Number of dives or Total dive time

[fgray1]

I looking for some opinions. What do you think is more important.
The total number of dives you 've done or the total time you have accumulated in diving. I would think the more time you spend in the water the better diver you will be. You can have 100 dives and if they are all 10 min dives you don't have alot of dive time. But when you state your experiance you say how many dives you have under your belt. I know of people that say they have hunderds of dives but their bouyancy is terrible. Just looking for a little insite.
:doctor:

 

[String]

Neither.

The *variety* of diving conditions i think is the most important.

For example a 30 minute dive in zero vis and high current is more of a challenge than a 60 min dive in 30m vis and slack to the same depth.

A diver with 100 dives, 90 of which in the same area or conditions isnt in my view as experienced as someone with say 70 dives in a big variety of conditions.

For "experience" you need to take into account the number of dives, time and type of dives along with conditions.

 

[Wendy]

Just because someone has 100's of dives does not mean they are a good diver. Maybe they never did anything to correct their bad diving habits.

 

[pipedope]

Both number of diver and hours underwater are important but also training and practice are also important. The variety of conditions and situations is another factor.

In commercial diving diving days are tracked. A day can include anything from 0 hours underwater (for the tender and dive supervisor) to 10 hours or more underwater for a busy diver. In each case the planning, setup, gearup, teardown and packing along with the record keeping are nearly the same for a short day or a long one.

 

[CincyBengalsFan]

The question didn't ask anything about diving conditions.

I would have to go with total time logged underwater.

 

[ScottyK]

There's also natural ability and comfort level to be factored in. I dove with a Scuba Board member a few weeks ago, and it was his 12th dive. I was floored by how good he was already.

In contrast, I took a guy on an easy shore dive last season. He held a rescue cert, and had a couple of years experience. He was floundering around all over the place, sucked his tank down to 1,000 PSI in less than 10 mins, then panicked and started swiming the wrong way back to shore

 

[PhilD]

Putting aside other issues like diversity, experience, etc, then between # of dives and hours logged, # of dives would be more relevant to me, as that would be more descents, more ascents, more buddy checks, more pre dive plans, etc.

Sure there will be exceptions to the rule, but I really have to believe that the more times people do something correctly, the better at it they will become.

 

[FLArmyBrat]

At this point, almost 700 mins logged sounds better than 17 dives logged!!! LOL

But seriously, I do lean towards the time under. But conditions and types of dives should be factored in too. Most of my few dives have been relatively easy. But I was able to work on my skills such as bouyancy and such. So the time under was definately used well!

Laurel- The Frog Queen
:royal:

 

[ScottyK]

FLArmyBrat once bubbled...
At this point, almost 700 mins logged sounds better than 17 dives logged!!! LOL

Yes- That does sound much more impressive

IMHO- the only way to be truly sure is to get in the water with them. That's why I took the aforementioned "Rescue Diver" on an easy dive first. Man, I'm glad I did

 

[Epinephelus]

Inasmuch as one dive could be a 2 hour cakewalk sightseeing journey on a shallow warm clear reef while another could be 20 minutes in deep freezing near zero-vis overhead with current & crud & sharp objects while accomplishing a difficult task, neither "number of dives" nor "time underwater" has a quantifiable value for judging a diver's competence by itself.
I learned long ago to judge a diver not by how many dives or how much time under water, but rather by how well he/she dives.
E.