Minimum proficiency

[Meng_Tze]

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.

There are soo many parameters we can look at. But being able to hold stops, do maskless ascend etc are not really minimal skils. They are very good skills to have though.

For me the minimal ones are (and I am repeating some things said before).

Be able to know when not to dive and when to call the dive
Ability to make a slow ascent (9m/min)
have a basic understanding of how the gear functions (valve open/closed, how to purge a reg, how to read that spg thingy, inflate BC, what/where octo is)
finning

If you want better and more aware divers add:
gas planning and scherdules
stops and smb
gas sharing

 

[H2Andy]

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?

usually (though i can't speak for the OP) in order to quantify performance and meassure (hopefully) progress

for example, how good is your bouyancy?

pretty good

or

i can hold a stop at 10 feet within a 1 foot variation indefinetely

-- while conducting OOA?
-- while switching tanks with a buddy?
-- while deploying a surface marker?
-- while OOA and switching tanks?
-- while OOA and deploying a surface marker?

where are you in this random spectrum? even though random, it does give you some idea of where you are

 

[Walter]

I do have ideas, but unfortunately when I'm posting from work, I often don't have time to share them. This is obviously a subjective topic, so these are opinions.

Minimum skill level to be diving at all should be much higher than many instructors have attained. Many instructors aren't even aware that panic can be trained out of divers. First skill - engage brain. Second skill - keep brain engaged. How does one accomplish this? First, you need to be able to swim. You need to have confidence in your ability to swim. If you opted to snorkel instead of swim to pass the "swimming requirement" of your course, go take swimming lessons. Unless you can swim nonstop for at least 300 yds, you aren't ready to be diving. Next, learn to free dive. You don't have to be a world class free diver, but if you can't free dive to 30 feet, clear your mask at least 3 times on a single breath and breath through a flooded snorkel, go take free diving lessons. If you use a snorkel with a device designed to keep water out and/or a purge valve, toss it in the trash and get a simple J. These skils (swimming and free diving) relate directly to diver confidence. Diver confidence is the first step in preventing panic. Also building diver confidence, a diver must be able to do everything (except see) as well without a mask as with a mask. If you are uncomfortable breathing without a mask, you are one tiny accident away from panic. Panic can and does kill divers. Practice no mask breathing often.

Can you preform a doff and don? A bailout? If you can't, you need to learn. How's your buoyancy control? Buoyancy control is more important on shallow dives than on deep dives. Buoyancy is much harder to control at shallow depths. When ascending from a deep dive, most divers have an ascent line as a crutch. While it's not good to have to rely on such a line, on shallow dives, you don't have it.

Understanding gas management is more important on deep dives. If you have the boat in sight all the time and you don't exceed 30 feet, then your gas management [plan can be, "be back on the boat with 500 PSI." When you are farther away, deeper or add other complications to the dive, you need a better gas management plan. How much gas do you need for the dive? How do you know? What id things go wrong?

I wouldn't make divisions based on water temperature, currents, visibility, depth, etc. I do think we all need to be aware that anytime you are diving in new conditions, you are a newbie. If you've trained in a 40°F quarry with 2 feet of viz, your first dive in the ocean with 87°F water, 100 feet of viz, strong currents and 4 ft seas, you're probably going to get your butt handed to you by the sea conditions.

 

[OHGoDive]

usually (though i can't speak for the OP) in order to quantify performance and meassure (hopefully) progress

for example, how good is your bouyancy?

pretty good

or

i can hold a stop at 10 feet within a 1 foot variation indefinetely

-- while conducting OOA?
-- while switching tanks with a buddy?
-- while deploying a surface marker?
-- while OOA and switching tanks?
-- while OOA and deploying a surface marker?

where are you in this random spectrum? even though random, it does give you some idea of where you are

But, the OP asked about "minimum proficiency", not just skill measurement. For divers. To perform certain dives.

I understand the concept of quantifying capabilities. And, as you show, you can peel it to the very nth degree. There is always another layer that can be explored.

If you can hold a stop while switching tanks, but not while OOA and switching tanks, which dives are you excluded from? And what are the criteria of those dives that fall on each side of the line?

Wouldn't you need to also quantify the difficulty of each and every dive under each and every condition? 75 feet in an Ohio quarry is a lot different in January than it is in August.

If you score a 93 on your skill sets, you can dive all dives that measure a 93 or less on the scale of difficulty? And you'll be safe? This is what I don't understand.

I get the whole idea of assessing your skills, knowing what you need to know and being able to learn more. Being aware and being smart. But, quantifying it all? A yardstick for it? I'm not sure.

I guess I am asking at a more philosophical level. What is the ultimate goal of this? To be able to give someone a survey, and objectively determine whether or not they are capable of performing a particular dive under a particular set of conditions?

Why the need to quantify it to that level?

 

[Thalassamania]

12 closely supervised dives to 30 feet.
12 dives with a more experienced buddy to 30 feet.
12 dives with a more experienced buddy to 60 feet.
12 dives with a more experienced buddy to 100 feet.
12 dives with a more experienced buddy to 130 feet.

Similar steps to 150 and 190. These are minimums for a quick learner.

 

[OHGoDive]

12 closely supervised dives to 30 feet.
12 dives with a more experienced buddy to 30 feet.
12 dives with a more experienced buddy to 60 feet.
12 dives with a more experienced buddy to 100 feet.
12 dives with a more experienced buddy to 130 feet.

Similar steps to 150 and 190. These are minimums for a quick learner.

But, see, this just adds to my questions. Couldn't you argue that this measure, rigorous as it might be, simply validates the diver to dive under the conditions under which those 60 dives were performed?

Or are these 60 generic dives under all conditions?

You wouldn't argue that a diver who had completed all 60 dives (assuming they were all open water) would be "minimally proficient" to dive a cave solo at 80 feet, correct?

How can you possibly quantify something that is infinitely variable?

And, more imporantly, do you need to? And, if you do, why?

 

[DennisS]

12 closely supervised dives to 30 feet.
12 dives with a more experienced buddy to 30 feet.
12 dives with a more experienced buddy to 60 feet.
12 dives with a more experienced buddy to 100 feet.
12 dives with a more experienced buddy to 130 feet.

Similar steps to 150 and 190. These are minimums for a quick learner.

I think you learn more from a CF dive than 10 non eventful dives. I have a feeling a lot of DIR hard and fast rules came from CFs.

I am not advocating deliberate CFs, lose a fin, forget to turn on air, have pressure gauge catch on a cleat during a backroll etc etc.

 

[H2Andy]

But, the OP asked about "minimum proficiency", not just skill measurement. For divers. To perform certain dives.

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

 

[sgad]

Hi,
I'm new to scuba diving just signing up in April for classes. I been around water all my life, not just swimming pools.
I like this thread; maybe, the question was not as specific as everyone would have liked it to be but for someone like me who is not familiar with all the details about scuba diving it has made me think about things.
I know I'm not going to do anything I'm not comfortable with. I want my experience to be fun and enjoyable. Anyone who has had a hobby with any technical or skill level requirements realizes their limitations and knows the possible consequences if they exceed them when they are not ready.
I think of this hobby as one of those where it is not cool to be stupid.
So as for me I probably hang out at 60ft for awhile and do some drift diving while improving my skills. There are so many things to do at a "safe" less complicated depth of water as a new diver. At least I think, I will have enough to work through without having to worry about ooa, decompression, visibility and whatever else there is to experience whether it be good or bad at a greater depth

PS. I read the CESA thread, and I hope we learn that in class. I think it is a good idea. It shouldn't pass or fail someone, but it does recognize a limitation if that is the case. Not everyone scuba diving really knows how to swim from the sounds of it.

 

[Thalassamania]

Our thought (and systems like the one described have been in place since the early 1950s) is that divers who are mentored through a system like this and approved at each set by senior personnel develop the kinds of judgement that is required to know what environs they belong in and which they don't. Additonaly they have developed the skills to deal with CF (and have likely seen a few). I'm a stong believer that properly trained divers really don't need rules (by definition). Also, I've never seen a rulebook that could save a poorly trained diver who is caught in a CF.