Number of dives metric

[alewar]

It seems all agencies use the number of dives to qualitatively measure the experience of a diver.
Wouldn't it be better to use the number of hours underwater instead? Someone once went as far as suggesting me to log three 20 minutes dives instead of the one hour dive I did... WTF.

 

[rhwestfall]

Honestly, none of it is a valuable tool in determining skills/ability.

Example: Someone with 50/100/200 dives at one site is not the same as someone with the same number of dives in various environments.....

 

[beanojones]

Honestly, none of it is a valuable tool in determining skills/ability.

Example: Someone with 50/100/200 dives at one site is not the same as someone with the same number of dives in various environments.....

The interesting thing to think about that one is, which alternative makes one a better diver?

 

[rhwestfall]

:cool2:

 

[Akimbo]

Short of analyzing dive profiles off a computer for time depth, the number of dives isn’t unreasonable. We all know that the actual merit badges themselves aren’t a reliable indicator of a diver’s skill.

It is sort of like counting flying hours. As a passenger, I would also want to see their take-off and landing count since that is the highest risk part of the flight.

 

[100days-a-year]

<1000 dives= beginner >1000<5000= journeyman >5000<10000= provisional expert >10000= Master

Given that they include >60' deep,fresh and salt,overhead,limited vis,current,boat dives and task loaded dives

Experience in lower numbered dives is far less important than individual training and competency,some people just excel in things,some not so much....I've dove with instructors/DMs that could barely be trusted out their favorite pool or quarry

 

[rhwestfall]

I've dove with instructors/DMs that could barely be trusted out their favorite pool or quarry

winner, winner, winner

 

[Redshift]

Number of dives is just one of the many tools used to have an idea of what to expect from a diver. It can't be used on its own. And probably there isn't one that can. So it doesn't really matter if you think of dives or time under water. Several things should be taken into account, dives, variety, certification, how spread out those dives have been and when the last ones were, etc.

And, as beanojones also asked, why would time be better than dives? Yes, dives can be short. But do many people go to the trouble of doing many short dives? Dividing a dive into several shorter dives is just lying. For that, why do even bother and go diving, stay at home and fake some dives. What's the point?
And a dive requires dive planning and preparation, descending, conducting the dive, an ascent, debriefing and taking care of gear. A longer dive instead of several shorter dives will only have more bottom time, but will have less of all the other components of a dive. So where does a diver learn more?

 

[miketsp]

Hours UW is probably a much less reliable metric than # dives.
I have quite a few short dives on deep wrecks (<30mins BT), many of which were made in difficult sea conditions and many very long (>60mins BT) dives on fairly shallow calm tropical reefs.

There is absolutely no way that one 60 min shallow reef dive would equate in experience to 2 or 3 typical deep wreck dives. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[ev780]

I find dive counts intriguing. I am always skeptical of high dive counts. Here is why. In order to get these high 5000+ dive counts a person needs to live close to water obviously or it is a job. Either way they repeat the same dives over and over. Now someone who lives in Colorado, New York, Illinois or any other "non-diving" place and has a more modest count, say 400, has probably done a lot of traveling and has more breadth of experience in different conditions.

A seasoned traveler has much experience IMHO than someone who has 1000 dives in their local quarry.