Advanced Open Water Disappointment

[boulderjohn]

So you had a similar experience with poor training. Was it with PADI as well or another agency?

It was PADI. As I said, I discovered all that had been missed when I id my DM class. I told my instructors, and they were horrified. I became an instructor and worked for two different shops in Colorado over quite a few years. I would be surprised if any instructor in either shop ever skipped a standard. When I was first hired, an instructor violated a standard on the AOW course, and when the manager called him on it, he was unrepentant. He was fired on the spot.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

I remember signing a credit card receipt.

I believe he did have the beige folder in the shop but I can't recall signing anything in it. As far as what is listed in the dive flexible skills I did one CESA and removed my gear and put it back on at the surface. Didn't touch a compass the whole course, never saw any type of safety sausage. I think i may have done the cramp removal. Definitely didn't do a tired diver tow. I did an air share ascent but it was during covid so we couldn't breathe each others regs so it was more simulated. Did mask clearing. When he did stamp and sign my book it was well after the course. I remember I left it with him to fill out all his stuff and he just never did. I had to keep asking him for the book and then he finally threw the times on there you see, signed it and stamped it with his shop stamp. He also signed and stamped dives I did after the course that I did with my new buddy that he wasn't even part of.

I’d take them to small claims court and demand my money back. What they did was committed fraud. It’s not subjective either, you have proof.

 

[Forbin's Descent]

I

I’d take them to small claims court and demand my money back. What they did was committed fraud. It’s not subjective either, you have proof.

Not sure if that juice is worth the squeeze. Chalk it up to lessons learned. More life lessons in that adventure than scuba lessons. After reviewing that old dive log I am thinking I should report it. He is still doing it to this day. A partner I dove with the past couple weeks went all the way through rescue
With him. He said he did no skills and just was made to play the victim for two dive master candidates.

 

[tursiops]

I

Not sure if that juice is worth the squeeze. Chalk it up to lessons learned. More life lessons in that adventure than scuba lessons. After reviewing that old dive log I am thinking I should report it. He is still doing it to this day. A partner I dove with the past couple weeks went all the way through rescue
With him. He said he did no skills and just was made to play the victim for two dive master candidates.

Tell us again why you seem to be OK with this. Tell us again why you have not already contacted PADI. Tell us again why you are not naming names or at least locations, so others don't get cheated -- potentially dangerously-- the way you got cheated.

 

[tarponchik]

Sure, the pressure goes up by 0.6. Unless you are highly susceptible to narcosis, I don't think it matters that much from that, as when it comes to technical diving, an END of 100 feet is the target for gas selection. Gas consumption goes up, but not a huge amount. I don't have dive software/tables to compare NDLs at those two depths.

I don't know what you are getting at. One value is 10 feet shallower than the depth to which open water divers should be trained to reach and the other is 10 feet deeper. The industry has to set some value (my opinion - yes, I do realize some open water certifications are set to 130 feet - which I don't agree with, but that discussion would take this even more OT).

What I am getting at is that the limit of 60 ft for OW was set arbitrarily, and there is no rational explanation based on laws of physics, empirical observations or medical necessities for this particular depth. This leaves just one possibility mentioned above: revenue.

 

[L13]

What I am getting at is that the limit of 60 ft for OW was set arbitrarily, and there is no rational explanation based on laws of physics, empirical observations or medical necessities for this particular depth. This leaves just one possibility mentioned above: revenue.

Would you dispute that there is a difference in training/experience needed between a 20 ft dive and a 130 ft dive?

While there is no particular depth where there is a sharp transition, and any particular number is arbitrary, there is a continual increase and a threshold does need to be picked, even if one's motivation is not just revenue.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Would you dispute that there is a difference in training/experience needed between a 20 ft dive and a 130 ft dive?

While there is no particular depth where there is a sharp transition, and any particular number is arbitrary, there is a continual increase and a threshold does need to be picked, even if one's motivation is not just revenue.

I'm could use this phrase for the second time and say a lot of things are rectally sourced in scuba. But then there sometimes is justification for it. There has to be some delineation. Otherwise, why not just replace open water with closed circuit mod 3? Training (in my opinion) should be to be broken up into digestible steps. I don't have personal issue with a depth limit of 60 (almost 2 ATA) to 100 feet for PADI AOW/Everyone else adventure diver (3 ATA) and then finally to 4 ATA for deep courses.

So I think there is some rational based on physics/Boyle's law. Given the propensity to overweight students, that extra gas required for achieve neutral buoyancy also expands providing additional buoyancy force that the student has to deal with on ascent (that's why I'm such a stickler to proper weighting and trim). You don't want people corking from depth. Of course you could just get back to proper weighting, but then you'd need more competent instructors, so what the hell am I thinking? But I digress.....

Back in the day, it is my understanding that the limit was 130 feet (NAUI), but they were properly weighted as they didn't have BCDs, so they had to be properly weighted or their total number of descents equal the number of ascents + 1.

 

[Forbin's Descent]

Tell us again why you seem to be OK with this. Tell us again why you have not already contacted PADI. Tell us again why you are not naming names or at least locations, so others don't get cheated -- potentially dangerously-- the way you got cheated.

Mainly because It’s a small community here and I just haven’t been ready to deal with the backlash it may cause by naming names. Selfish as it may be, I am focused on my diving goals right now and just want to keep the peace in the community.

 

[johndiver999]

What I am getting at is that the limit of 60 ft for OW was set arbitrarily, and there is no rational explanation based on laws of physics, empirical observations or medical necessities for this particular depth. This leaves just one possibility mentioned above: revenue.

I'm not sure I agree. Some number had to be picked, maybe it should have been 40, 50, or 70, but somewhere in there is appropriate. To say that it is simply a revenue grab seems short-sighted. We use common sense judgements to set somewhat arbitrary boundaries about all kinds of things -how fast you can drive, how much you can drink and drive a car, how old you need to be etc.

The Ow training is very fast (and very efficient if done well) but it just takes time (dives) for people to acquire the necessary degree of comfort at depth to allow them to function deeper without too much risk. It is well known that the first 20 or so dives a diver makes are relatively dangerous.

 

[Edward3c]

. It is well known that the first 20 or so dives a diver makes are relatively dangerous.

on what evidence?

The 2021 BSAC Incident Report, page 9, shows Dive Leader (DL) and Advanced Diver (AD) are the highest. A minimum of 60 dives for DL and most AD would have over 100, if not 500.