AOW right after OWD

[NAM001]

You are fortunate to have a family that shares your diving intrest. Never the less the pipeline training that they do still lacks the benifits of experience. Again fortunately for them you are serving a dual role for them. You are their concience when they think about doing something they may later regret. And you are an experience bank they can tap for your "lessons learned the hard way" to more firmly set the training they got from the instructor. Most students do not have the inhouse support to get the through the first 100 dives or so. Like you I did lots of (hindsight) stupid things since getting my owd ( yes owd,,, a class that that with exception of dive count covers all the requirements of what they now call master diver.) cert in the 60's and my aow cert in 2003. Did i learn from the AOW course? Well I hate to say absdolutely no. So i will say yes, just dont ask me what it was. I will say that I was not the only one to learn something between the 1 on 1 aow class i took.

My son (14) did OW in March. I immediately "encouraged" him to do AOW and Nitrox, which he did, and he benefited greatly from the entire experience. PPB, night, navigation, you name it. Why not learn things the right way from the beginning? My wife also went out and got certified in March (w/Nitrox) and is doing her AOW this month.

I did not follow this path, and just did my AOW in March and RD this month after 18 years of being certified. Had I done AOW right away I would have saved lots of lessons learned the hard way. I wanted my family to learn from my choice.

 

[DevonDiver]

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Throttling back a course is nothing but gutting the course to provide the absolute minimum training allowed because the students are not ready for the course. Such as things like dives to 70 vs 100 and callin it a deep dive.

I think we're using different definitions. I read 'throttling back the course' to mean that the emphasis of the training was on remediating existing skill deficit, rather than providing progressive skills to an already sound foundation of OW skill.

Providing a 'bare-bones' standard AOW - which is just glorified fun diving - isn't (to me) 'throttling back', it's just lazy, uninspired tuition (if we can even call it 'tuition').

All training requires some degree of remedial work.

There's nothing in training standards that reflects that. The instructor should complete a pre-assessment of the diver's existing skill. If the diver is sub-standard in that assessment, then deficits should be corrected prior to starting the new course. That is reflected in standards, but rarely in reality.

Next the throttleing back is not to privide remedial instruction , per se, it is to reduce the chance of having to fail a student or have a hand full of students slow the rest of the class down.

Again, that isn't reflected in standards. Every PADI course...and every dive/module on that course... has specific 'Performance Standards'. Those standards have to be met to permit certification. Nothing is dumbed down - to do so is a clear breach of professional standards and would be actioned by PADI under their Quality Assurance process.

However, instructors do have some discretion in how they perform their training dives. They can make dives more or less challenging using their initiative and experience. They can also add extra skills - but may not assess the divers on any skills beyond the stated performance standards. i..e you cannot 'fail' a course for not achieving instructor-added components. You can only 'fail' for not achieving the stated performance requirements.

I have watched groups in the same class dive to 90 ft for thier deep dive and other's in the same class do just over 60. Just enough to qualify the deep parameter. I have watched students in the finals of thier aow in the water at a 40 degree heads up trim dogg paddling at 40 ft and then given thier aow card. No one will proudly and openly admit to runing classes like this, but it is meerly an occupation for many instructors to produce card carrying divers.

What you are describing is merely 'bad instruction'. It has no bearing on the course, the student or the agency. As mentioned, instructors are directed to 'pre-assess' students before starting any training course. Such pre-assessment exists to ensure that students possess pre-requisite competence (as expected from their current diving level). An Open Water diver should be expected to comfortable complete all skills and procedures taught at Open Water diver level. This includes buoyancy, trim, propulsion, weighting and all emergency protocols etc. The standards for those pre-requisites relate directly to the performance standards on that course (i.e. Open Water Course performance standards).

I do believe that diving does make a better diver if the student wants to become a better diver.

I do not. I believe two things:

1) That experience gained only reflects the quality of prior instruction. A badly trained diver who continues to dive (without correction) will accumulate further negative traits. In essence; they continue getting worse.

2) Becoming a better diver consists of two elements: water comfort and skill competency. Fun diving alone does not promote skill competency, unless that diver is actively practicing the full spectrum of necessary skills. Whilst the diver will increase water comfort...and may improve skill competency in certain skills that they use... they won't improve on any other skills that aren't specifically addressed. These might include emergency/contingency skills that don't occur on routine dives... and may also include those nuanced skills like trim or weighting that tend to require external feedback in the early stages.

3) Only perfect practice creates perfect skills. Flawed practice produces flawed skills. If the diver has been badly trained at the outset, or if they don't comprehend the finer points of a skill performance, then subsequent repetition/practice of those skills can only amplify skill errors. This is clearly illustrated in Vince Lombardi's famous quote "Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect".

No amont of instruction can do it if the diver does not want it.

Which is why further training is beneficial. The diver then has to meet 'performance standards'. If they want a given qualification, then they must attain a given result. It is a form of motivation.

In addition, I would say it is the role of a (good) instructor to shape and develop the mindset and motivation of the diver. Teaching isn't just 'do this'... it is also about the 'why you do that'.

I No one fixes what they dont know is incorrect. When you are expoxsed to to those who have good depth control you will try to become that as a means to belong. So long as the (i hate to uae the phrase) zero to hero training is allowed, you will have that method as the mainstreem training timelines. This is why i applauded Bob for being able to say "YOU ARE NOT READY FOR FURTHER TRAINING" to those who can not yet do the basics. There are the naturals who can do courses end to end, but the majority of trainees are not naturals.

I agree, but with a caveat. If someone graduates from Open Water training they should possess the full spectrum of open water skills at the given performance standards. AOW requires those open water skills, at those given performance standards, as the pre-requisite.

Therefore, a properly trained open water diver, who legitimately meets all stated open water performance standards "IS READY FOR FURTHER TRAINING". If they are not, then they were erroneously certified as being an open water diver and/or they have experienced skill-fade since obtaining that certification (a risk that occurs when AOW training is deferred to a later stage).

Either way... a properly applied pre-course assessment ensures that the student has the correct pre-requisite skills, performed to the correct standard, before engaging in subsequent training. To reiterate - that pre-assessment is an instructional training standard.

A new diver needs to become comfortable in the water. You cant get that from a book.

Agreed. That is why new divers have to obtain specific performance standards in their entry-level training. Those standards aren't assessed 'from a book', they are assessed in-water.

If you're saying that 'many OW divers don't have those standards', then I agree. A lack of quality education is the culprit - specifically, instructors not applying an honest definition of the term 'mastery' when assessing student divers against performance standards.

The issue arising from this is not 'OW divers need more experience before taking AOW'... but rather, it is 'OW divers are being short-changed on their OW courses'.

The situation remains that a properly certified OW diver should be capable and ready for immediate start on AOW. Where that diver is not ready, then they should be given remedial training prior to commencing AOW. In reality, most sub-standard divers are not turned away from AOW, because many students will simply seek an alternative (lesser?) instructor who will accept them and hand-out the desired plastic card. In acceptance of that reality, a contentious instructor might accept a sub-standard diver into training seeking to use the training opportunity to remediate and improve the student's skills to a higher level.

As the level/demands of the diving course increases (i.e. rescue - wreck - tech etc) then the need to insist upon a more firm demonstration of prerequisite competencies becomes more urgent. I'd put forward that the OW-AOW boundary isn't quite so critical.... and that the opportunity to remediate/improve core skills remains a laudable goal for an ethical instructor, when the alternative is simply to risk pushing the sub-standard student into the arms of another sub-standard instructor.

I just dont see how a new student can move to things like night diving ect is such a short time. your skills have not been tried and tested.

The skills are tried and tested. That's why there are performance standards for certification.

At some point you get a cert and end up having a problem that would have not happened if more time had been taken between courses.

After 22 years of diving, I still occasionally encounter problems which weren't addressed during any previous training. Should I have stayed at Open Water diver level?

If you can stay calm and correctly apply all of the open-water training you received, then there isn't really any problem that can arise at AOW level that you aren't prepared to deal with. Postponing AOW because of "what ifs" just isn't logical.

If you are referring to 'diver error' causing problems.... then again, that is an issue centered on proper diver training and qualification according to performance standards.

Your objections to a direct OW - AOW transition seem to be rooted in an expectation of sub-standard OW certification. Deferring commencement of AOW isn't the solution to that problem.

 

[DeepSeaDan]

I've seen this so many times now that I have to ask... New divers, newly certified OWD, finish their OWD cert and head right into the AOW course, sometimes without even doing a single dive on their own in between.

What's the idea behind doing this? I'm not PADI trained and it seems to be mostly (only?) PADI divers who do this. I've always been under the impression that AOW makes sense only after gaining some real-world diving experience (at least that's what I remember from the SSI system), but this common immediate OWD/AOW combo contradicts this.

Not trying to stir up anything, I'm genuinely curious about what the reasoning is. Do they feel that their OWD training was inadequate and they hope to fill the gaps through AOW? Not enough pool time in OWD and they want more before they start diving on their own? Or is it the depth limitation of the PADI OWD level (what is it, 60 ft?) that they think is not enough for what they want to dive? If that's what it is, what does the AOW teach them that OWD didn't, that would let them go beyond the OWD depth limit?

As another self-professed "Old-Schooler," I have never condoned the quick access to AOW from OW. I understand the benefits of having new folks participate in a further 5 guided dives, but the deal-breaker for me is that they come out of the experience licensed to dive deep. This would not be an issue if all new divers were blessed with common sense, exceptional skills, & a natural aptitude for diving; this, however, has not been my experience. I prefer to see folks dive in conditions similar to those in which they were trained for perhaps 40 dives, more or less, depending on their personal abilities and rate of improvement. With those 40 or so dives should come competent basic skills development. At that point, return to me for some new skills,and if I had my way, they'd be RESCUE SKILLS, not AOW. Rescue skills need to be learned sooner rather than later. After Rescue, I'd have no problem with folks coming my way for AOW, as they should be ripe & ready for the advanced responsibilities that come with increasing depth.

Regards,
DSD

 

[DevonDiver]

the deal-breaker for me is that they come out of the experience licensed to dive deep.

If that were true, I would agree. However, no certification card is a "license" to do anything.

• Open Water divers can dive to 30m, there is no agency originated restriction.
• Newly qualified open water divers are recommended to maintain a limit of 18m/60ft.
• All divers are taught to "dive conservatively".
• All divers are taught to dive "within the limits of their training and experience".
• All divers are taught to establish comfortable personal depth limits.
• All divers are taught that personal depth limits should vary depending on the environment, conditions and a myriad of other variables.

As instructors propagate the 'myth' that AOW licenses to 30m/100ft, I can't help but think that this becomes a sort of negative self-fulfilling prophecy. They don't like that AOW provides access to deeper depths, but it is they who are reinforcing the belief that it does...

Those instructors acknowledge that AOW training can provide a major refinement to diver skill at a most critical formative moment in their development. Which makes it a very good thing. Then they cannot help themselves stress this intangible link between AOW and deep diving. This, in their mind, makes AOW inappropriate for those novice divers...

Why not simply provide AOW to novice divers, in the knowledge that it greatly benefits them, and use your prerogative as capable educators to guide those students towards a state of self-reliance and prudence when formulating their own personal and comfortable depth limits??

....and encourage the same process of informed, responsible decision-making amongst the qualified divers who visit for fun diving?

 

[yardpro]

i was going to do my aow right after my ow... that was almost three years ago.
i dive a lot with friends off our own personal boats... mostly spearfishing, and just getting wet....

I have more than 50 dives in the last couple years..

I have been diving in grand cayman, grand turk, cozumel, roatan, key west, nassau, st thomas, st martin....

so having it has not adversely affected my dives.

i am getting my aow next week.. finally, and just finished my nitrox.

I am wanting to be more active with dive boats and enter lionfish roundups,etc...

Persoanlly i would wait and dive so everything can sink in...

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

If that were true, I would agree. However, no certification card is a "license" to do anything.

• Open Water divers can dive to 30m, there is no agency originated restriction.
• Newly qualified open water divers are recommended to maintain a limit of 18m/60ft.
• All divers are taught to "dive conservatively".
• All divers are taught to dive "within the limits of their training and experience".
• All divers are taught to establish comfortable personal depth limits.
• All divers are taught that personal depth limits should vary depending on the environment, conditions and a myriad of other variables.

This is all true ... however ...

As instructors propagate the 'myth' that AOW licenses to 30m/100ft, I can't help but think that this becomes a sort of negative self-fulfilling prophecy. They don't like that AOW provides access to deeper depths, but it is they who are reinforcing the belief that it does...

... it isn't instructors who are propagating the "myth" ... it's the dive ops who won't take you to certain dive sites without that card. They're not just creating the myth ... but the demand. It's a business decision.

Those instructors acknowledge that AOW training can provide a major refinement to diver skill at a most critical formative moment in their development. Which makes it a very good thing. Then they cannot help themselves stress this intangible link between AOW and deep diving. This, in their mind, makes AOW inappropriate for those novice divers...

Why not simply provide AOW to novice divers, in the knowledge that it greatly benefits them, and use your prerogative as capable educators to guide those students towards a state of self-reliance and prudence when formulating their own personal and comfortable depth limits??

... because I've seen way too many divers at depths they have no business being at, barely able to not accidentally ascend (most of the time) or run out of air (which they do anyway with some regularity).

A few years ago we lost a kid here one week after his AOW certification because he went too deep, stayed too long, and when he pulled that last breath off his tank, rather than sharing air with his buddy like he was "trained" to do he attempted to bolt to the surface from 90 feet. Never made it. The karma was that the woman who shook his hand and awarded him an AOW card a week earlier was the person who had to go pull his body off the bottom.

No way was that kid qualified to be where he was ... but his card said he was, and so he went there.

As long as the agencies and dive ops tie deep diving to an AOW card, AOW should not be marketed as "five more dives with an instructor". I'm not training anybody at that level until I feel they can sufficiently handle a curriculum that's going to teach them how to do deeper dives properly. Because once they get the card, their instructor isn't going to be there to do their thinking for them.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[DevonDiver]

... it's the dive ops who won't take you to certain dive sites without that card. They're not just creating the myth ... but the demand. It's a business decision.

No way was that kid qualified to be where he was ... but his card said he was, and so he went there.

That's a contradiction. Just saying...

So it is the dive ops that said he was "qualified" to be there. Perhaps his instructor too. Not the agency? Not the card?

... because I've seen way too many divers at depths they have no business being at,...

I agree, so have I. Which is why I feel proper education in how to set safe personal depth limits is far more advantageous than promoting the 'license' mindset that inextricably links 'qualification' with a 'right' to go to a certain depth.

As long as the agencies and dive ops tie deep diving to an AOW card..

I agree, the AOW should not be linked with any depth. As far as agencies (PADI at least) go, that link is an interpretation IMHO. The interpretation happens at the instructor/dive op level. I believe the interpretation of 'depth license' comes about because inexperienced or lazy dive pros can't think of any other good way to 'sell' an AOW course. They supply shoddy 'off-the-shelf' minimum standards regurgitated book courses... so it's hard for them to identify what the sales points, the benefits to the diver/customer, actually are. Hence, the propagation that "it lets you go to 30m/100ft".

Dumbing down the issue of calculating safe personal depth limits to a simple assessment of what plastic is in your wallet is a dereliction of teaching responsibility IMHO.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

That's a contradiction. Just saying...

So it is the dive ops that said he was "qualified" to be there. Perhaps his instructor too. Not the agency? Not the card?

I agree, so have I. Which is why I feel proper education in how to set safe personal depth limits is far more advantageous than promoting the 'license' mindset that inextricably links 'qualification' with a 'right' to go to a certain depth.

I agree, the AOW should not be linked with any depth. As far as agencies (PADI at least) go, that link is an interpretation IMHO. The interpretation happens at the instructor/dive op level. I believe the interpretation of 'depth license' comes about because inexperienced or lazy dive pros can't think of any other good way to 'sell' an AOW course. They supply shoddy 'off-the-shelf' minimum standards regurgitated book courses... so it's hard for them to identify what the sales points, the benefits to the diver/customer, actually are. Hence, the propagation that "it lets you go to 30m/100ft".

Dumbing down the issue of calculating safe personal depth limits to a simple assessment of what plastic is in your wallet is a dereliction of teaching responsibility IMHO.

For the most part, I believe we're using different words to say the same thing. What I don't understand, then, is that you seem to be promoting the notion that there's benefit to giving someone an AOW class before they may be prepared to handle the environment it supposedly qualifies them for. Am I misunderstanding your position?

To my concern, if someone needs more supervised dives with an instructor after OW, then they should be provided with the opportunity to do more supervised dives with an instructor to work on their deficiencies, not to increase the range of diving conditions they're "qualified" for. But this would be an admission that the course they initially paid for didn't achieve the objectives of the class ... wouldn't it ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[DevonDiver]

...the environment it supposedly qualifies them for. Am I misunderstanding your position?

Whilst I do think we mainly agree - I don't believe that (nor can find any agency/standards evidence for...) AOW qualifies any diver to do anything.

In every instance, the diver merely experiences the first (very gentle, very bland) introductory dive from a corresponding specialty course. It is the specialty course that 'qualifies', not the brief introductory experience on AOW.

The only area of possible contention over 'qualification' is that of depth. I've seen lots of references that clearly defined PADI's view on that... and none of them stated AOW 'qualified beyond 18m/30ft'. However, someone did earlier contribute a quote from the newer AOW student manual that seemed to support PADI were now adopting this as a policy (?).

However, lets recap exactly how PADI describe the AOW on their website...

Exploration, Excitement, Experiences. They’re what the PADI Advanced Open Water Diver course is all about. And no, you don’t have to be “advanced” to take it – it’s designed so you can go straight into it after the PADI Open Water Diver course. The Advanced Open Water Diver course helps you increase your confidence and build your scuba skills so you can become more comfortable in the water. This is a great way to get more dives under your belt while continuing to learn under the supervision of your PADI Instructor. This course builds on what you’ve learned and develops new capabilities by introducing you to new activities and new ways to have fun scuba diving.

You’ll hone your skills by completing five adventure dives that introduce you to:

• Underwater navigation
• Deeper water diving (typically anywhere from 18-30 metres/ 60-100 feet)
• A sampler of three more Adventure Dives of your choice

There is no mention of 'qualification'.... only 'gain experiences'. Likewise, there is no mention of "permitting deep diving"... it only "introduces you to deeper water diving"..."anywhere between 18-30 meters/60-100 feet".

All this talk of 'qualification', 'permissions' and 'licenses' is hokum. It doesn't exist in reality - it's a myth that became "fact" due to desperate selling ploys.

To my concern, if someone needs more supervised dives with an instructor after OW, then they should be provided with the opportunity to do more supervised dives with an instructor to work on their deficiencies, not to increase the range of diving conditions they're "qualified" for. But this would be an admission that the course they initially paid for didn't achieve the objectives of the class ... wouldn't it ...

If you're implying that the OW course doesn't meet its specified goal to create "divers qualified to dive independently of professional supervision", then I agree. The course is far too weak to permit that goal... with any reasonable assumption of self-reliance and of having sufficient skill and experience level to mitigate foreseeable problems, provide self or buddy rescue etc.

I don't believe PADI are avoiding that (even though they don't seem eager to re-adjust their desired 'end-state' for OW qualification) - this is because they readily state that the AOW "is a great way to get more dives under your belt while continuing to learn under the supervision of your PADI Instructor". That seems like a clear intention and purpose to me.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

... you do realize that there are more agencies in the world than PADI, and that they all have different standards. The one thing that's consistent between them is that an AOW card (or equivalent by whatever name that agency uses) is recognized by most dive ops as an indication that the holder is "qualified" to do deeper dives.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)