What makes a dive trip "Advanced" "Moderate" or "Easy"?

[Granny Scuba]

What makes a dive trip "Advanced" "Moderate" or "Easy"?
Is there industry standards.

I am sure depth and current are involved....what else and who makes the decision?

Some dive sites have the Oriskany as advanced and others show it is as moderate?
Same is true with the Blackthorne.

[fisheater]

Those "ratings" are purely in the eyes of the dive operator. No there are no "industry standards." Also, some features that would make a dive "harder" for one diver, would be "no sweat" for another diver. E.g., a "beginner" Calif diver wouldn't have any issues with a dive that was billed as "advanced" by a dive op because of cold water.

The most you can gather from any dive op rating of "advanced" or "intermediate" is that there is something about that dive that you should investigate and figure out if it would be a problem for you. Best to contact the dive op and discuss the dive conditions before booking.

Better planning means safer dives.

[seaducer]

I am sure depth and current are involved....what else and who makes the decision?

In a word, you do. Try to gather as much information as you can as to the typical local conditions and gauge that to your training, experience and fitness.

It is hard to read someone's review of an "easy dive", say the person normally dives to 100 feet with current, 50 degree water and vis of 10 feet...they may dive Lac Cai in Bonaire and say that was easy, or moderate, while it may well be beyond the capabilities of some others.

So I know it sounds like a cop out, but there really is no industry standard definition of those terms, so it really is up to the individual.

[Scott L]

Some dive sites have the Oriskany as advanced and others show it is as moderate?

Any outfit that refers to a dive with a hard bottom of 212ft as moderate is grossly negligent IMO...

[Mattleycrue76]

Any outfit that refers to a dive with a hard bottom of 212ft as moderate is grossly negligent IMO...

I'm pretty sure the superstructure of the Oriskiny is quite a bit shallower (I'm too lazy to look up the exact depth). Grossly negligent is a strong term to use for an outfit that merely assumes that moderately skilled divers divers can avoid plummeting into the abyss uncontrollably.

[Scott L]

I'm pretty sure the superstructure of the Oriskiny is quite a bit shallower (I'm too lazy to look up the exact depth). Grossly negligent is a strong term to use for an outfit that merely assumes that moderately skilled divers divers can avoid plummeting into the abyss uncontrollably.

I guess you are right. Was on cattle boat with 5 open water students of dubious caliber today...

Dive Oriskany reef - Pensacola SCUBA diving

[ptyx]

What can make a dive advanced? Choose between:

• Lack of bottom. Wall dives are usually considered 'harder' than dives with a hard bottom - because if you're over weighted and can't control your descent you're gone.
• Depth. Because you need to keep track of NDL and gas (gasp!), and a minimum of gas planning is a good idea. So is a decent SAC.
• Drift dives or live drop off/pick up dives. Because you can't spend 10 minutes at the surface or come back on the boat twice to get more weights.
• Current. Because you need to be smart about it, and don't try to fight it.
• Surf. Because you need to be efficient getting in and out of the boat.
• Night dives. Because it's dark, spooky and can mess with your head.
• Low visibility. Because you need good team communication.
• etc...

There are no standards. How conservative a dive ops is largely depends how much the captain is willing to take beginners' money and send them on dives they're not prepared for and won't enjoy.

'Easy' dives, on the other hands, are generally selected so it will be possible for the DM to assist everyone even if she ends up with a boatload of divers on their first dive after certification. No current, great visibility, ascent/descent on line, protected area so people can hang on behind the boat to adjust gear and weights, no way to get lost, etc.

[DevonDiver]

There is no standardized definition to catagorise either dive sites or divers.

Dive site descriptions/ratings are mostly dictated by individual dive operators. Neither is there a standardized industry-wide definition on what rating/experience a diver must have to be considered beginner/advanced etc.



Here are a list of factors that can be used to catagorise dive sites:

1. Dive Depth. Many dive centers predominantly use dive depth to reflect the 'level' of the dive. This is often linked to the most common depth qualifications issued by the major certifying agencies (i.e. 18m- beginner / 18-30m intermediate / 30m+ advanced). There are two major considerations when matching depth against experience/training;

a. Narcosis. Recognising and reacting effectively to narcosis can be very dependant on experience.

b. Gas and (No-)Deco awareness. Greater depth has a proportional impact on reducing the time provided by gas supplies and no-decompression limits. The deeper you are, the less flexibility and contingency exists to cope with distractions, incidents, delays etc.

2. Bottom Depth. Many dive centers will automatically catagorize a dive as 'advanced' if the bottom is below recreational diving limits (deep wall dive). Loss of descent control could prove dangerous/fatal. Likewise, a dive where the bottom depth exceeds the planned dive depth (wall dive) may be counted as intermediate, because bouyancy control is required. Where dive depths coincide with bottom depths (dives conducted along bottom contours) then loss of bouyancy control is less dangerous.

3. Current. Strong currents, tides and swells can cause an increase in the catagorisation of a dive site. This is especially true if they require specific or advanced techniques that may not always be taught at beginner/entry level (i.e. drift diving, use of reef hooks, DSMBs etc)

4. Visibility. This can be very dependant on location. A bad-viz (more advanced) dive in the tropics could be classified as a good-viz (beginner) dive in temperate waters. Generally, when one dive site experiences considerably worse visibility than other sites in the local vacinity, or compared to the regional norm, then it can be classified as more advanced. Liekwise changes of visibility during a day/week/year can mean the classification of a dive site changes (including night diving).

5. Specific Hazards. There could be specific hazards applicable to individual sites that would raise the complexity of the dives or present a requirement for greater experience and/or training to ensure diver safety. In essense, the dive operator would want those divers to have sufficient experience and training to be able to conduct the necessary risk assessments and hazard awareness throughout the conduct of the dive. These hazards could include, but not limited to, issues such as:

a. Overhead environments.
b. Aggressive or dangerous marine life.
c. Confusing topography/bottom.
d. Entanglement hazard (wrecks, weed etc)
e. Wrecks that risk collapse etc
f. Sites with rapid current/tidal direction changes.

6. Sites Requiring Specific Diving Experience or Training. With knowledge of the core training provided by the major certifying agencies, dive centers can differentiate sites based on reasonable assumptions/expectations of the training and/or experience likely to be present in divers of different qualification levels. This could include wreck diving, cave diving, drift diving etc etc. It could also include consideration of how much support is available to divers at the site;

a. Ascent/descent line - or free ascent/descent.
b. Type of supervision (Divemaster, in-water guide, out-of water supervision or nothing?)
c. Restricted geographic area (small lake, bay etc).

7. Sites with 'Temptations'. Some sites have features that may tempt less experienced divers to exceed the limitations of their training and/or experience. Where those temptations may pose significant danger, the whole site may recieve a higher grading. Examples will be: deceptively dangerous opportunities to penetrate wrecks, easily accessible cavern/cave penetrations, highly attractive marine life below maximum dive depths etc etc. In essense, sites where morons will be drawn towards the inevitability of Darwin's Law...

8. Sites of specific environmental fragility. Inexperienced divers are sometimes limited from certain sites due to measures in place to reduce diver impact and damage on fragile sites. For instance, dive operators may wish to ensure that only divers with exceptional bouyancy control visit sites with fragile, rare or recovering coral systems.

9. Temperature. Whilst temperature can be offset by the correct exposure protection, colder water does pose greater risks. Dive operations may want to ensure that divers have sufficient experience and training to understand and monitor those risks.

[seaducer]

Any outfit that refers to a dive with a hard bottom of 212ft as moderate is grossly negligent IMO...

This is a perfect example of why other people's ratings of easy, moderate and advanced are really worthless, IMO.

While Valhalla is not wrong in any way, I personally feel completely different. Since buoyancy is something that every diver should be proficient with after OW, I would not use the depth of the hard bottom in my difficulty rating. (not to be confused with the depth of the dive, which may be 1000's of feet above the bottom)

Here you have two opposing philosophies, neither of which are correct or incorrect. This is why it is important to get as many details as possible before hand, what ever you decide the dive is after that is relative. I find it prudent to make an informed decision using empirical data as opposed to anecdotal data.

[Garrobo]

I would suggest: Wave action, current and depth.