PADI master scuba diver rating

[drrich2]

Discussions of AOW & MSD often bring up the subject of whether these are inappropriately grandiose mislabels for relatively inexperienced (compared to the title) divers.

I think this misses the reasoning behind the naming, which I think is about marketing the courses to fairly new divers. Which gets more formal training (directly via AOW, or indirectly as MSD seekers pursue requirements) to more divers early in their hobby, which is good for all.

It is not to provide a prestige label to the truly advanced divers (e.g.: many technical divers) or the true masters of modern scuba diving.

On the other hand, reading forum postings leads me to believe the truly advanced and beyond that those at the pinnacle of the craft, so to speak, tend to represent themselves by the types of dives they do, and how they do them. Chatterton solo diving the Andria Dora on air, and his capable and experienced discussion of that (as opposed to reckless ignorance), comes to mind. Others speak of them with similar references.

I don't think these people present themselves by rattling off their highest certification levels.

Likewise, those in a position to estimate a diver's competence (likely to judge whether to take him/her on a given dive) may take certification level into account (AOW, and especially MSD, does say something an OW card doesn't, however little some may claim that is), but for a really advanced dive, I think they will consider additional factors.

Richard.

P.S.: Sometimes, from some other threads I've read, I think if some had their way, the PADI OW, AOW & Rescue progression would be renamed Lousy Diver, Mediocre Diver and Finally Trained Diver.

 

[Goodtime Adventures]

It really depends what you want to get out of the course. By taking the 5 spec courses you'l gain much more knowledge over a range of areas which will expand your abilities and experience way more than just doing fun dives. Also if you want to teach specialties once you become an instructor its good to have had 1st hand knowledge of being a student on the those courses. That being said you absolutely do not need your MSD to proceed to instructor level, and once you become a Divemaster or Instructor that will supersede the MSD rating anyway. I'd agree with some earlier posts that maybe just sticking to the specs you really want to learn about would be enough for now, rather than spending excess amounts on something you may decide later you never really needed.

 

[RJP]

While your point is made about the real meaning of the AOW name even in your example you called it "into to math II" not Advanced Math. I suspect that the same thing would happen with the math classes. Someone passing a course called "Advanced Math" would appear to the uninformed to have more math knowledge than someone having only taken "Into to math II".

But the name of the course is not "Advanced Diver" it is "Advanced Open Water Diver" so to continue the mathematics metaphor:

Open Water = X
X = "Intro to Diving"
AOW = "Advanced X"

In order to solve for X, we replace X with the phrase "Intro to Diving" and see that AOW = "Advanced Intro to Diving."

 

[dfx]

But the name of the course is not "Advanced Diver" it is "Advanced Open Water Diver" so to continue the mathematics metaphor:

Open Water = X
X = "Intro to Diving"
AOW = "Advanced X"

In order to solve for X, we replace X with the phrase "Intro to Diving" and see that AOW = "Advanced Intro to Diving."

OWD is not an "intro" course. You finish it, you graduate from it, you get your certification. It makes you something that you weren't before: a certified diver.

DSD is an "intro" course. Notice how there's no "advanced DSD".

 

[TMHeimer]

Just semantics. Is "entry level" for any activity really different from "intro. to"? Yes, an OW diver is now certified, but it gets back to the much argued topic of how the course does not include much stuff that it used to-- most importantly rescue skills other than cramps and tows--also that all you do with a compass is a heading and reciprocal (even navigating 90 degree angles would be an improvement). Thus I would agree that OW is an intro. course (wouldn't have thought that right when I finished OW myself).

 

[dfx]

Just semantics. Is "entry level" for any activity really different from "intro. to"? Yes, an OW diver is now certified, but it gets back to the much argued topic of how the course does not include much stuff that it used to-- most importantly rescue skills other than cramps and tows--also that all you do with a compass is a heading and reciprocal. Thus I would agree that OW is an intro. course (wouldn't have thought that right when I finished OW myself).

Which is exactly the crux of the matter. At least in the PADI system, there's a disconnect between course naming and course content. Either the courses are named wrong, or the course contents are wrong. I can agree with either of that. However, people are arguing that neither is the case and that both course contents and naming are correct, because OWD is "just an intro level certification" and thus "advanced OWD" is just an "advanced intro level cert". That's just nonsense. You can't have something that's both advanced and intro level, it's mutually exclusive.

 

[TMHeimer]

dfx, To stick with my semantics thing, do you thing the first certification should be officially "OW diver lacking important skills they used to have"?

 

[dfx]

dfx, To stick with my semantics thing, do you thing the first certification should be officially "OW diver lacking important skills they used to have"?

Well, if that's what you think is wrong with the PADI OWD cert, then yes. Either that, or the course curriculum should be changed.

Either way, it's not the OWD that I'm concerned about, it's the AOWD. Sticking with your suggestion and sticking with semantics, AOWD would be "advanced OW diver lacking important skills they used to have". That doesn't even mean anything!

NB that personally I don't see OWD as a "first" certification. There's nothing wrong with being OWD only. Or maybe I should say, there shouldn't be.

 

[tursiops]

AOW just means Advanced Beyond Open Water. It is not an absolute statement of being advanced; it is a relative statement. It is well worth having, if only for the Deep and the Navigation portions. The other three dives are just to indulge one's interests, although Peak Performance Buoyancy is very useful for many folks.

One old timer explained to me:
OW is about breath in, breath out, don't hold your breath, don't go too deep, don't stay down too long.
AOW is about cool things to do while you are not holding your breath.
Rescue is about what to do if someone holds their breath.

 

[t4e]

Just semantics. Is "entry level" for any activity really different from "intro. to"? Yes, an OW diver is now certified, but it gets back to the much argued topic of how the course does not include much stuff that it used to-- most importantly rescue skills other than cramps and tows--also that all you do with a compass is a heading and reciprocal (even navigating 90 degree angles would be an improvement). Thus I would agree that OW is an intro. course (wouldn't have thought that right when I finished OW myself).

please speak for PADI training only, and not for all agencies are at their standards, cramming in training in a weekend
we took the ACUC certification and in the 10 weeks of classes, as opposed to a weekend, we did everything, including rescue

also with ACUC you don't need to take any advanced courses, once you completed 20 dives or 10 hours of bottom time you are allowed to go to 130ft, which is what PADI gives you in their advanced course for extra money