Minimum proficiency

[TSandM]

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?

 

[Walter]

Your divisions are not good ones, my dear. Cold water isn't cold water. Diving a quarry in Iowa is not the same as diving in high seas and currents off New England. Tropical conditions can easily be low viz and cold water viz can be excellent.

 

[Adobo]

Your divisions are not good ones, my dear. Cold water isn't cold water. Diving a quarry in Iowa is not the same as diving in high seas and currents off New England. Tropical conditions can easily be low viz and cold water viz can be excellent.

Suggestions?

 

[do it easy]

Regardless of dive conditions, I think minimum proficiency would be 1) knowing when not to dive 2) knowing how to plan a dive- gas, time, tables, and team, and 3) knowing when to call a dive. The rest is all about looking good.

Of course, these guidelines are just as vague as "back on the boat with 500 psi." The details are left to the actual diver.

 

[daniel f aleman]

The details are left to the actual diver.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

 

[TSandM]

Well, I was just thinking about things like being able to hold stops, or do an air-sharing or maskless ascent. These aren't very pertinent at 20 feet, but become more so at 100.

We tell a lot of novice divers not to go deep until they've got more experience, but what experience and what skills do we think they should have gotten by the time they go there?

Walter, I'm sure you have some thoughts about controlling panic in this context.

 

[Humble older aquaman]

I've always gotten confused about proficient and minimum. Webster defines proficient has "well advanced or expert" and minimum has "least amount, quantity allowable". So is the question the least expert possible? Expert is usually above average and minimum is often referred to has just enough...sometimes.

I would also suggest specific "lines" (60 to 100 feet, 5 feet of vis versus 50') are better has guidelines. Some distinction needs to happen, but feel some situational, individual judgment is better for teacher/student than a black and white guideline.

If more instructors actually took their students to "proficient" we'd all be better off. With the wide range of "experts" out there, many feel more distinctions are neccessary, really can't argue that.

Hoa!

 

[deepblueme]

But still 60 feet in a lake in Missouri in Nov. is alot different than 60 feet in Bonaire in July.

How about this, If you wouldn't freedive it you shouldn't scuba it with out proper training (deep/cave) and if you wouldn't swim in it you shouldn't scuba it. (the conditions)

I teach Whitewater Kayaking and tell my students "If you wouldn't want to swim a rapid you don't want to try to boat it either".

 

[The Kraken]

Whoah !!! Is that ever an open ended question ?!?!?!?!?!!?

the K

 

[OHGoDive]

Questions like this still tend to baffle me. Why is there such a strong desire to quantify everything into some sort of measurable, evaluative, "yes or no" categorization?

If you can do this, this, and this, you can do this dive. But, if you can only do this and this, you should only do this dive. I'm not sure how that works. And why people think it need be applied to diving.

People wander into the wilderness every day. Some climb mountains. Some simply meander virtual paved trails, enjoying the view. Holy smokes, some people run ultra-marathons through Death Valley. We trust that those who do not have the skills and/or desire will not opt for the more challenging risks, and, by and large, that is exactly what happens. Occasionally Darwin rears his head, but, mostly, people rise to their own comfort level. We don't measure and test everyone who enters a national forest, we trust human judgment.

Shouldn't safety and enjoyment be the only necessary "minimum proficiency" standards required? Oh, along with a healthy dose of common sense... which can't be trained anyway.

I guess that I just don't understand the need to quantify diving this way. It seems regulatory, even if it is done with the best of intentions (keeping someone safe). Left to themselves, the vast majority of people are surprisingly sensible.

Just my 2 cents.