Right... This is the definition of quibbling over semantics. You are intransigent on these semantics. Are you a PADI lawyer?
Padi Master scuba diver
- Thread starter Frosty
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Right... This is the definition of quibbling over semantics. You are intransigent on these semantics. Are you a PADI lawyer?
DevonDiver
N/A
The way that AOW is 'commonly' marketed is what causes the confusion. PADI isn't to blame for that - their marketing does tend to be quite accurate.
I've heard more than a few instructors refer to AOW as the "advanced course". Not only is that the incorrect course title, it also leads student divers to a false belief in what the course is creating.
Likewise, I hear a lot of instructors state "it qualifies you to dive to 30m/100ft". Again, that is technically false. All OW divers are qualified to dive to 30m/100ft, but "newly qualified open water divers" are recommended "to limit their dives to 18m/60ft". The AOW course contains no specific training or assessment related to a depth increase. There is also no agency prohibition against divers exceeding their recommended depth limits up to 30m/100ft.
I think the problem stems from instructors who don't have the imagination or experience necessary to sell the AOW for what it actually is. On paper, it's a pretty worthless course really - as others have said, very little in the way of tangible skill development. It doesn't "give" the student any extra defined capability.... and that's the crux of it.
So many people, divers and instructors alike, only view qualifications based on "what they allow". It's the "diving license" mentality. The rewards of training are linked only with more 'entitlement' for the participant. "I pay $$$, I get X card... so I can wave that card and do Y".
AOW doesn't provide such a tangible benefit. It isn't a license and doesn't 'permit' anything additional. Many people can't accept that the benefits of AOW are simply gaining experience and comfort, in a wider range of activities/environments. Instructors do a poor job of 'selling' the benefits of experience alone to a generation of consumers who want 'bang for their buck' and can't see beyond the material rewards that they feel they are paying for...
When faced with a typical materialistic consumer, instructors take the easy road....
Potential AOW Student: "What do I get if I take the Advanced Open Water course?"
Eager to Sell Instructor: "It is an advanced diving course that permits you to dive to 30m/100ft"
instead of...
Responsible Instructor: "The course provides you with a wider range of safe and supervised experience, allowing you to enjoy exposure to a wider variety of diving activities, equipment and environments. It will help improve your confidence and comfort in the water."
I thought "tea bagging" had a different meaning. ;-)
I wonder what people think they have to gain from doing this sort of thing.
It supposed to be about enjoying the dive, and the people we meet.
Like with anything else. We all get out of it, what we put into it.
I wonder what people think they have to gain from doing this sort of thing.
It supposed to be about enjoying the dive, and the people we meet.
Like with anything else. We all get out of it, what we put into it.
- Messages
- 1,038
- Reaction score
- 536
I'm still most proud of my "1974" NASDS Basic Card, why? Because it was the hardest course I've ever taken. At the time, it was it. PADI sells cards IMHO, and I have a few.... "Put Another Dollar In" ..... it doesn't make them bad people, just entrepreneurs.. Want to improve your skills, Go Dive ....
Last edited:
DevonDiver
N/A
The MSD rating was created for divers that are in the same situation as you are in - they want the prestige of being a "master" without the liability and responsibilities that is associated with a DM. Technically I am an MSDT (waiting on some of my certs to process) and I love teaching the specialties. If ever you decide that you want to become a DM, that is totally possible. From what I read from your comment, I'd recommend taking the MSD route. Cheers!
Adventure in Diving Manual pg 67 - "As a new open water diver, 18 meters/60 feet marks the depth limit to which your qualified to dive." Unless I am reading the manual wrong as an OW diver 18m/60ft is the qualification; not 30m/100ft; "this limit isn't arbitrary; it's based on no-decompression limits, nitrogen narcosis and air supply" (not the 80s band)- same book and page "The Deep Adventure Dive will satisfy some of this curiosity and give you access to some of those dive sites by qualifying you to dive as deep as 30m/100ft," according to the PADI book it isn't until you take the Deep Adventure Dive in the AOW course that you are qualified to 30m/100ft.
So as an OW diver 60ft is the limit as an AOW with Deep Adventure Dive 100ft is the limit.
DevonDiver
N/A
Which edition AID manual is that?
PADI have only ever issued recommended limits, up to 40m/130ft, on which they are definite about being the max limit for recreational divers.
PADI have only ever issued recommended limits, up to 40m/130ft, on which they are definite about being the max limit for recreational divers.
modustollens
Contributor
The meaning of 'PADI Master Scuba Diver' is not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of understanding how language works in technical contexts.
Not all definitions are subject to debate or interpretation or even looking at a dictionary (for this gives merely lexical definitions).
'PADI Master Scuba Diver' is a stipulative definition (there are many other types of definitions: precising, emotive, operational, ostensive, lexical, persuasive etc.). This type of definition allows a person to construct a term or a concept's meaning as he or she desires. So long as the sufficient conditions and the necessary conditions are not inconsistent or circular a person cannot be wrong with their stipulative definitions.
What is necessary and sufficient is, for Padi MSD, clearly defined: OW/AOW/Rescue/5 Specs./A certain number of dives. These conditions are (1) individually necessary (that is, failing one condition is sufficient for failing to be A PMSD) and (2) jointly sufficient (if you have all conditions met, then you are a PMSD). Its clear. Its simple.
Saying that PADI is wrong is nonsense. They can stipulate the meaning of 'Padi Master Scuba Diver' any way they wish. Just like I can stipulate that 'right' is 90 degrees counter-clockwise to my current or last direction of motion. I could instead say 'right' is 180 degrees to my current or last direction of motion. To say I am mistaken about the meaning of 'right' is to fail to understand that I am using a stipulative definition and not the general, everyday meaning. Stipulative definitions are in use everywhere.
Look at the definition of a 'metre.' It has changed its stipulated meaning many times over 100s of years. Air pressure and air temperature used to be necessary conditions in the definition but are now not included at all (and no, a metre is not, and cannot, be defined as 100 cm - circular definitions are not permitted).
The same goes with 'PADI AOW': they stipulate the conditions. It is their concept.
Now what, exactly, a 'Non-Padi Master Scuba diver' is and what a 'Non-Padi advanced diver' is is subject to debate about what conditions are necessary (conditions which operate as logical rules for failing to be subsumed under the definition) and what conditions are sufficient (conditions which operate as logical rules for being subsumed under the defintion). But these are conditions that people will often disagree about. But then again, PADI is not talking about or trying to control the meaning of these words anyway.
When I did my PADI AOW there was, in fact, nothing new in any of the dives that I did on that course that I had not done already diving on my own (save using a lift bag - which is far from rocket science), including going deeper than 60'. Indeed, this limit did not even exist when I did my OW 20 years ago; and my LDS would not let anyone take the AOW until one had a minimum of 50 dives. When I did my AOW - finally - a few years ago the guy who was my buddy had only completed his OW dives the day before - that is, less than 10 dives - which explained why he burned up all his air on all his dives in 30 minutes. I lost 2.5 hours of dive time diving with him on that course.
I was diving with a friend in the tropics. Showed my OW card to the young DM. First thing out of her mouth: you can't go any deeper than 60'! I laughed at that. The grizzled old owner of the dive shop rolled his eyes. All of our dives were well below 60'. I am not a 'new' open water diver. And, at the end of the day, I myself am solely responsible for my safety - indeed - on my first 60 dives or so after the OW we walked in from the shore - no 'supervised' tour, no DM.
I have read about, but never calculated - and certainly this was not mentioned at all in the PADI AOW course - my SAC rate, let alone the working and resting versions. I would think most advanced divers (and by this I do not mean PADI AOW diver) would know their rates for gas planning. So yes, I am, indeed, a 'PADI Advanced Open Water Diver', but I far from being what I might consider an 'Advanced' diver. I have but one speciality course to take and I would be a PADI MSD (oh yes - the fee is necessary too), though I don't think I am anywhere near mastering SCUBA Diving.
MT
Not all definitions are subject to debate or interpretation or even looking at a dictionary (for this gives merely lexical definitions).
'PADI Master Scuba Diver' is a stipulative definition (there are many other types of definitions: precising, emotive, operational, ostensive, lexical, persuasive etc.). This type of definition allows a person to construct a term or a concept's meaning as he or she desires. So long as the sufficient conditions and the necessary conditions are not inconsistent or circular a person cannot be wrong with their stipulative definitions.
What is necessary and sufficient is, for Padi MSD, clearly defined: OW/AOW/Rescue/5 Specs./A certain number of dives. These conditions are (1) individually necessary (that is, failing one condition is sufficient for failing to be A PMSD) and (2) jointly sufficient (if you have all conditions met, then you are a PMSD). Its clear. Its simple.
Saying that PADI is wrong is nonsense. They can stipulate the meaning of 'Padi Master Scuba Diver' any way they wish. Just like I can stipulate that 'right' is 90 degrees counter-clockwise to my current or last direction of motion. I could instead say 'right' is 180 degrees to my current or last direction of motion. To say I am mistaken about the meaning of 'right' is to fail to understand that I am using a stipulative definition and not the general, everyday meaning. Stipulative definitions are in use everywhere.
Look at the definition of a 'metre.' It has changed its stipulated meaning many times over 100s of years. Air pressure and air temperature used to be necessary conditions in the definition but are now not included at all (and no, a metre is not, and cannot, be defined as 100 cm - circular definitions are not permitted).
The same goes with 'PADI AOW': they stipulate the conditions. It is their concept.
Now what, exactly, a 'Non-Padi Master Scuba diver' is and what a 'Non-Padi advanced diver' is is subject to debate about what conditions are necessary (conditions which operate as logical rules for failing to be subsumed under the definition) and what conditions are sufficient (conditions which operate as logical rules for being subsumed under the defintion). But these are conditions that people will often disagree about. But then again, PADI is not talking about or trying to control the meaning of these words anyway.
When I did my PADI AOW there was, in fact, nothing new in any of the dives that I did on that course that I had not done already diving on my own (save using a lift bag - which is far from rocket science), including going deeper than 60'. Indeed, this limit did not even exist when I did my OW 20 years ago; and my LDS would not let anyone take the AOW until one had a minimum of 50 dives. When I did my AOW - finally - a few years ago the guy who was my buddy had only completed his OW dives the day before - that is, less than 10 dives - which explained why he burned up all his air on all his dives in 30 minutes. I lost 2.5 hours of dive time diving with him on that course.
I was diving with a friend in the tropics. Showed my OW card to the young DM. First thing out of her mouth: you can't go any deeper than 60'! I laughed at that. The grizzled old owner of the dive shop rolled his eyes. All of our dives were well below 60'. I am not a 'new' open water diver. And, at the end of the day, I myself am solely responsible for my safety - indeed - on my first 60 dives or so after the OW we walked in from the shore - no 'supervised' tour, no DM.
I have read about, but never calculated - and certainly this was not mentioned at all in the PADI AOW course - my SAC rate, let alone the working and resting versions. I would think most advanced divers (and by this I do not mean PADI AOW diver) would know their rates for gas planning. So yes, I am, indeed, a 'PADI Advanced Open Water Diver', but I far from being what I might consider an 'Advanced' diver. I have but one speciality course to take and I would be a PADI MSD (oh yes - the fee is necessary too), though I don't think I am anywhere near mastering SCUBA Diving.
MT
chrpai
Contributor
Wow, for someone with such an intitmate knowledge of language, you've forgotten the rule about knowing your audience and establishing the hook. When I read something like that and see several paragraphs to follow, I simply skip it.
I thought only Dan Volker and BoulderJohn provoked that response in me. Congratulations! And only 22 posts.
Similar threads
