Ops requiring AOW certs?

[Marie13]

Er, maybe they don't print "ADVANCED SDI OPEN WATER SCUBA DIVER" on the card because it's too long. Anyway, if the SDI course is anything like the PADI course, "ADVANCED SCUBA DIVER" does seem like it has the potential to mislead.

Actually the SDI Advanced Diver is 4 separate specialties and min 25 logged dives. It's not the PADI AOW "sampler platter" of 5 dives. The SDI Advanced Adventure Diver is the exact equivalent of PADI AOW.

 

[Lorenzoid]

Actually the SDI Advanced Diver is 4 separate specialties and min 25 logged dives. It's not the PADI AOW "sampler platter" of 5 dives. The SDI Advanced Adventure Diver is the exact equivalent of PADI AOW.

Yet dive ops probably consider the PADI and SDI "Advanced" certs to be equal for the purpose mentioned in the OP. Go figure.

 

[Altamira]

Think it through and you will see why an AOW card is preferred over evaluating a dive log.

Let's say the dive shop's policy requires that divers have AOW for certain dives. You show them the AOW card, do the dive, and die. Your family sues, claiming the dive was beyond your ability. The shop says that the dive requires AOW, and you had AOW. Case closed.

Let's say instead the clerk at the dive shop looked at your log book and decided you had enough experience to do the dive. You do the dive and die. Your family sues, claiming the dive was beyond your ability. The shop says that in the clerk's judgment, you had enough experience. The plaintiff's attorney immediately begins to attack the clerk's judgment. It gets very ugly very fast.

One system requires no judgment on the part of the dive shop that can later be challenged; the other system demands judgment which can later be challenged.

I should have a sticky thread explaining this--I must have written it 30 times in the past couple of years.

In the mid 1960s, there were only a few agencies, and they offered two certifications--Diver and Instructor. In California, there was a huge dropout problem--people were getting certified, doing a few dives, and then quitting. The Los Angeles County certification program was concerned about this, and decided that the best way to encourage people to keep diving was to create a new certification level that would focus on giving divers experience in different kinds of diving, as well as a little more training. The focus of the course was the different dive experiences--they hoped something would pique the divers' interests. When it came to naming this course, the only course beyond the introductory scuba diving course, they decided to call it "Advanced."



NAUI, which was created out of the Los Angeles program, followed suit for the same reason, and before long the other agencies did the same.

John,
I usually agree with your posts, and I have given considerable thought to this issue over a long period of time, and I can't agree with you on several points.
1. Having an AOW cert does not certify a diver's ability, only that the diver passed a very easy course (from what a lot of divers have said on this board), and a course that can be completed immediately after OW training. I could get an AOW card without ever doing an ocean dive or leaving my local quarry or lake where a diver does not have to deal with the very different diving environments found in the ocean. I think we both would acknowledge that an AOW card says very little about a diver's actual diving ability or ability to handle situations when the crap hits the fan.
2. I do not have your diving experience, but I have never had a dive op clerk be the one that checks my card, logbook, or paperwork. It has always been the dive instructor that is running the dive that checks the divers' data, and I am pretty sure they can detect the posers without too much difficulty.
3. From discussions I have had with my brother, who is an attorney, I know that if an OW diver dies on an AOW dives, and the family elects to sue, possession of an AOW card is not going to be "case closed". Lawsuits are rarely that simple. An aggressive lawyer is going to question everything about the dive, and we know the dive op saying "Well, he had an AOW card, so we're OK right?" is not going to end the story.
4. I do expect a dive op to exercise good judgment both above and below the water, and that should involve more than just looking at a cert card to decide who they should take on a dive.

 

[TrimixToo]

My original cert in the 60s was from Los Angeles County. It actually covered much of what is in the current OW-AOW-Rescue cert sequence and allowed me to dive to 130 fsw. Despite that many instructors (mostly PADI) that I've encountered on my global dive trips had no understanding of that and made me do check-out dives even though I'd been diving longer than they had been alive. That finally ended when an instructor in Cairns not only recognized my LAC c-card but said it was a museum piece. He gave me a PADI AOW card (with proper instruction) for the price of the materials.

Current OW certs from most agencies are IMHO pretty minimal. I think it is wise for a dive operator to require an AOW cert, especially if it helps limit liability.

I got my cert from the YMCA in the 70's. It covered repetitive deco dives, mixed gas (what they had at the time), and identified 300' as the max depth for air. To get "back to" that level of cert required everything between OW and normoxic trimix. When I got my AOW the instructors said they'd never seen a YMCA card.

 

[scubadada]

I got my cert from the YMCA in the 70's. It covered repetitive deco dives, mixed gas (what they had at the time), and identified 300' as the max depth for air. To get "back to" that level of cert required everything between OW and normoxic trimix. When I got my AOW the instructors said they'd never seen a YMCA card.

BS

 

[Lorenzoid]

If anyone hasn't seen it: Hitler Isn't AOW...

 

[TrimixToo]

BS

Uh...I still have the card. And the book. Go find The New Science of Skin and Scuba Diving and take a look. The third revision, the one I have, is copyright 1968, printed by Association Press in NYC. I was certified in 1972, so that book was current. Let's take the things I mentioned in order:

Deco was on pp. 63-66 (with a 60FPM ascent rate then recommended) and we were taught to use the referenced USN tables in class for both non-deco and decompression planning.

He-Oxygen mixes on pp. 72-73, and 77-78 (but no specific guidance on NDL or deco for mixed gas other than to note that there was more risk, more planning was needed, and to use the tables then current in the USN Diving Manual...dated 1958 at the time). Interestingly to me, while checking my memory, I found that some theory is also presented about N-O2 mixes (nitrox!) with both longer NDLs based on lower PPN2 and the increased risk of O2 toxicity also discussed on p. 77 in proportion to the mix used. It was "under intensive study."

2 ATA max PP02 is on p. 80 and elsewhere. OK, that's 297' and not 300', so I rounded up.

There's other fun stuff in there, too, like an O2 exposure table based on depth and time with a max O2 depth of 40' (for 10 minutes). Somewhere, I seem to recall gas planning (assuming a SAC rate of 1CFM) and carrying more gas if needed, but I didn't go find those. Plenty has changed.

Mixing being confined mostly to Navy and commercial divers, and the prevalent tanks being LP72s, there were no in-water exercises for mixed-gas or deco diving (but staging more gas on the downline is illustrated on p. 66--with the picture showing a safety diver...and a tank with a double-hose regulator!).

At that time, there were NO other levels of certification. It was binary. You were certified, or not, and that's all anyone would usually ask. It was a license to get into as much trouble as you wished. You were expected to figure things out and use reasonable sense. Information was sketchy in many ways.

So what I meant, if it wasn't clear above, was that to get back to the level where people would accept the highest card I held for anything I wanted to get that was available to certified divers, and to dive within the same limits I was originally taught (some of which are insane by today's standards), I needed AOW, extended range, deco procedures, nitrox and advanced nitrox, and normoxic trimix on top of my original OW cert. Did I learn a lot more on the way? Is doing it the new ways, not to mention with modern gear, a lot safer? Of course! But I was not trying to argue otherwise. I put "get back" in quotes for a reason.

 

[NAM001]

John,
I usually agree with your posts, and I have given considerable thought to this issue over a long period of time, and I can't agree with you on several points.

3. From discussions I have had with my brother, who is an attorney, I know that if an OW diver dies on an AOW dives, and the family elects to sue, possession of an AOW card is not going to be "case closed". Lawsuits are rarely that simple. An aggressive lawyer is going to question everything about the dive, and we know the dive op saying "Well, he had an AOW card, so we're OK right?" is not going to end the story.

Its not so much that you had a card but was not profiecient but that you did not have a card reflecting that you ever received training for that level of dive. 2 different worlds.

 

[TrimixToo]

After dinner I dug out my original card and took a few pics:
.

 

[TMHeimer]

Its not so much that you had a card but was not profiecient but that you did not have a card reflecting that you ever received training for that level of dive. 2 different worlds.

I tend to agree here. Yes, someone dying that has a AOW card certifying one to a "recommended" depth of 100' is most assuredly not a cut and dry legal case. I guess lawyers can get into what sort of thorough backround check is done on every diver, ie. doing those "checkout" dives (so often discussed on SB) first to judge abilities. Even if these things are done, it's still not cut & dry since it's one DM's opinion on a diver.
Nevertheless, a dive op probably feels better covered if they enforce the AOW rule. Much like the diver disclaimer where the diver seems to take responsibility for everything that may happen, though if something happens where crew is at fault, that form may be useless. The op still feels safer if they have your signed form, figuring it's at least a good start in court.
Parking lot garage sign: "Not responsible for stolen items, lock car, remove valuables". Not sure if true, but I've heard these signs are not valid, because you are on their property.