Minimum proficiency

[MikeFerrara]

Mike, that's EXACTLY the sort of answer I was trying to elicit.

For the record, I think you're taking a good rout. I think GUE has it nailed. The fundimentals are what are needed to dive. Not the fundamentals of DIR but the fundamentals of diving, ascents, descents, swimming around and doing a few other basic diving things while actually diving. As you add risk factors and/or decrease accessibility to the surface you obviously need to be able to solve more complex problems under water and the consequences for not being able to increase but the basics are the basics.

The reason that I say GUE has it nailed and where I disagree with a lot of other agencies is that some agencies will take students to OW or certify divers before they have the most fundamental aspects down...ie all dives require ascents and descents, swimming around and finctioning with a buddy. I don't agree that good buoyancy control, trim or propulsion techniques are advanced skills. Those are exactly the skills that are required on every single dive, no matter how shallow or easy. To me, that's where it should start and the other stuff is added on top of that. What is diving? It's mostly ascending, descending and swimming around. If you can't do that with control, you can't really dive, can you?

 

[scarefaceDM]

I was contimplating a responce that covers this mezmoring subject. AND NO it is not a DIR thing. it is what all divers should be able to do.

GUE has it nailed down. as Mike stated. A quoute directly from the GUE site:
Poor diving skills and inefficient equipment often result in unnecessary exertion, stress, degradation of the dive site, and thus less enjoyment. GUE’s vibrant history includes both recreational excursions and aggressive exploration diving. This experience has led GUE and likeminded divers around the world to embrace the need for greater diving proficiency. These enhanced skills provide greater enjoyment and less stress while also preserving fragile diving environments.

This in my opinion in the true sence of the word proficiency for a diver to attain in any condition. And you do not have to be a DIR -F nor GUE trained.

From the DIR-F fundamentals training.
Demonstrate proficiency in safe diving techniques; this would include pre-dive preparations, in-water activity, and post-dive assessment.
Demonstrate awareness of team member location and a concern for safety, responding quickly to visual cues and dive partner needs.
Efficiently and comfortably demonstrate how to donate gas to an out-of-gas diver.
Efficiently and comfortably demonstrate how to donate gas to an out-of-gas diver followed by a slow, direct ascent to the surface.
Comfortably demonstrate at least two propulsion techniques that would be appropriate in delicate and/or silty environments.
Demonstrate a safe and responsible demeanor throughout all training.
Demonstrate proficiency in the ability to deploy a spool and a surface marker.
Demonstrate good buoyancy and trim.
Demonstrate proficiency in underwater communication.
Demonstrate basic equipment proficiency and an understanding of the DIR equipment configuration.
Demonstrate aptitude in the following open water skills: mask clearing, mask removal and replacement, regulator removal and exchange, long hose deployment.
Demonstrate safe ascent and decent procedures.
Demonstrate proficiency in executing a valve drill.

A diver will ultimately do what ever they wish. A good diver will practice practice and practice somemore. Even if it is the basic of skills. It should be practiced. If asked when I do a scuba referesh I will run throught certain skills in the list along with the basic 18 refresher skills from PADI.

The list from the DIR F is as good as it gets for any type of recreational diving.

Safe dives
Stephen

 

[Humble older aquaman]

This thread has legs!

In the land of the free, do we really want to regulate our freedom? Quantify it? Our chosen activity, diving, is more self regulated than others when compared to others with this much risk/complexity. It would seem that our present system, while not perfect, is working. The folks that design actuarian tables still give us insurance at reasonable rates so we must be doing something right.

Is good reading the points of views...very healthy the agree to disagree philosophy!

Hoa!

 

[daniel f aleman]

In the land of the free, do we really want to regulate our freedom?
Hoa!

Sigh.

The ever considered problem: we can't escape our Anglo-Germanic background, freedom or fascism.

 

[MikeFerrara]

This thread has legs!

In the land of the free, do we really want to regulate our freedom? Quantify it? Our chosen activity, diving, is more self regulated than others when compared to others with this much risk/complexity. It would seem that our present system, while not perfect, is working. The folks that design actuarian tables still give us insurance at reasonable rates so we must be doing something right.

Is good reading the points of views...very healthy the agree to disagree philosophy!

Hoa!

I don't want to hijack TSandM's thread by getting into how well the "system" works but I don't think the point of the thread was regulation. We already have regulation...you need a card (someones permission) for everything. I took her opening question to be more concerning what skills we think would serve a diver well as apposed to what should be required by any sort of regulation.

 

[scarefaceDM]

well put

 

[Thalassamania]

From the DIR-F fundamentals training.
Demonstrate proficiency in safe diving techniques; this would include pre-dive preparations, in-water activity, and post-dive assessment.
Demonstrate awareness of team member location and a concern for safety, responding quickly to visual cues and dive partner needs.
Efficiently and comfortably demonstrate how to donate gas to an out-of-gas diver.
Efficiently and comfortably demonstrate how to donate gas to an out-of-gas diver followed by a slow, direct ascent to the surface.
Comfortably demonstrate at least two propulsion techniques that would be appropriate in delicate and/or silty environments.
Demonstrate a safe and responsible demeanor throughout all training.
Demonstrate proficiency in the ability to deploy a spool and a surface marker.
Demonstrate good buoyancy and trim.
Demonstrate proficiency in underwater communication.
Demonstrate basic equipment proficiency and an understanding of the DIR equipment configuration.
Demonstrate aptitude in the following open water skills: mask clearing, mask removal and replacement, regulator removal and exchange, long hose deployment.
Demonstrate safe ascent and decent procedures.
Demonstrate proficiency in executing a valve drill.

That’s an excellent list, as I look over the items, it covers (at least in DIRspeak) most all of the items that we’d discuss at a Diving Control Board meeting before advancing a diver by a depth step.

 

[TSandM]

Except for the reference to the DIR equipment configuration, what's DIR-speak there?

 

[Thalassamania]

I was just kidding with you.

In case that's a real question, there are only two items, the config you addressed and the "valve drill" which we'd not be talking about since doubles are rarely used for routine science.

 

[OHGoDive]

When I was teaching I had a simple skill evaluation that I administered to divers that came to me for con-ed courses. They had to descend with a buddy stopping at a predetermined depth, hold depth there until signaled to continue, stop above the bottom, remove and replace a mask midwater, initiate air sharing midwater, swim around a little maintaining trim, non-silting propulsion, buddy contact ect and then perform an ascent together...stopping at a predetermined depth before continuing the ascent. If the divers couldn't get through that, I wouldn't take them on any dive, anyplace under any conditions. That skill set corresponds fairly well to what I required of OW students prior to moving from confined water to open water. I didn't use that evaluation from the begining but rather it came about as a solution to the problem of certified divers who didn't seem capable at any depth.

There are no doubt lots of other things we could look at or try to measure but that's what divers had to show me in the water under very controled conditions (essentially confined water) before we did any diving. Obviously, if I'm not the instructor and I'm not in a position of control, people can do what they want...but I might not want to be around when they do.

For deeper depths or otherwise more challenging conditions, the skills needed are really the same. The additional requirement is experience applying those skills to the conditions at hand. That, of course, isn't up to me.

Ok, wait. With all due respect, I have some questions.

If this is, in fact, exactly what this thread was trying to ascertain, then I am confused. Are you saying that if a diver successfully demonstrates these skills, that you are comfortable in answering "yes" to them if they ask if they are "minimally proficient" to perform some dive X?

I don't get it. You've merely added a few subjective criteria to most OW requirements. How does that tell you that a diver is minimally proficient to perform a dive? All it reliably tells you is that they are minimally proficient in performing those particular skills, to your satisfaction under the conditions that you watched them perform them. From that, you subjectively decided that they were good enough to continue training with you.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I don't see how that addresses the original question.

I still don't understand what this thread is getting at.

Oh, and Mike, I hope I misunderstood your comment here:

If the divers couldn't get through that, I wouldn't take them on any dive, anyplace under any conditions.

They came to you, an instructor, for instruction, and if they did not demonstrate these skills to your satisfaction, you sent them away? Forever? Did they know coming in to your course that they would need to demonstrate these skills? You wouldn't refer them to a more basic course? You didn't try and teach them to perform these skills to your satisfaction?

Perhaps I'm just too new and inexperienced to understand things like this.