AOW immediately after OW?

[leapfrog]

Does being an editor for a text published by Oxford University Press count?

No it doesn't. Just out of interest, which text?

How about having technical papers published in peer-reviewed journals?

Technical papers about what? And who are your peers? More importantly what relevance does it have to continuing diver education for entry level recreational divers?

Now I'll grant that my accomplishments did not come from within the field of scuba diving.

Yet you decided to make a rebuttal of my carefully considered opinion about how to help a relatively inexperienced diver gain more information about his recreational activity by attacking the book I recommended to him so that you could take your intellectual scuttlebutt for a walk in the park. I resent that.

However, careful authorship and adequate editorial effort are recognizable with only a moderate knowledge of the subject matter under discussion.

That's exactly the point. We're not interested in your opinion about the merits of authorship or editorial effort. If you have a need to criticise the ERD, do it on a literary forum.

When one knows enough about the subject matter to perceive factual errors in addition to clear mistakes from the author and editors it is hardly an uninformed or idiotic opinion to state the obvious about the quality of the text.

What do you know about the subject matter?

 

[Kingpatzer]

No it doesn't.

Gee, and here I thought knowing something about what constitutes quality writing, editing and fact checking might have some relevance in judging if a text is well written, edited and vetted.

Just out of interest, which text?

An obscure little book on eastern monasticism in the middle ages.

Technical papers about what? And who are your peers? More importantly what relevance does it have to continuing diver education for entry level recreational divers?

I was co-author on a number of papers in neuro-anesthesiology including the effects of certain anesthetics in hyperbaric treatment. I did the statistical models while a cognitive psychologist and a research pharmacologist did the medical bits.

Yet you decided to make a rebuttal of my carefully considered opinion about how to help a relatively inexperienced diver gain more information about his recreational activity by attacking the book I recommended to him so that you could take your intellectual scuttlebutt for a walk in the park. I resent that.

I'm sorry you resent that I happened to notice that the book you recommended is a very poorly written, equally poorly edited, and filled with factual errors. But that doesn't mean it isn't.

A good text for a relatively inexperienced diver needs to be well vetted so as to not create confusion by mis-information. Such a text needs to have a well crafted flow from topic to topic so as to not distract from what is important. It needs to not vacillate between a very superficial treatment of a topic and in-depth detail.

And yes, there is some good information in that book. There is useful content. But it is presented horribly in terms of layout. It is not written about with any great level of care. It is badly vetted and edited.

That's exactly the point. We're not interested in your opinion about the merits of authorship or editorial effort. If you have a need to criticise the ERD, do it on a literary forum.

I'm afraid you seem to be confused about how books work. Someone writes them. Then they are fact checked and edited. Then they get published. Then they get sold. Then they get read. The person reading the book is doing so to fulfill some goal. Usually the end of that goal is either met or not based on if the book is written and edited in light of that goal.

A book that presumes to present coverage of diving physiology and physics to the average recreational diver and yet makes basic errors of fact relating to physics and physiology is not achieving that goal. Those errors make it into print as a result of the author and editor not doing their jobs. Of course, when those are one and the same person, you really don't have an editor, and the text suffers.

What do you know about the subject matter?

Enough to know, for example, that 107 ergs isn't anywhere close to a joule.

 

[asams]

Sorry to hijack the thread but I have my own question about going immediately to AOW from OW.

I know I want to take the AOW eventually but I'm worried that if I don't get certified in dry suit diving that I won't be able to dive until April 2010 at the earliest. I really want to do some wreck diving in January/February off the coast of North Carolina and I know I'll need a dry suit. Should I do just the dry suit certification now or just take that as one of the specialties in my AOW class? What concerns would you have with taking these classes/specialties immediately after OW?

 

[leapfrog]

Gee, and here I thought knowing something about what constitutes quality writing, editing and fact checking might have some relevance in judging if a text is well written, edited and vetted.

The thread is about doing AOW straight after OW not about textbooks.

An obscure little book on eastern monasticism in the middle ages.

Fascinating and extremely relevant to the matter at hand.

I was co-author on a number of papers in neuro-anesthesiology including the effects of certain anesthetics in hyperbaric treatment. I did the statistical models while a cognitive psychologist and a research pharmacologist did the medical bits.

What relevance does THIS have to continuing diver education for entry level recreational divers?

I'm sorry you resent that I happened to notice that the book you recommended is a very poorly written, equally poorly edited, and filled with factual errors. But that doesn't mean it isn't.

That's an opinion. Just because you say so doesn't mean it is. I happen to like the way it's written and edited. As far as the factual errors are concerned there may be one, two or five (so far you've mentioned one). That doesn't disqualify it as a text that does the job it sets out to do.

A good text for a relatively inexperienced diver needs to be well vetted so as to not create confusion by mis-information. Such a text needs to have a well crafted flow from topic to topic so as to not distract from what is important. It needs to not vacillate between a very superficial treatment of a topic and in-depth detail.

Again, this is your personal literary opinion:focus:

And yes, there is some good information in that book. There is useful content.

Which is precisely why I recommend it to entry level recreational divers who want to increase their knowledge.

But it is presented horribly in terms of layout. It is not written about with any great level of care. It is badly vetted and edited.

Here we go again...

I'm afraid you seem to be confused about how books work.

Sure, I know nothing about books...hbrother:

Someone writes them.

Thanks for explaining that to me, I would never have gussed :sarcasm:

Then they are fact checked and edited. Then they get published. Then they get sold. Then they get read.

You don't say...:shocked2:

The person reading the book is doing so to fulfill some goal. Usually the end of that goal is either met or not based on if the book is written and edited in light of that goal.

One of the goals of the book is to present enough information to a recreational diver so that he or she can successfully complete the academic portions of the PADI Divemaster exams. It is designed to be used in conjunction with the PADI Diving Knowledge Workbook. The other goal is to be a quick reference book for recreational divers who can use it to look up or read about particular topics in no given order.

A book that presumes....

You're the only person around here making presumptions

...to present coverage of diving physiology and physics to the average recreational diver and yet makes basic errors of fact relating to physics and physiology is not achieving that goal. Those errors make it into print as a result of the author and editor not doing their jobs. Of course, when those are one and the same person, you really don't have an editor, and the text suffers.

Alex Brylske who in a previous post you said:

I'm always impressed to find an encyclopedia's entries on physics and physiology written and edited by the same person who holds an MA as the height of the formal education. Not that there's anything wrong with an MA, mind you, excepting that you can't earn one in physics or physiology.

holds an MA in instructional systems design, a dual MS in marine biology and coastal zone management, and a Ph.D. in marine science education. Interestingly in 2001, Alex won NOAA's prestigious Walter B. Jones Memorial of Excellence Award for Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. So NOAA, whose book the "NOAA Diving Manual" you recommended in place of the ERD, although I share your opnion that it is an it is an excellent source of diving information, although not relevant to the diver I was talking to at this time in his development, gave this "idiot" (your words, not mine) an Award!

We are hijacking the thread. If you want to continue this, PM me, please.

 

[leapfrog]

Sorry to hijack the thread but I have my own question about going immediately to AOW from OW.

You're putting the thread back on topic. Thank you.

I know I want to take the AOW eventually but I'm worried that if I don't get certified in dry suit diving that I won't be able to dive until April 2010 at the earliest. I really want to do some wreck diving in January/February off the coast of North Carolina and I know I'll need a dry suit. Should I do just the dry suit certification now or just take that as one of the specialties in my AOW class? What concerns would you have with taking these classes/specialties immediately after OW?

At what depth are the wrecks? If they are at more than 60 feet you should have your AOW or the Deep Diver specialty. If they are not "deep" then my considered opinion is that you leave the AOW for later on. Do the Drysuit Specialty (Some stores will do the Drysuit specialty for free if you buy the Drysuit from them). Then just do the wreck adventure dive the first day you do the wrecks. You can catch up on the other adventure dives later in the year. One way or the other you should get training and practice with the drysuit in a controlled environment before you go diving the wrecks with it.

 

[asams]

Looks like most of those wrecks are around 100-150 feet - so right around the limits for the deep diver specialty and no-deco dives, if I'm not mistaken. The reason I want to do the dry suit specialty is because I may not be home during the warmer months next year to be able to do this and I would love to have some diving to look forward to when I go home in January.

 

[leapfrog]

.... or just take that as one of the specialties in my AOW class? What concerns would you have with taking these classes/specialties immediately after OW?

With the information you are providing, my recommendation is that you do AOW as soon as possible. Deep and Navigation are mandatory. You need Drysuit and Wreck. As a fifth, take the Peak Performance Buoyancy class and see if you can do it with the Drysuit.

I have no concerns whatsoever with you doing this AOW program right now, straight after OW. What you need to do is get in as many simple practice dives with the drysuit after the AOW until you feel comfortable about pushing out the envelope to the 100-150 ft range.

HTH.

 

[asams]

Thanks for your help. Hopefully I can get the AOW in before January and get a couple dives under my belt (time/money permitting).

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Looks like most of those wrecks are around 100-150 feet - so right around the limits for the deep diver specialty and no-deco dives, if I'm not mistaken. The reason I want to do the dry suit specialty is because I may not be home during the warmer months next year to be able to do this and I would love to have some diving to look forward to when I go home in January.

With the information you are providing, my recommendation is that you do AOW as soon as possible. Deep and Navigation are mandatory. You need Drysuit and Wreck. As a fifth, take the Peak Performance Buoyancy class and see if you can do it with the Drysuit.

I have no concerns whatsoever with you doing this AOW program right now, straight after OW. What you need to do is get in as many simple practice dives with the drysuit after the AOW until you feel comfortable about pushing out the envelope to the 100-150 ft range.

HTH.

Thanks for your help. Hopefully I can get the AOW in before January and get a couple dives under my belt (time/money permitting).

Am I missing something here or are you suggesting that doing dives to 150 would be "alright" after AOW and a couple of practice dives in a drysuit?

That's how I'm reading this exchange, and it concerns me greatly from a safety point of view.

First off, AOW is only going to certify you to a max depth of 100 fsw ... you need the more in-depth deep specialty to certify to 130. The deep dive in the AOW class is nothing more than a supervised introduction to deep diving. There's little to no actual deep diving skills taught.

Then there's the drysuit situation. A couple dives in a drysuit doesn't qualify you to be taking it deep ... and a runaway ascent from those depths is a potentially life-threatening situation. At a minimum, the typical diver should have a dozen or so drysuit dives to be comfortable enough to consider doing a deep dive using one.

Then there's the fact that a diver going to 150 is exceeding any recreational dive training limits. If you're going that deep, you're pushing your safety envelope farther than you probably want to. Sure, everything will be fine as long as the dive goes exactly according to plan ... but you'll most likely be pushing some mandatory deco obligation (have you trained to deal with it?), you'll be dealing with narcosis (with little in-water experience and most likely extreme task-loading and perception narrowing). If anything goes wrong ... even something as simple as a leaking mask ... will you be mentally equipped to deal with it?

And will you even KNOW how much air you'll need to reserve to make it back to the surface safely?

Here ... watch this video.

This conversation just gives me the creeps ... it sounds to me like you're taking deep diving just a bit (quite a bit, actually) too casually.

I've already known, personally, three people who killed themselves with that attitude.

Slow it down, please. Get some real-world diving experience in the above 100-foot range. Get comfortable with the drysuit. Get some gas management training, and some comfort dealing with issues while narced and/or task-loaded. And if you're really planning to push your dives below recreational limits, get some training in deco management.

The life you save may very well be your own.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[D_B]

Any newish divers, please read the above post by NWGD very carfully

You need a full drysuit class to be safe in one, and a full deep class to go past 100ft to 130ft with the knowledge to do it safely , not the intro or adventure classes that are part of the AOW

the wreck class as part of the AOW should be enough to get you near and around a wreck (OUTSIDE) with the knowledge of what hazards to look out for