Minimum proficiency

[JMcD]

To wade into this a bit late in the Thread....

On my initial reading of the original post, I read pretty much what I believe OHGoDive read and thought his answer to be refreashingly thoughtful. (not that i'd agree 100%, but lets say 99% (If I had to quantify it....)) Now that there has been subsequent clarification, I would agree that there are basic skills or proficiencies that I could outline for someone that would provide, only in my subjective opinion, what they should be able to do before they were to do dive such-and-such. There are, of course, other dives that I would be unable to provide such an outline for since I myself don't believe I have the skills necessary, nor enough understanding of the nature of that type of diving to provide even the list. (Cave, 200ft etc etc etc)

I think a key point that I believe OHGoDive has made is that we need to be clear about the purpose of creating such a list of criteria. Scuba Diving is fairly well "self regulated", but it is a worthy question to ask why it has the standards it does and why they aren't more stringent... or less.

After all, with the agencies we have, we should see basic skills in OW divers. Yet I have seen at resorts a number of divers that are certified, but i'm certain they shouldn't have their card if they are supposed to have met the requirements of agency XXXX, YYYY or ZZZZ. Are they safe? *Perhaps* to themselves if all things go as they are supposed to, but in many cases, I'd suggest not. For a number i've seen, they are definitively not safe for the environment they are enjoying. (If I see one more person slam a fin into coral...... <Sigh> in my somewhat limited experience, there always seems to be at least one ...) </rant>

So, what requirements? For what dives? I think there are good answers here, and I think a number of agencies have created very decent lists. My problem (and my point though I'm taking a long time to get to it) is in the practical implementation of the lists that currently exists where clearly people have not demonstrated what would by most agencies be considered necessary to get an air fill at all.... and yet I see them repeatedly under water...

I'm not for more regulation, I'm not for more lists, I am simply saying that when it gets down to the practical, you and I need to discuss dives with the people we are going into the water with. We need to discuss our expectations - and in those discussions we will need to walk through lists of skills and expected levels of performance (hold a stop +/- 4 feet vs +/-1 foot). We need to make calls as to our comfort getting in the water with others. We need to utilize common sense that seems incredibly uncommon.

Ultimately a good thread - thanks TSandM

 

[Thalassamania]

This thread came out of reading the bashing Matt S. was taking in another thread over his questions about diving to 80 feet in Mexico as a new diver. People were saying over and over again that he "shouldn't go that deep until he has more experience." And I actually agree with them . . . But nobody was telling him what the experience was supposed to teach him that he would need to know to do an 80 foot dive.

As my instructor this last weekend said a couple of times, practice does not make perfect; perfect practice makes perfect. Doing a lot of diving with the same habits or the same deficiencies in your skills doesn't necessarily make you any better. And if you're going to tell somebody they shouldn't do the dives they are contemplating, shouldn't you tell them what they need in terms of skills or knowledge to be ABLE to do those dives?

Now I understand a little better what you’re looking for. Let me take another crack at it.

What do you need to be able to dive to any depth: a reasonable chance of getting back to the surface without injury … isn’t that what it’s really all about? Lynne, remember the discussion we had a while back about “safety volumes” and staying away from the edge? And how as the radius gets smaller with depth and it gets more important to keep yourself centered? It’s the same thing here. What minimizes the risk of a dive in 4 ft of water? You can still get an embolism, but you can also stand up if it goes bad. What make 10 ft. riskier than 4 ft? It’s a little farther (longer) to the surface, you still can embolise and now you can’t stand. 20 feet? Further and longer. 30 feet? Same. 80 feet? More and more. So at 4 feet you stand up, no need for long hoses and buddies … right? At 10 feet an ESE does not give anyone heartburn does it? But somewhere between 10 feet and 80 feet there’s a change in grade, as we wonder about our ability to get back to the surface without injury if something goes wrong. If you’re part of a well trained and drilled research team, you don’t worry about it. If you’re part of a GUE team, you don’t worry about it (different solution, but no worries mate! Right?) But if you’re a new diver with an insta buddy in a far off land … watcha got? A redundant second stage and a buddy that you can’t predict. So while you may be ready for 80 feet with a diver who took the entry level course with you, you may even be ready for 80 feet solo (with the right gear) you may not be ready for 80 feet the insta buddy and a set of rental gear. I guess the best measure of if your ready may be your heart rate and blood pressure.

 

[do it easy]

I guess the best measure of if your ready may be your heart rate and blood pressure.

Again, it falls to the individual diver. I backed out of a 100' dive with an instabuddy because it didn't seem like a good idea- new drysuit and his first lake dive of the year. On the other hand, I've gone on a 200' dive with another instabuddy, with slightly different gear and dissimilar deco schedules. I looked the guy over and felt comfortable, so we made it work.

I infer from Thal that minimally proficient is a slippery slope. I would go further to say that it's also discontinuous and not smooth in some areas.

 

[Diver Dennis]

This thread came out of reading the bashing Matt S. was taking in another thread over his questions about diving to 80 feet in Mexico as a new diver. People were saying over and over again that he "shouldn't go that deep until he has more experience." And I actually agree with them . . . But nobody was telling him what the experience was supposed to teach him that he would need to know to do an 80 foot dive.

As my instructor this last weekend said a couple of times, practice does not make perfect; perfect practice makes perfect. Doing a lot of diving with the same habits or the same deficiencies in your skills doesn't necessarily make you any better. And if you're going to tell somebody they shouldn't do the dives they are contemplating, shouldn't you tell them what they need in terms of skills or knowledge to be ABLE to do those dives?

Excellent point Lynne. So often we hear the phrase "you need more experience" but no explanation of what that means. I wish I had seen the Matt thread.

The other thing here is that diving in gin clear, warm water is a lot different than cold poor vis diving. Personally, I think that being qualified to dive deep in the tropics does not necessarily translate into being able to dive deep in conditions like the PNW that you dive in. You have been diving in both environments in the last 6 months, do you agree?

I will also add that it depends a lot on the individual diver and their demeanor. C-cards mean little to me, the best gauge of a good diver is seeing them in the water. I have seen far too many "experienced" divers who are crap in the water.

 

[daniel f aleman]

There is no set of criteria that mean anything in determining diver skills, except that which can be interpreted in a closed teaching environment; criteria are for certification...

OhGoDive's debating skills are proficient enough to blow holes in many an arguement. Fun read.

 

[do it easy]

There is no set of criteria that mean anything in determining diver skills, except that which can be interpreted in a closed teaching environment; criteria are for certification...

OhGoDive's debating skills are proficient enough to blow holes in many an arguement. Fun read.

One could make the argument that certified is at least minimally proficient up to the limits of the certification. There would be holes in that argument, since certification is only a proxy for skills and experience.

If the card reads "qualified to dive to 150' with one deco gas", that MIGHT indicate minimal proficiency to that level... maybe...

 

[GA Under Water]

How about completing the Deep Diver Specialty

 

[MikeFerrara]

As I tried to explain, these would be prerequisit skills I would expect any certified diver to be able to demonstrate. I wouldn't advise any diver who couldn't perform those skills to dive in OW without remediation in confined water. To answer your question, no I wouldn't send them away. I would require that remediation before I dived with them in OW though.

No, you said that if someone came to you for a class, and they couldn't do those skills that you (subjectively) think that any certified diver should be able to demonstrate (to your satisfaction), you'd turn them away and would never dive with them. Under any circumstances.

No, I said I wouldn't take them on a dive in open water. I'd be happy to work with them in a pool or other confined water environment.

I was just trying to clarify that position. You'd require remediation, but wouldn't teach it?

You can't make someone do it.

A couple of examples...

I had a recently AOW certified couple come to me from out of state for a nitrox course. They contacted me because they were having some problems and the classes they were taking weren't getting their diving where they wanted it. We spent some time in the classroom. Then, in the water, basically went through that skill evaluation and worked on what they needed to work on to get through it. Then we did a couple of OW dives. Someplace in there we covered the nitrox course material. The main purpose of the things was to address basic dive skills. The nitrox thing was secondary.

I had another guy come to me for an Advanced Nitrox course (entry level tech course). After a skill evaluation dive with him, I didn't think he was ready and recommended that he spend some time getting the basics better squared away. His choice was to go to another instructor and get an Advanced Nitrox certification in a weekend.

A certified diver can do what they want. All I can do is set entrance and exit requirements for classes I'm teaching. I can decide who dives with me but I can't decide who can dive.

 

[Walter]

A certified diver can do what they want. All I can do is set entrance and exit requirements for classes I'm teaching. I can decide who dives with me but I can't decide who can dive.

I know you agree, but that's as it should be.

 

[OHGoDive]

No, I said I wouldn't take them on a dive in open water. I'd be happy to work with them in a pool or other confined water environment.

Ok, that's what I was trying to clear up. That's reasonable.

I think that a lot of new divers don't understand why they are mastering the skills that you higher end divers are expecting them to do.

The phrase "minimally proficient" implies that if you do not meet those criteria, you don't dive. That's the concept that I have trouble with.

If you explain to someone what you are looking for, and why it is important (and it's not important just because you can do it well), then I think that people will be more receptive to the idea of developing those skills.

Some of us seem to naturally understand why a particular skill is important, others don't. They learn the skill, but, being new, can't really understand, or even imagine, the situations where a particular skill may come in handy.

You may become quite proficient in any particular skill if you were taught well, and practiced it often enough. But, if you aren't fully aware of the situations (and sometimes the sole situation) where you are expected to use it, you may still be in a world of hurt when, or if, that situation occurs.

If you can clearly correlate a particular skill to the situations when you might encounter the need for it (ie, an 80 foot dive in Cozumel), I think that would go a longer way toward helping people assess for themselves whether or not they are ready for a particular dive.