Minimum proficiency

[Adobo]

In addition to the diving related skills, I would add:
- thorough knowledge of each piece of gear to be used
- thorough knowledge of how to put together the gear
- thorough knowledge of pre dive equipment check
- thorough knowledge of in water bubble check and regulator function

 

[tedtim]

We had a similar discussion/argument when I was flying. What and who determines proficient? We had a minimum requirement to do a certain number of things every three or six months.,depending on the requirement. One of the major problems had to do with night operations. Nobody has mentioned night operations here. It is different than low vis. Well, one place where I lived, the sun did not set until well past 10:00 PM most nights in the summer and sunrise was early too (fun living up north). Proficiency was done on a quarterly basis. This was a "hard" quarter (Jan-Mar, Apr - Jun, etc) rather than a rolling quarter (measured for the preceeding three months). Thus we could do the minimum work at the beginning of one quarter and the end of the next and still be proficient - almost a six month break.

I use this as an anology for diving. There are some of us wo do not want to dive under ice. The option is to jump in an aircraft, or drive long distances to someplace where it is warm enough to dive. Thus there is a layoff between the end of one diving season to the next. I may be as little as a few weeks, or more than a few months. The conditions for diving in the warm climates are different than diving where I normally do most of my dives (St. Lawrence, Lake Ontario). Am I proficient when I head south for a week - no.

So how do you measure proficiency? A minimum number of dives is just that. Unless they are accomplished in a specific period of time, with a specific subset of skills to practice, with a maximum time between them, then proficiency is just a bogus concept. Never mind the number of dives. I can maintain some skill proficiency by going to the pool in the winter. Does this count? IMHO it all depends on the individual.

Trying to set a definition of proficiency for diving is an impossible task IMO. Unless we have a licencing system instead of just a certification system, then the discussion is a matter of opinion and not based on any reasonable definition of what is required. I don't agree with anyone who trys to set a minimum number of dives to any depth because there are just too many factors to consider.

I believe that one should follow what is stated in OW manuals, that is, one should not dive in conditions or to depths beyond there level of training, experience, and comfort.

 

[Thalassamania]

It's really a matter of knowing enough to know that you don't know enough to go on to the next step ... yet. This is something sorely lacking in most of today's students (even those that have "mastered" the skills).

 

[OHGoDive]

It's really a matter of knowing enough to know that you don't know enough to go on to the next step ... yet. This is something sorely lacking in most of today's students (even those that have "mastered" the skills).

Perhaps. But that is a subjective observation. And, ultimately, up to the individual.

You're free to make up your own mind whether or not you agree with them.

Personally, I think that's enough.

 

[tedtim]

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?

So, if you are a doctor working in a emergency room and have not seen a certain type of emergency medical condition in a while, are you allowed to deal with it, or do you have to have seen a certain number of them before you are allowed to touch the patient?

 

[daniel f aleman]

I believe that one should follow what is stated in OW manuals, that is, one should not dive in conditions or to depths beyond there (sic) level of training, experience, and comfort.

Yep. That is the objective measure.

 

[SparticleBrane]

I believe Walter's post is the best in the thread, as of right now.

 

[TSandM]

I'm still trying to get at the question of what the competencies are that a diver is supposed to have gained from the experience we keep telling them they need before they go deeper.

Thal, you list the DIVES they need to do. But what skills or knowledge are they supposed to have gathered from those dives that will make them fit to go deeper?

I can do a dive to 30 feet in Cove 2. And I can do a dive to 40 feet in Cove 2. And the dives are identical in terms of my subjective experience. What have I learned by going deeper? What makes me more fit to go to 50 feet next time?

I'm not trying to quantitate anything. I'm trying to get at the root of the recommendation for "more experience" for deeper diving. More experience at what?

 

[GA Under Water]

that is the problem TSandM everyone can say how many dives are too little, but not many can say how to get to the point where everyone on here will not say, "you are not experienced enough."

Personally, I took my Deep Diver Specialty before I considered myself ready to plan and dive 60 - 130 feet. Sure, my first dive to 75 feet was Dive 5 or Dive 1 if you aren't counting Checkout dives. This was with an Instructor and was considered an Adventure dive for me.

You don't need Experience to dive deeper, you need the Knowledge first then work on your comfort and the depth will come.

Experience isn't the way to learn, I can Drive a car for years and be considered an experienced driver, but when I blow out a tire will I know how to safely get to the shoulder and once I deal with that will I know how to change the tire?

this "get out and dive" teaches you nothing. Listening to Older divers wisdom is learning, not "getting out there and diving" taking specialties is learning, but taking bad habits to the water due to lack of "learning" is silly and just plain deadly.

Personally, I think taking the specialties is a great way to prepare yourself for these "real" dives you learn more being tasked while diving, than just finning away looking at the fishes.

 

[jeckyll]

that is the problem TSandM everyone can say how many dives are too little, but not many can say how to get to the point where everyone on here will not say, "you are not experienced enough."

Personally, I took my Deep Diver Specialty before I considered myself ready to plan and dive 60 - 130 feet. Sure, my first dive to 75 feet was Dive 5 or Dive 1 if you aren't counting Checkout dives. This was with an Instructor and was considered an Adventure dive for me.

Nothing will beat in water experience. Especially when you have to think and plan for yourself, instead of happily following along or doing a set if indicated skills.

You don't need Experience to dive deeper, you need the Knowledge first then work on your comfort and the depth will come.

You need knowledge gained from many shallow dives.

Experience isn't the way to learn, I can Drive a care for years and be considered an experienced driver, but when I blow out a tire will I know how to safely get to the shoulder and once I deal with that will I know how to change the tire?

I can't get over the first part of your sentence. Talk to people who are really good at ... well anything. "Seat time" is key.

this "get out and dive" teaches you nothing. Listening to Older divers wisdom is learning, not "getting out there and diving" taking specialties is learning, but taking bad habits to the water due to lack of "learning" is silly and just plain deadly.

I would suggest that there is significantly more to be learned from quality experience divers mentoring than following curriculum that may well leave divers with the impression that "now they know".

Personally, I think taking the specialties is a great way to prepare yourself for these "real" dives you learn more being tasked while diving, than just finning away looking at the fishes.

I think your definition of "experience" and "experienced" is seriously flawed. It is much beyond "looking at the fishes". If that's what the "experienced" divers do, without the planning, without displaying excellent in water skills, without all the other small pieces that eventually turn into "wisdom", then perhaps you are looking at the wrong people.

Or perhaps you don't know what you are looking for yet. When someone is very good at something, they will make it look so incredibly easy that for the unlearned observer it looks completely effortless...