How much does dive count tell you?

[nereas]

...

How I'm most likely to judge a diver is not how they answer the questions I ask, but the questions they ask me! The way they talk about diving and the concerns they have about the dive are far more telling than dive count as a marker.

R

Agreed.

You could phrase things as a question, such as:

1) how do you share air/nitrox?

2) what is your lost buddy procedure?

3) what is your signal for "let's turn around and head back?"

4) how do you check the SPG pressure of your buddy?

I will normally just "tell" a buddy, however, rather than ask. "This is how I do it."

 

[muddiver]

Ok we all lie on the internet (per TSandM) thus all dive counts are bougus.

But, the number of dives one has made is one of the prime considerations when the Navy promotes or advances divers. Granted the conditions, the location and other factors of the dive must be taken into consideration, but an honest record of dives is still an indicator of experience.

Funny how I read time and aging someone giving the advice to "just go out and dive" as a response to inquires like "should I take..." or "how many dives do I need to take... or become..."

There is one other view to this, if someone has 500 warm water dives in calm clear water, would they be considered a better diver than someone who has 67 dives in cold, murky, curent, rock entry, sand entry, boat entry, small boat entry, deep (say 98'), warm water, clear water and other various condition? It's all realitive.

 

[NudeDiver]

But, the number of dives one has made is one of the prime considerations when the Navy promotes or advances divers.

The military, like all government agencies, also promotes (and pays) on the basis of time in service and/or time in grade. As you probably know, time spent showing up for work is hardly the same as time spent actually working once you get there, nor does time in service necessarily indicate one's usefulness or ability - nevertheless - it's a factor in promotion.

 

[mood]

Ok we all lie on the internet (per TSandM) thus all dive counts are bougus.
There is one other view to this, if someone has 500 warm water dives in calm clear water, would they be considered a better diver than someone who has 67 dives in cold, murky, curent, rock entry, sand entry, boat entry, small boat entry, deep (say 98'), warm water, clear water and other various condition? It's all realitive.

Thats exactly what i think. I doubt the number of dives can tell you about a divers experience or skills, and you just cant compare them.

Just to keep this thread running, why do Agencies use dive count for courses. Why not a practical test or assessment to check if a diver is ready for a course?

 

[NudeDiver]

Just to keep this thread running, why do Agencies use dive count for courses. Why not a practical test or assessment to check if a diver is ready for a course?

Same reason why universities use WHATEVER 101 as a prerequisite for WHATEVER 102 rather than giving you an exam to see if you're ready to take 102. Just because you may have taken a final exam and received a passing grade in 101 doesn't mean you're ready for 102 - but developing and administering a suitable exam that shows you have the 101 skills to take 102 is too much time and effort to be bothered with. They would just rather you pay your money and take 102.

 

[muddiver]

There are some exceptions to your statement. The DM course I went through required the divers to demonstrate skin diving skills, basic SCUBA training skills (flood and clear mask, etc.) and there was a swim test requirement.

 

[rstofer]

I completely disagree with this. I have witnessed people with over 100 dives who simply arent very good! To say that someone with 20 dives cannot possibly have the skill of someone with much more dives is extremely narrow minded. I might just be better than you! Someone might just be better than me!

As a fairly young manager at my company ive had to put up with this "time served = better" view my entire career but its just not true. Skill can be based on many factors, not just time served, or in this case number of dives.

There could be an exception or two but I'm going to stand by what I said. Here's my thinking (probably wrong).

Let's assume our 20 dive person is a training junkie - a good thing from my point of view. Four dives for OW, 5 dives for AOW and 4 dives for Rescue. So, 13 of those 20 dives are supervised training dives. Only 7 are actually unsupervised dives - that's not a lot compared to a diver with 100 dives even if 13 were supervised. You're talking 7 against 87. No way in the world is the 20 dive person likely to be the better diver.

OK, let's turn it around. Our 20 dive person has only 4 OW dives and 16 unsupervised dives. Does that make me feel better? Probably not. There's a lot to be said for additional training. Particularly Rescue - as in self-rescue.

If the comparison were between 20 dives and 50, I could see where it would be a toss-up. But there is just too much difference between 7 and 87. That's 12 times the experience plus a little.

So, no. I don't think I'll back away from the way I compare 20 dives against 100. But it's only my opinion and nobody cares what I think.

I'm sure there can be outliers (as the statisticians call them) but I'm thinking about the run-of-the-mill average divers. Those in the middle of the Bell Curve..

And old time managers ARE better than young ones. Among other things, they have made more bad decisions that the new managers have made in total. They recognize from their history that the decision they are about to make will turn out badly. I have been on both ends of this deal and I made a lot of mistakes, young and old. And, yes, I do recognize that there is a lot of deadwood in industry; less so in some companies. But old age and experience will win out over youth and enthusiasm every single time.

Richard

 

[NudeDiver]

Four dives for OW, 5 dives for AOW and 4 dives for Rescue. So, 13 of those 20 dives are supervised training dives. Only 7 are actually unsupervised dives

Not necessarily. I never went below the surface for two of the RD "dives" - and for the AOW class, as you know from reading many tales on here, a lot of those dives are unsupervised. Underwater naturalist dive, photo dive, boat dive - hell, even the nav dive do not have to be supervised. For my AOW nav dive, it was just me and my buddy. It's possible an AOW diver only had ONE supervised dive (deep dive). So, whack out 4 of those and 2 RD dives, and now out of that 13, you could be down to only 7 out of 20 supervised dives - if "supervised dive" means, under the water, with a "pro".

No way in the world is the 20 dive person likely to be the better diver.

Not that I necessarily agree with you point, but the case could be even stronger than you're making it out to be. However, you have also changed the scenario by saying "likely". In the post you are responding to, the statement was:

To say that someone with 20 dives cannot possibly have the skill of someone with much more dives is extremely narrow minded.

So, in other words, he is saying that a 20 diver COULD BE a better diver, while you're arguing who is LIKELY TO BE a better diver. Big difference, and not the same argument.

 

[Dtaine]

I judge the questions and answers about diving based on content and logic, not dive count. Could a new diver be as good as someone with 100+ dives? Sure, possibly; how likely it is is another matter entirely.

And old time managers ARE better than young ones. Among other things, they have made more bad decisions that the new managers have made in total. They recognize from their history that the decision they are about to make will turn out badly. I have been on both ends of this deal and I made a lot of mistakes, young and old. And, yes, I do recognize that there is a lot of deadwood in industry; less so in some companies. But old age and experience will win out over youth and enthusiasm every single time.

:hijackedthread:

I'm sorry, but from the business experience I've had some old-timers just don't understand that what they've been doing is inefficient and costly to the business. Sure there are great old managers, but "old age and experience" can be trumped by "youth and enthusiasm." To make a definitive statement that it will "win out" "every single time" is simply inaccurate.

 

[rstofer]

So, in other words, he is saying that a 20 diver COULD BE a better diver, while you're arguing who is LIKELY TO BE a better diver. Big difference, and not the same argument.

OK, I'll go back to where I started: there is no way in the world the 20 dive person could be a better diver than someone with 100 dives. Strong, I know. But that's where I started, there's no point in waffling now. It is, after all, just my opinion and how I would personally evaluate the difference.

All of my training dives were supervised. But then I didn't take Fish Aware. It was just the old NAUI program: OW I, OW II, Advanced OW and Rescue. A total of 19 supervised dives (if you can call Rescue dives real dives). But every one had an instructor in immediate attendance.

The problem with 'could' is that it includes the 1 in a bazillion possibility. It's almost impossible to disprove. We would have to test a bazillion divers and then some and if we found even one positive, 'could' would be true. There could be some guy out there that's been an uncertified diver for decades. Now he is suddenly certified with 20 dives. Of course he 'could' be a better diver. It's even 'likely' he is the better diver.

Richard