that becoming better trained puts you at greater risk, which is the implied meaning I took from your assertion (however tounge-in-cheek) that Advanced and technical divers die more often than newbies.

 

[wardric]

:sigh:

 

[Jim Ernst]

ill just say i am an advanced ROOKIE,

 

[MaresMan1]

All,

Very interesting points all around, but I think the bottom line is that you have to have a lot of dives, practicing the proper techniques to be considered advanced.

I have been diving for several years now, but can never be considered advanced because I get about 10-15 dives a year (don't like cold water). I do not think that's enough diving to really keep up the skills, let alone gain the experience to be considered advanced ( I take refresher classes every year).

I have taken the AOW course/class (didn't complete the dives yet; this summer), and reviewed the material for Rescue and DM, but without constant practice and skills review, you cannot be considered advanced (IMHO). Advanced divers should not only know the required skills but instinctively be able to react to the situation. This, I believe can only come with experience (use it or lose it). Just my .02

Dive Smart; Dive Safe
Enjoy the ride
MM1 :14:

 

[Curt Bowen]

Nope

Still floppin around in the pool for me!

A thread in another forum got me thinking, a dangerous thing for sure .

Do you consider yourself to be an Advanced diver, and if so, why?

And no, I'm not asking if you've got a card that says Advanced on it as most people, I would hope, would agree that a little piece of plastic isn't a good indicator of diving ability and we really don't need another thread about how poor AOW course are.

Whether your answer is yes or no, would you mind listing some reasons?
For example, is it number of dives (total / per year)? Depth reached? Skills exhibited? Diving environment? Buddies you dive with?

Thanks for your responses. :14:

Bjorn