AOW right after OWD

[flylow47]

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.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Where I disagree is the ridicule part. No one deserves to be ridiculed for doing what their boss tells them - no one. These guides are all constrained by the rules of their ownership. Rather than call this kid a fool, call his boss out for establishing the conditions that caused this to occur. Tell us the name of the dive op, where they're located, and whether their inexperienced pro staff would deter you from diving with them.

Therein lies the rub ... with a few exceptions I had a great time not just with that guide, but with the staff in general. I just found that particular part funny ... and being someone who generally doesn't do guided dives, I have a natural aversion to being nannied. Truth to tell, if I were to return to the Maldives I'd have no hesitation about using that outfit again ... they're probably as competent as any other. But frankly, I don't see myself returning to the Maldives. I wasn't all that impressed with the overall diving environment.

FWIW - in the Maldives, the "boss" doesn't establish the rules ... the government does.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[NAM001]

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. All training requires some degree of remedial work. Normally it is achieved with minimal effort. 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. 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. I do believe that diving does make a better diver if the student wants to become a better diver. No amont of instruction can do it if the diver does not want it. Your comment about not having a tendency to self correct what they dont know about is a given. 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. This all leads into other threads of YOU HAVE TO HAVE A AOW CARD TO DO A PRETICULAR DIVE. Its not about the card,, it is about the divers ability. There are a lot of card carrying AOWs that are barely OW divers. Likewise there are tons of OW carrying folks that can nav through the eye of a needle without touching the sides blindfolded. It is unfortunate that so many instructors economy can not support turning away applying students when they are not ready to continue further training. There is something inherantly wrong with nothing to master diver in 10-20 dives. So once again i applaude BOB for his training ethics.

The benefit of AOW is entirely determined by the quality of the OW course. Time-scale between courses is irrelevant.

If a diver is well trained on OW, they are ready for AOW and will gain new skills.

If a diver is poorly trained on OW, they are not ready for AOW - if their intention is to gain new skills. Lengthening the time scale between courses has little/no benefit because the badly trained diver is unlikely to resolve the issues arising from their poor training in the interim.

One thing I've noticed in 22 years diving/10 years as a pro, is that badly trained divers have a tendency not to self-correct deficits that they are unaware of and/or have no comprehension of how to fix for themselves.

Good training doesn't require remedial instruction. If an AOW course has to be 'throttled back' to provide remedial correction, rather than providing progressive improvement, then the OW course is too blame.... not the lack of post-course experience.

Bad is bad. Good is good.

Entering AOW with bad OW skills means the course has to focus on remedial treatment for bad skills.

Entering AOW with good OW skills means the course can focus on attaining new skills.

Either outcome is beneficial for the diver.

The only 'negative' AOW course is one that neither provides new skills, nor remediate skill deficits.... i.e. the 'glorified fun diving' BS.

 

[Abdullah]

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. All training requires some degree of remedial work. Normally it is achieved with minimal effort. 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. 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. I do believe that diving does make a better diver if the student wants to become a better diver. No amont of instruction can do it if the diver does not want it. Your comment about not having a tendency to self correct what they dont know about is a given. 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. This all leads into other threads of YOU HAVE TO HAVE A AOW CARD TO DO A PRETICULAR DIVE. Its not about the card,, it is about the divers ability. There are a lot of card carrying AOWs that are barely OW divers. Likewise there are tons of OW carrying folks that can nav through the eye of a needle without touching the sides blindfolded. It is unfortunate that so many instructors economy can not support turning away applying students when they are not ready to continue further training. There is something inherantly wrong with nothing to master diver in 10-20 dives. So once again i applaude BOB for his training ethics.

I didn't get that out of Andy's post.

I think Andy was saying that a diver who was trained well in OW is ready for more skills in AOW. He was also saying a diver that was not trained well in OW requires remedial training in AOW before he can move on to new skills.

This isn't a new concept. A long time ago that's the way OW was conducted (see Dr. Bill's post), and was the way I learned to dive. The agencies have since parsed that long course into bite sized pieces to more effectively exploit the market.

There's not really that much in AOW today that makes for an "advanced" diver. While I agree with Bob that getting some dives under your belt is beneficial, I don't see it as an unethical money grab for an instructor to take a student from OW directly to AOW. It's another bite at the apple to improve the diver's skills and prevent weak skills from becoming bad habits.

 

[NAM001]

A new diver needs to become comfortable in the water. You cant get that from a book. 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. 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. both sides of the arguement has its merits. i have by far learned more via lakeside discussion and trying things out than from any course. The premis is not unfounded. many states have restrictions on driving with first issue licences. no interstate driving, no passengers in car under age of 18 or 21 ect. no comercial ticket till >21yo. this allows mistakes to be made wih the least impact on others. the first time some one looses a tank from the straps should not be at 100 ft. it should be in less than 60. I agree one on one training is much better than a class of 12 or so being run through the peocess.

I didn't get that out of Andy's post.

I think Andy was saying that a diver who was trained well in OW is ready for more skills in AOW. He was also saying a diver that was not trained well in OW requires remedial training in AOW before he can move on to new skills.

This isn't a new concept. A long time ago that's the way OW was conducted (see Dr. Bill's post), and was the way I learned to dive. The agencies have since parsed that long course into bite sized pieces to more effectively exploit the market.

There's not really that much in AOW today that makes for an "advanced" diver. While I agree with Bob that getting some dives under your belt is beneficial, I don't see it as an unethical money grab for an instructor to take a student from OW directly to AOW. It's another bite at the apple to improve the diver's skills and prevent weak skills from becoming bad habits.

 

[Abdullah]

A new diver needs to become comfortable in the water. You cant get that from a book. 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. 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. both sides of the arguement has its merits. i have by far learned more via lakeside discussion and trying things out than from any course. The premis is not unfounded. many states have restrictions on driving with first issue licences. no interstate driving, no passengers in car under age of 18 or 21 ect. no comercial ticket till >21yo. this allows mistakes to be made wih the least impact on others. the first time some one looses a tank from the straps should not be at 100 ft. it should be in less than 60. I agree one on one training is much better than a class of 12 or so being run through the peocess.

We've all seen divers with a lot of dives have really bad habits and flail in the water. Maybe they were never taught correctly, maybe they're rusty, or maybe they brain dumped everything they were taught. The number of dives performed is not an indication of competence. Especially if they weren't taught well in the first place and spent 50 dives reinforcing bad habits.

I think the argument that getting a new student in front of an instructor right away to continue reinforcing good habits has merit. But, I also think the student shouldn't pass until he's demonstrated mastery at the AOW level. Which, requires an instructor committed to quality rather quantity.

 

[dbulmer]

Abdullah,

As an instructor what do you consider good and bad habits?

 

[NAM001]

from a previous post:

We've all seen divers with a lot of dives have really bad habits and flail in the water. Maybe they were never taught correctly, maybe they're rusty, or maybe they brain dumped everything they were taught. The number of dives performed is not an indication of competence. Especially if they weren't taught well in the first place and spent 50 dives reinforcing bad habits.

I think the argument that getting a new student in front of an instructor right away to continue reinforcing good habits has merit. But, I also think the student shouldn't pass until he's demonstrated mastery at the AOW level. Which, requires an instructor committed to quality rather quantity.

------------------------

What you say is very correct. The problem is multi fold.1. In education or training first taught first remembered. 2. Trainee's do not know when they have been taught wrong. 3. Training needs to be kept at a level that minimizes confusion in understanding and use. 4. Training is done at the lowest common denominator. Hence the use of blanket rules. Like many that have been stated, none of which are true all the time. Some not true at all if given some thought. It is easier to achieve 100% safe surfaces if you tell students that a 3 min safety stop is required or there could be severe consequences. Students do not catch the difference in will be and could be. To train in the "could be" requires knowledge that is too far beyond their abilities at the designed simplified OW level to sort out when deciding whether to stop or not. One persons necessary procedures are another&#8217;s wasted efforts. The biggest benefit I see in not doing chain training is that you get time to get other exposure to what you have learned or think you understood, from a point of view other than the instructors. How many times has a discussion about ascent rates and safety stops occurred and a new diver says that OW's do not do deco dives. Another says that the deco is happening during the ascent and at the safety stop. Or one diver says all dives are deco dives and the new guy says dives <60 are not deco dives because the instructor says so. Discussions like this is what drives home the point and relationship of deco and mandatory deco and ndl. They then figure out that as long as you don&#8217;t exceed ndl , the ascent rate and stop covers all deco obligations. Another discussion clarifies the 60' limit on ow's and 100 on aow's and 130 on deep. Another myth..... 100 ft is no different than 30......They are gaining a perspective on why the rules for them are what they are. Some will respect the new found rational and others will disregard and tempt fate. Those in the later group cannot be saved from their selves. Those in the first fall into a teaching precept that says you remember what you worked hardest to learn. This aspect is the part that either supports chain training or rebukes it. It can go either way. Having to seek out information (SB being a source of info) post dive discussion is where the real learning occurs. Most class training results in memorization of concepts. The application for them is the meat of learning. Hence the more you get to apply what you have been taught, the more you learn what you memorized in class. Chain training detracts from that process. I will concede that some training efforts are benefited by chain training, especially when you have a good instructor that does not error in the training.

 

[supergaijin]

It hurts- please... just say no to the WALL OF TEXT

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I didn't get that out of Andy's post.

I think Andy was saying that a diver who was trained well in OW is ready for more skills in AOW. He was also saying a diver that was not trained well in OW requires remedial training in AOW before he can move on to new skills.

This isn't a new concept. A long time ago that's the way OW was conducted (see Dr. Bill's post), and was the way I learned to dive. The agencies have since parsed that long course into bite sized pieces to more effectively exploit the market.

There's not really that much in AOW today that makes for an "advanced" diver. While I agree with Bob that getting some dives under your belt is beneficial, I don't see it as an unethical money grab for an instructor to take a student from OW directly to AOW. It's another bite at the apple to improve the diver's skills and prevent weak skills from becoming bad habits.

I would agree with that logic if AOW didn't specify that a person, having completed the class, is qualified to do deep dives. If you're using the class for remedial training on OW skills, then it isn't preparing you for deeper environments ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)