Minimum proficiency

[OHGoDive]

yup, you're right ... she did

i guess it would depend on the environment, as someone mentioned earlier

it comes down to "do you have the skills to dive safely in this environment?" whatever those "skills" may be for the given environment

I agree. But, that's one big honkin' whatever in that statement.

I don't think you can quantify that whatever. It really becomes a judgment issue, and either you have good judgment or you don't. Skill development can certainly give you more tools and experience to make the judgments more accurately, but, I don't think you'll ever be able to quantify that. By any predetermined standard.

And, even if you could, I'm not convinced that you'd want or need to.

A lot of enjoyment can be sucked out of things if the goal is to set thresholds that ultimately are arbitrary and inconsistent.

People can, and do, assess risk all the time. They are capable of determining their own individual "minimum proficiencies". For good or for bad. Even in diving.

 

[H2Andy]

A lot of enjoyment can be sucked out of things if the goal is to set thresholds that ultimately are arbitrary and inconsistent.

we can, i am sure, agree that people dive for different reasons?

and what is enjoyable for me may not be enjoyable for you?

which is another way of saying that for some divers (and i am amongst them) part of the pleasure of diving comes from advancing my skills and getting better and better at what i do

it is not a side effect of diving; it is my focus

i don't dive primarily to see fish; i dive primarily to get better at diving. the fish are a wonderful bonus, though

 

[OHGoDive]

Also, I've never seen a rulebook that could save a poorly trained diver who is caught in a CF.

Or even, perhaps, a rulebook that would guarantee to save a well trained diver?

 

[Thalassamania]

Or even, perhaps, a rulebook that would guarantee to save a well trained diver?

I might even go that far.

With proper training divers don't need rules, they can use guidelines and their own smarts and skills.

 

[OHGoDive]

we can, i am sure, agree that people dive for different reasons?

and what is enjoyable for me may not be enjoyable for you?

which is another way of saying that for some divers (and i am amongst them) part of the pleasure of diving comes from advancing my skills and getting better and better at what i do

it is not a side effect of diving; it is my focus

i don't dive primarily to see fish; i dive primarily to get better at diving. the fish are a wonderful bonus

Absolutely. Please understand, I am not advocating walking naked into anything. Skill development and having the appropriate skills to perform the task at hand are critical.

What I am questioning is the idea that you can define and objectively measure those skills under all circumstances to determine whether or not someone is capable of performing (and thus enjoying).

Wide guidelines seems adequate to me. At least in the vast majority of situations.

Dive for your own enjoyment, whatever that may be. I am willing to trust that you have the skills and the good sense to dive within your limits to achieve that enjoyment without endangering yourself.

Why try to quantify that?

 

[H2Andy]

they can use guidelines

and thirdly, the pirate code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules...

 

[OHGoDive]

I might even go that far.

With proper training divers don't need rules, they can use guidelines and their own smarts and skills.

Exactly my point. There is no way you could fit that into a book. And, even if you could, each of those properly trained divers would have a different book. Wouldn't they?

 

[jeckyll]

These sorts of questions come up all the time in pieces, in various threads, so I thought it might be interesting to combine or codify them.

What do you think are the mimum proficiencies a diver should have to dive above 60 feet? 60 to 100 feet? Deeper than 100 feet?

Do your answers change with conditions -- eg. are they different for cold water/low viz diving versus tropical diving?

This is a complex question. All complex questions have simple, easy to understand wrong answers.

Here is my simple answer:

Above 60: OW with the ability to hover.
60 to 100: Between 60 & 80: More than 5 dives to the previous 10 foot mark. I.E. to get to 70 have done at least 5 dives to 60 before you try. While AOW may not contain much use, I still think people should have it before going past 60. Hopefully they'll have a good instructor.
Between 80 + 100 I would want to see the person in the water before I told anyone I'd think it's ok to go there.

All the above are for cold(ish) 40 - 50 F water. It's what I know.

A more complex answer would involve the location, the currents & tides that particular day and previous experience with the person diving, their understanding of rock bottom, redundancy of equipment and ability to maintain buddy contact in lower viz environments (i.e. what are they like with a slight panic narc, in some current on a 300' wall with 5 feet of viz at 90 feet.)

As for over 100 I've only got a handful of dives over 100 so I'm not sure how much use I can be to someone else. Some days I'm not sure I belong over 100. Some days I know I don't.

I'm not sure if that answer helps anyone.

Bjorn

 

[do it easy]

Why try to quantify that?

I think some people like to be measured to see how they stack up, not necessarily against others, but against themselves.

 

[OHGoDive]

I think some people like to be measured to see how they stack up, not necessarily against others, but against themselves.

Of course.

But I keep going back to the OP. This wasn't asking about your own personal skill development, but it was asking about whether or not there were "minimum proficiencies" that could determine whether or not a diver was ready to undertake a particular dive.

That's quite a different spin on coming up with ways to measure your own development and ability.

Isn't it?