AOW Disappointment

[Rick Murchison]

Do you feel that deco theory and basic deco procedures are necessary for a recreational diver? (And I'm using PADI's def'n of recreational, in that no dive would be below 130' and that NDLs would not ever be reached.) And could you elaborate a bit on "basic" for me? I need some scope to understand what you're talking about.

kari

I personally think every diver should have a pretty good grasp of deco, a feel for when it's going to be necessary and the skill to accomplish an accurate stop without the aid of a rope, float or down-line. However, I realize that's unrealistic in today's world, so my answer to your first question is "no" - I don't think it's "necessary" for the recreational (vacation + a few weekends a year just sightseeing and taking snapshots underwater in benign conditions well within the NDL for fun) diver.
Basic would include being able to explain the basic ideas and assumptions behind Haldanean and modern bubble "tension/threshhold" theories, a little background on current research and thinking on the various models in use, their similarities and differences in basic profile structure - nothing complicated, just enough to get a good feel for "reasonability" in dive profile structure and what constitutes a reasonable profile for one or two pressure groups outside the NDL.
Skills wise, the ability to plan and to track gas consumption, navigation, bottom times & depths accurately and to execute stops of at least 10 minutes +/- 1 foot while dealing with simple problems (clearing a mask, retrieving a reg, sharing air, writing a note, etc) would be considered "basic."
Rick
(Edit - P.S.) I might add that in the "old days" we only discussed Haldanean theory, 'cause that's all there was, and we did use lines as aids in making stops, 'cause we didn't have any BCs

 

[Steve R]

Add me to the list Steve. I have watched this thread go by, and apart from unsubstantiated mudslinging, you seem to have not brought anything to the table. As yet another PADI instructor, I have worked extremely hard to be the best I can be, and hope to keep improving. That certainly isn't because I don't care about my students, and believe me I'm not doing it for the money! I believe in the association that I represent, and if you would like to publicly disparage them, please have the integrity to fully disclose your points. At the moment it appears you are merely hurling innuendo out from behind some of the bigger boys on the playground.



Thanks

Then I guess we'll agree you just can't read.

 

[Rick Murchison]

Then I guess we'll agree you just can't read.

Now that was helpful!
Come on, Steve, put a little effort into your reply.
Help us poor dummies who are having trouble reading specifics into your generalities understand what your gripes are.
As it is, I fear you're just coming across as JAWAP (Just Another Whiner About PADI). I'm pretty sure that's not how you want to be perceived...
Rick

 

[Steve R]

Rick, I've stated loads of info already. You just need to be able to comprehend it.

tell ya what.

I'll detail names of shops, instructors and their students names, on this thread.

These will be but a small sample of very bad standards violations that I know about, and that I have detailed to Padi, and beat on them relentlessly about it. I even recall a couple of the Padi QA reps I dealt with. I'll toss their names out for kicks as well.

So make me a promise it will stay here in the public eye and not deleted..........Then I want you to ask Padi why they've done jack-all about all of this, and run-over their own rules time and time again, and then report to us here about it.

These issues have even included deaths of students on Padi courses, so be prepared to open this can-o-worms wide open, because they did jack.

Then maybe when you get a clue about what Padi is really all about, I'll accept your apology, because I do know. I've been there with these fools too many times not to know.

But I have to tell you, if you don't know the score already, I doubt even that would be enough for you.

I'm fairly sure your whine about myself is clearly because I think your CESA argument was clear nonsense and told you so. Get over it dude, seems as though you can't handle the truth.

Not my problem. I stated the facts as I know it, you biotch because I said it.

Too bad bud, you ain't the first to complain about me, and I doubt you'll be the last. Still doesn't change the truth, but by all means continue to whine about it and make excuses for Padi.

 

[Divedoggie]

"All agencies have the same standards." "The RSTC sets standards for all member agencies." "The agency doesn't matter." "The instructor makes the difference." "All agencies teach basically the same thing."

These are all examples of contemptible lies. Unfortunately, they've been repeated so often that most folks who use them actually believe what they are saying.

It is obvious that all agencies don't teach the same things. It makes sense that different agencies fill different niches.
But contrary to the quote in your signature, the instructor does make the difference.

I have seen instructors from multiple agencies, who might maybe meet their agencies minimum standards. Woe to the student, and the resulting incompetent diver holding a c-card.

If all instructors were reduced to the lowest common denominator, then the agency with the highest minimum standards would make a difference.

I have also seen inspirational, demanding, perfectionist, and thorough instructors for multiple agencies, who award a c-card to very competent new OW divers. The instructors, and possibly their dive center's policy, make a difference!

As I have stated before, I will not allow my name to forever be on someone's OW card, if they are not fully competent and able to go dive on their own, when they walk out the door.

Back to AOW, which has the unfortunate word, "Advanced" in it!

AOW is my favorite program to teach. I get to go into more depth of information with students, and we actually get to dive together while working on some tasks.

I have fond memories of my instructor doing the fish identification dive with me during my AOW. It was a blast! I was using my slates, taking notes, etc. During the debrief, we compared notes, and talked about fish that I had mis-identified, and maybe even some that I didn't see. That one dive taught me how to slow down and really observe, to really look for a variety of life.

My instructor was equally demanding during my other AOW dives. Each dive and corresponding book work opened my mind and inspired me to become better, to find multiple sources for education, and to continue diving with passion.

The above program, which awarded me my AOW card, was effectively an adventure course. If it were effectively an advanced course, I believe that it would go something like this:

OW
Adventures in diving (3 dives)
EANx
AOW (Prerequisit: OW, Advent in Diving, Nitrox, plus 5 more dives: 3 buoyancy, finning and technique dives, 2 deep dives of 99 to 132 feet.) Corresponding classroom session for buoyancy and deep dives as well as a solid overview of dive theory, physiology, and the environment.) I don't believe that there should be a minimum # of dives, other than that required by the previous courses. The sooner that divers take AOW, the better.

But, that isn't going to happen!

So, today, If a potential AOW student understands what is being offered, I will still recommend the program because it is designed to be, and should be, a rewarding experience!

 

[Rick Murchison]

Open water
Advanced Open water
Rescue
Master SCUBA
Dive Master
Instructor
Tell me where YOU think Advanced should be placed.

When I came back into formal Scuba training after "just diving" for 25 years, I started (at the recommendation of the LDS owner) with a NAUI AOW course. I was shocked. I had expected something beyond what I'd had in 1971. The level of knowledge required in the diving physics/physiology/deco/gas planning areas was way below what I remembered from my course 25 years before! I was the only guy in the class who was actually proficient with tables the first session!
Now the course wasn't totally without merit... I did learn that I needed to add a second stage to the one I had on my regulator (I'd already modernized with a SPG and a BC several years before) and that buddy breathing and hang tanks were decidedly "out" now.
Bottom line... when comparing what it took to become a Scuba Diver "then" and now, with some notable exceptions (mostly involving equipment that didn't exist then and some improvements to procedures from doppler studies) "then" covered all the material and skills through today's "Rescue Diver."
"Advanced" should replace "Master." If there's a need for a "motivational" C-card between OW and Rescue, then "Adventurer" sounds about right.
The only "Master" should be DM.
Of course I know I'm spittin' into the wind with this Trying to institute a "then" type class today would restrict the class to mostly young macho men (just the pushups wearing a tank would chase most of today's students off, and the math would run off half of what was left) and of the ones who started half would quit or flunk the first time around. Bad business, that.
And, oh, yeah, we need to add valve drills back to the course, right from (Scuba) pool session 1. That I definitely want to see put back in the standards.
Rick

 

[Rick Murchison]

Still doesn't change the truth, but by all means continue to whine about it and make excuses for Padi.

My dear sir, you'll not see any "excuses for PADI" from me... nor have you. But when I have a whine about PADI, I am specific - and that's what I'm asking you to be.
What you will see from me is a demand for "fair play."
So far you've done nothing but use generalities, innuendo, threats of horrors yet unrevealed, and fuzzy allusion. I'm just not impressed with that kind of stuff.
I look forward to your "revelations."
I'll invite any PADI folks to do any follow-up, as I don't represent PADI and don't know any of the folks in their heirarchy to go whine to about your upcoming list of horrors.
Now if you have a SSI list, I will follow up on those.
---
As for the CESA thread, I just went back to see which post was yours... as I didn't remember... I'm afraid it didn't piss me off at all, or make it to the "memorable" list...
Rick

 

[J.R.]

To be fair to Jeff, I don't think he is saying this. I don't mean to speak on his behalf, but it looks as if he is fairly comfortable with his training, and you are not comfortable with yours.

Not gonna' bite... not gonna' bite...

That's unfortunate, and I applaude you forrecognizing the shortcommings in your training and doing something about it.

Still not gonna' bite...

Out of curiosoty, what is it that you feel you didn't learn in your course? Or put another way, what needs to happen in order for you to consider yourself a diver?

Thanks

Ah... a question... Let's see... there was no "ocean" experience, rolling boats or fish larger than a really cool bass that I wished the quarry would let us fish. I didn't get into decompression, stress exercises, etc., etc., etc. No insturctor can cover EVERYTHING you're going to run into... thus the arugement that your C-card is a 'learner's permit'... Not ment to be a slam to anybody's ego... simply a statement of fact. It's a 'philosophic viewpoint'... not a literal one.

Now... this being said... it's really hard to get a lot of dive condition varieties in the lakes and quarrys of the midwest. No... the instructor did a fine job give us the basics... (a PADI instructor by the way)... I understand my equipment... the tables... the theory and basic practice...

... what needs to happen? Another fine and fair question... the answer is simple, "Experience."

Pardon me if this sounds 'simplistic'... but experience isn't something you get in one or two dives... it comes in time. I have actually been certified since 1970 (NASDS)... but I laid off for some dumb reason for a lot of years... I'm getting back into it... ASSUMING you know all the answers is, in my experience... the first step toward that catastrophic cascade that causes real problems.

I find it interesting that DAN identifies the greatest risk groups as those with less than one year... and those with 10 or more... sez' something.

When I say there are those with "C-cards" and there are 'divers'... I'm actually refering to a dive attitude... but, I think you knew that.

Thanks for asking... your milage may vary...

 

[wulvrine74]

Yeah, you got ripped!
The first thing that makes a good diver, is the dive shop and its People who teach you. I was certified through my university when I was in school by the same guy that certified Hulk Hogan. My course lasted 4 months and I felt as if I could dive ANYTHING when I got out. My wife on the other hand wasn't as lucky. She didn't have it as bad as you and your brother, but she wasnt anywhere near as comfortable with certain dives as I was because of the way the course was given to her.
If I were you I would contact the agency and turn them in right away. They could be making money off of vulnerable people and getting away with it.

 

[Walter]

I don't have a copy of PADI standards handy, Walter. Why not quote the deficient ones here for everyone - to save time and duplication of effort, don'tchaknow?

That's a joke, right? You want me to retype points I've made so many times you probably memorized them years ago to "save time and duplication"?

How about I list one biggie. PADI does not require swimming. Oh, they have it as an "option" but as we all know if something is optional, it is, by definition, not required. I could snorkel 300 yds long before I learned to swim.

As for ethics, are you talking about the ethics of specific PADI officials? Instructors? or some general perception of an ethical deficiency that permeates the agency from top to bottom? Please be specific. I really want to know.
I see no need to leave hints out here while whispering behind closed doors. I mean, if we're gonna hammer PADI let's not mess around with it, and let's be specific.
Or not do it at all.
Thanks,
Rick

"PADI" never means an individual, most especially not an individual instructor. For an example of the organization's ethics (you figure out who might be responsible) see post 88.

If all instructors were reduced to the lowest common denominator, then the agency with the highest minimum standards would make a difference.

Nope. That is a misleading statement. If all instructors always taught minimum standards, then agency would "always" make a difference. Since there are those very rare exceptional instructor to whom you refer in all agencies, there are times when the agency isn't all that important. Keep in mind, that is the exception, not the rule. Most instructors follow standards to the letter. When an agency (NAUI & YMCA are two examples) encourages creativity and allows instructors to add requirements, the % of instructor who go the extra mile will increase. When an agency (PADI is an example) discourages creativity and does not allow instructors to add requirements, the % of instructor who go the extra mile will decrease. So the agency doesn't always make a difference, but it almost always does.