Cannot find a reason for AOW certification

[stuartv]

No, that's just intro to tech. It's not a tech diving course, and it doesn't count for training, AFAIK. To do TDI AN you need nitrox, and to do DP you need advanced.

This is a thread about someone who is an experience rec diver and pondering the value of getting an AOW card.

A poster suggested going to a tech agency to get some training that would actually give them some value and also a card that could be shown in lieu of an AOW card.

Another posted said no tech agency would give her any training without an AOW card.

My post was in response to that last statement, and I stand by it. Intro to Tech is a course that offers the same type of curriculum as, for example, GUE Fundamentals. I don't know if either one would be accepted by a dive operator in lieu of an actual AOW card. I reckon that is purely up to the individual dive operator. But, it seems to me that Intro (and Fundies) is certainly more advanced training that someone can take from a "tech agency" and without having to already have an AOW card.

 

[stuartv]

Do you notice any mentoring going on in the last 20 years? I'm trying to figure out when that fell out of fashion.

Perhaps there is a direct correlation with scuba training getting modularized down so that you can get an OW cert in 3 days (or even less some places)? This is just a guess, but perhaps that modularization of OW training was accompanied by a similar modularization of instructor training that made it "easier" to become an instructor as well. So, a lot of the people who might formerly have simply been good (or bad, I suppose) mentors became certified instructors and thus, the community/culture shifted from "come dive with me and I'll show you" to "come take a class from me and I'll show you"?

Somewhere along in there is probably also a factor related to civil liability. 40 years ago, a person who might consider mentoring someone did not have nearly the mountain that they do today, of legal precedent related to scuba diving, to suggest to them that mentoring someone could possibly result in them losing their home.

 

[doctormike]

My post was in response to that last statement, and I stand by it. Intro to Tech is a course that offers the same type of curriculum as, for example, GUE Fundamentals. I don't know if either one would be accepted by a dive operator in lieu of an actual AOW card. I reckon that is purely up to the individual dive operator. But, it seems to me that Intro (and Fundies) is certainly more advanced training that someone can take from a "tech agency" and without having to already have an AOW card.

To do tech training in PADI or TDI, you need AOW or equivalent. I don't know anything about GUE fundamentals, but I have done a number of TDI courses. The intro to tech courses offered by PADI and TDI don't count as the prerequisites for their basic tech courses (TDI'S AN/DP, or PADI's Tec 40), at least not according to their websites.

So as far as I know, those tech agencies will not let you do tech training without AOW. Unless you consider intro to tech to be tech training, which I don't consider it to be. But I'm not saying that it's not valuable. I don't know if it would be considered equal to AOW by a dive operator.

 

[Doby45]

Intro to Tech is not required with TDI to do AN or DP. AOW is not required for AN, but at the very least Advanced Adventure diver is required for DP.

This is for DP:

Course prerequisites:

• Minimum age 18
• Minimum certification of SDI Advanced Adventure Diver, Advanced Diver, or equivalent
• Proof of 25 logged open water dives

 

[boulderjohn]

It's certainly not that much more in time and cost than a bunch of recreational cards, and it's not really about extreme depths. For me, it was just fascinating and comforting to learn the tech mindset - that you don't just swim around until your SPG or your computer tells you to ascend, but rather that you think about the dive ahead of time, figure out what you can do wth the gas that you want to carry, and anticipate problems before they happen.

I was just saying that it's a path that a lot of people dismiss without consideration because the tech world seems daunting from the outside.

I think most scuba agencies are at fault because they show students a progression for future training that does not include technical diving. It does not even make the list of possible choices in the flow charts I have seen. I am not sure why. One possibility is that if they were to make such a flow chart, the operations that do not include technical training among their instructional choices would not want to show it to their students because they could lose their students to operations that do. I would guess that world-wide, the overwhelming majority of dive operations do not provide technical instruction. Here in Colorado, we have a surprisingly large number of dive shops providing dive instruction, but only a couple offer technical instruction.

The rest not only do not offer it, they are opposed to offering it. It is not that they are opposed to technical instruction; they are opposed to offering it themselves because doing so demands a significant increase in the kinds of gear they sell and in their own equipment infrastructure. They are afraid (with some justification) that the market will not support the investment. They are afraid of unsold inventory and expensive equipment sitting around unused. The tech market thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because shops are afraid to make the investment they need to offer technical instruction because the anticipated market is too small, they do not offer technical instruction and certainly will not promote it. Because they do not offer or promote technical instruction, the market is indeed small.

 

[RonMurray]

I was amused when it went the other way on me once. I am an instructor and certified through trimix. I went to board a charter at a Sandal's resort in the Bahamas and the DM pulled me aside and wanted me to demonstrate skills in the little 4' pool they had next to the dock. I amiably complied and was gearing up when the captain came over and was very apologetic about asking me to demonstrate skills. I told him - no sweat, it's not my operation and they don't know me from Adam. I'll demonstrate whatever they want. I think perhaps the others on the charter had been out earlier in the week and maybe were asked to demonstrate skills like this. Don't know for certain.

I share all of this to say - whatever the operator wants - I'll try and comply. If having a card is what they are comfortable with - who am I to complain? It;s their operation to be run as they see fit. I'll run my operation the way I see fit.

I would get the card, or not complain if I was denied.

 

[ljpm]

I have read on this board numerous times people discussing the uselessness of the AOW. From my own experience I have also come to the same conclusion, at least in regard to the deep portion. I did find the navigation portion useful. What exactly do you learn in the AOW course that makes you competent to dive deeper than 60'? Why 60? Why not 50? Or 70? It is all arbitrary. You learn substantially more by actually diving and therefore experience should count for substantially more than an arbitrary course with an arbitrary depth limit. As for reference to PADI, I may have place some of my biases into my opinion, but from my limited experience it seems to be PADI shops that are so stuck on the AOW c-card as opposed to actual experience.

 

[george_austin]

PADI doesn't have any say as far as I know in managing a charter that isn't owned by them. I doubt that PADI would even have any interest in the liability exposure in any kind of a charter service that wasn't directly under their supervision.

 

[george_austin]

I have read on this board numerous times people discussing the uselessness of the AOW. From my own experience I have also come to the same conclusion, at least in regard to the deep portion. I did find the navigation portion useful. What exactly do you learn in the AOW course that makes you competent to dive deeper than 60'? Why 60? Why not 50? Or 70? It is all arbitrary. You learn substantially more by actually diving and therefore experience should count for substantially more than an arbitrary course with an arbitrary depth limit. As for reference to PADI, I may have place some of my biases into my opinion, but from my limited experience it seems to be PADI shops that are so stuck on the AOW c-card as opposed to actual experience.

As I remember my original NAUI Basic course, it was recommended during one of the instructors dive lectures that until we had gained experience we were advised to keep most dives if at all possible to 60fsw or less.
I don't believe that at the time there was even an AOW course offered.
Much later I did take a NAUI AOW course but it was just a trip to a deep dive site on a boat and we planned and executed a dive to 110-120fsw. we also did some Nav skills prior to that from the beach. - That was that- got the card and signed up for Rescue.

 

[doctormike]

I share all of this to say - whatever the operator wants - I'll try and comply. If having a card is what they are comfortable with - who am I to complain? It;s their operation to be run as they see fit. I'll run my operation the way I see fit.

I would get the card, or not complain if I was denied.

Exactly, this is the attitude that people should be displaying. So refreshing to hear that, Ron.

You hear so much bluster on this board - "how dare this operator question my diving and skills, I have been diving since the 1960s, If they don't like my card I'll go elsewhere".

Try to think of it from the other guy's point of view. They have no idea who you are, and they don't want to be in the business of recertifying every customer by doing test dives with them, so they have some standards regarding cards or pool tests.