I know he didn't have any gap other than summer between his final graduating quarter between UCSB & starting postdoc at UCSC. Same goes for when he graduated undergrad and started at UCSB. I'm not familiar with his or Diver 2 & 3's agenda of diving.Agreed, they do not show the total number of dives he ever did. But comparing LORs for those three divers, Diver 1 was the least experienced in recent scientific dives, correct?
But if I made it convoluted in my last post, stated plainly he was inactive sci diver with UC Santa Cruz, while he was active with UC Santa Barbara.
Less dives, probably, considering Diver 3 had 900+; experience level I don't know.
Typically though project lead is the researcher who owns the project. So it makes sense for them to be the dive lead because they have the overall scope of the project for methods, data collection, location, & when to do it.
Typically AAUS scientific training trains you to properly use the method of diving as a means to collect data which includes leading a dive briefing and plan.
I think it's too casual of bolding the idea that he has less dives therefore is incapable of planning a dive based on least experienced diver. Whoever was the one on that team for that dive and those conditions. It insinuates he's inexperienced therefore made novice mistakes.
I think diver experienced but with complacency is my take away from the report. Usually we on scubaboard think of dive fatalities being chronic complacent but to me and our community this we defined as acute complacency. Which I'm sure plenty of us have been guilty of many times.
I think it is a very important reminder for us, even those of us with the dives above the 500 mark and years of diving number past 10.