How soon to take AOW after OW?

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I tell my students about AOW as it is a requirement for many dives (I believe the bare minimum a vacation diver wants to achieve is AOW and nitrox), but I encourage them to have fun dives right away if possible to keep their momentum going.

The attrition rate of divers out of open water is atrocious (my understanding is that only 10% of divers continue diving). I think an emphasis on fun is important (easier when you can show them a pic of yourself surrounded by sea lions) as well as travel (as being certified will add a new dimension to many vacations). I like it when shops say "Hey, you just finished your open water, we have these fun dives (free of course) coming up. Why don't you join us? Great way to meet more divers" and so on.

Getting off the ground with scuba diving is expensive, and I personally don't feel that this the industry is healthy in this regard. But I have no idea how to address this. I think SSI and West Marine partnering up may be an indicator of what is to come. Maintaining a standalone facility is a fair bit of overhead.

As far as equipment goes, I recommend buying as little as possible for as long as possible. When getting recommendations (as divers like myself tend to have strong opinions), always ask why. I won't hijack the thread with examples that are often argued about.

Another reason why that salesperson was wrong saying getting comfortable doesn't matter. You will get so much more of your AOW (assuming a good instructor) if you are relaxed and thereby consume the air in your cylinder more slowly (longer dives to complete all tasks) and you are able to focus on the lesson at hand more easily.

Half a dozen dives sounds like a reasonable plan. It really depends on your comfort in the water. You may decide "I want 5 more" Or not. Whatever you decide is correct. There's nothing wrong with looking into the performance requirements for various courses to get your head wrapped around what you will be doing. If you want, feel free to PM me if you want lengthier discussions. I don't care what equipment you buy, where you get your training, and so on. I only care that you keep diving and enjoy it.

Stay wet and have fun.

 

[Kairoos]

I would say that it really doesn't matter how many dives you have as to whether or not you should take the AOW course. AOW is really just OW 2.0 IMO (at least with PADI). You go over a bunch of different topics (deep, night, navigation wreck, etc) but it's only required that you do that specific adventure dive once How good can you be with something after doing it once?

It's good exposure to different types of dives, and skills, but it's not really "advanced". I took it because a lot of charters have AOW as a minimum requirement for certain dives. If you only have an OW cert and the operators don't know you and your skill level, they probably won't take you out.

If you have the money to spare, go for it, if not, save the money to dive, dive, dive! Then worry about certs later.

 

[kimbalabala]

There really is a huge variance of opinion on this - as always for any discussion here! I would go with your comfort level.

 

[DevonDiver]

I tell my students about AOW as it is a requirement for many dives

Do you explain that the 'requirement' is entirely shop decided... and not an agency or industry specification?

I've always found it a little disingenuous to sell (PADI) AOW on the back of this fictional 'requirement'. I think the requirement stems simply from the fact that it's otherwise very hard to sell the AOW course as a necessity, or even a benefit.

There are only two reasons generally used to sell AOW:

1. "You have to have AOW to dive deeper than 18m/60ft". Which is technically BS... and entirely an industry (not agency) concocted notion.

2. "You have to have AOW as a prerequisite for some subsequent courses". Which is technically correct and entirely an agency concocted agenda.

The reason I say "concocted" is because the syllabus of AOW provides zero developmental training or skills that are pertinent to safely advancing diver capability beyond the scope of what is already attained on OW training.

The AOW course syllabus is of an experiential, not skill-development/training nature. Experience develops capacity and competency at the existing level; whereas training/skill-development develops capacity and competency at new/higher levels.

There are instructors who teach AOW beyond the syllabus and transform it into a training/skill-development course. But those are very rare...

The most honest name for AOW should actually be "Specialty Course Sampler" and it should be sold on that basis... a convenient way to sample varied diving activities and expand the divers' awareness of different things they can do underwater - paving the way to informed decisions about where the diver might wish to subsequently invest in further training. It should be removed as a prerequisite for other courses.... and it should definitely not be used as a benchmark for assessing diver readiness for any professional diving risk assessments (which is what it is currently and imprudently used for).

 

[Bob DBF]

Mostly because it will be a pre-requisite to getting Rescue Diver. It also opens up my limits from 60 feet to 100.

SSI teaches their Rescue (Diver Stress & Rescue) as a specialty so you can take it anytime after OW. NAUI Rescue can be taken that way as well, so shop the Agencies for what you want.

As for the limits, what the agency advises or a boat or club might require is their rules, however the California boats I've been on do not have any such restriction. Not to say that you shouldn't, expanding your personal limits should be slow and deliberate. You do not want to get in over your head, so to speak, and deal with an issue at a depth you are not comfortable with.

Bob

 

[DevonDiver]

....expanding your personal limits should be slow and deliberate.

Exactly.

Most agencies adopt of a policy of advising divers to set their own personal depth limits. To do that involves consideration of many individual factors; total and recent experience, water conditions, equipment familiarity, appropriateness of training, personal comfort zone, health and well-being,.... etc etc etc.

The existence of a plastic card in your wallet is not one of those assessment factors... so I don't know why dive centers put such an absolute emphasis upon it... as it has no basis on personal depth limits nor is it reflective of agency advice to divers.

Obviously, a dive charter/center needs to ensure that divers are setting responsible, prudent and reasonable personal depth limits. They can only do that by assessing the diver in-water... not by a card in their wallet.

Naturally, some divers don't like to be told "no"... so a responsible dive center risks losing customers if they limit diving based on competency/risk-assessment. There'll always be a competitor that'll take the money...and the risk. Promoting C-cards (especially AOW) as a 'standard' for risk assessment and competency determination is merely a convenient method to say "yes" to divers who you'd ethically want to say "no" to...

 

[TheHuth]

Slow and deliberate is definitely my plan. I'm hoping to get in allot of dive time this year, and by the end of the year feel proficient. I have no delusion that finishing advanced open water will make me proficient. And I do hear everyone loud and clear that AOW really doesnt give new skills. But it is an inexpensive way to get 5 fun dives in under the care of an instructor. So I dont think its a total waste. To be honest, I dont know if/what I would specialize in, so seeing something new should also make it worthwhile.

At the moment though, I'm just going to focus on getting in some quality dive time. I stopped in to a different dive shop today to feel them out. Out of the gate I felt 100% comfortable with them. No high pressure sale in any way shape or form. In fact they told me that I should get some dive time in as well before considering more training. I appreciated their honesty and candor. I think I'll do as they said, and then plan to resume my training with them as I feel I am ready to progress.

 

[TMHeimer]

There really is a huge variance of opinion on this - as always for any discussion here! I would go with your comfort level.

Right. I THINK I may have read a few of those variations on SB on a past thread or twenty..... I don't know about 99% of OW graduates having buoyancy problems. I've seen a lot of OW checkout dive #5s--Now called the "mini dive" with PADI that students plan on their own. I've seen some pretty decent buoyancy at times on those dives. My own buoyancy wasn't the greatest right out of the shoot, but with regular diving (like once weekly), it was well less than 10 dives when my buoyancy was pretty darn decent. For a lot of people I would assume it's not rocket science.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Do you explain that the 'requirement' is entirely shop decided... and not an agency or industry specification?

I've always found it a little disingenuous to sell (PADI) AOW on the back of this fictional 'requirement'. I think the requirement stems simply from the fact that it's otherwise very hard to sell the AOW course as a necessity, or even a benefit.

There are only two reasons generally used to sell AOW:

1. "You have to have AOW to dive deeper than 18m/60ft". Which is technically BS... and entirely an industry (not agency) concocted notion.

2. "You have to have AOW as a prerequisite for some subsequent courses". Which is technically correct and entirely an agency concocted agenda.

The reason I say "concocted" is because the syllabus of AOW provides zero developmental training or skills that are pertinent to safely advancing diver capability beyond the scope of what is already attained on OW training.

The AOW course syllabus is of an experiential, not skill-development/training nature. Experience develops capacity and competency at the existing level; whereas training/skill-development develops capacity and competency at new/higher levels.

There are instructors who teach AOW beyond the syllabus and transform it into a training/skill-development course. But those are very rare...

The most honest name for AOW should actually be "Specialty Course Sampler" and it should be sold on that basis... a convenient way to sample varied diving activities and expand the divers' awareness of different things they can do underwater - paving the way to informed decisions about where the diver might wish to subsequently invest in further training. It should be removed as a prerequisite for other courses.... and it should definitely not be used as a benchmark for assessing diver readiness for any professional diving risk assessments (which is what it is currently and imprudently used for).

When I was diving with Mexico Divers (Mexico Divers, Diving Isla Mujeres & Cancun Reef - Home) off Isla Mujeres, AOW was required for the deeper (below 60 feet) largely due to currents addressed (negative entries/immediate descents). No AOW? No diving with them.

I'm not going to get into a debate or long conversation on your points however, as some of it I agree with, some of it I don't. I think there are some important considerations you are neglecting.

 

[DevonDiver]

When I was diving with Mexico Divers (Mexico Divers, Diving Isla Mujeres & Cancun Reef - Home) off Isla Mujeres, AOW was required for the deeper (below 60 feet) largely due to currents addressed (negative entries/immediate descents). No AOW? No diving with them.

Which is laughable, as the AOW syllabus provides absolutely zero training for diving in currents, negative entries and/or immediate descents. So why require it?

A diver who trained in placid fresh-water has AOW... "sure, no problem...come dive"

A diver who trained in strong current in the Maldives only has OW.... "no way Jose.."

This is the sort of "risk assessment" processing that makes a mockery of what we, as dive professionals, are supposed to be doing in our work.

I'm not going to get into a debate or long conversation on your points however, as some of it I agree with, some of it I don't. I think there are some important considerations you are neglecting.

I hope you understand my comments aren't a reflection on you. It's the state of the diving industry that I am commenting upon.

The AOW syllabus is purely experiential and doesn't actually add any new formal competencies or skillset. That makes it hard to sell on it's real merits.

So the dive industry creates this fiction that it is a requirement for X, Y or Z diving - despite being totally unable to justify why it is a requirement.

Likewise, the agency(ies) make it a false prerequisite for further training, despite the fact that the course syllabus provides no skill competencies or advancement that actually are prerequisite for subsequent training.