Is AOW a required prerequisite to do a Divemaster?

[wstorms]

but it is a good discussion, and as far as I am concerned professional and constructive, so thanks for that. @boulderjohn I am very interested in the article, will find and read it later.

 

[wstorms]

@boulderjohn I found, read and enjoyed the article, you were right about the publication, Undersea Journal Q3 2018, page 13.
I think the article is well written in general, but for me, it doesn't illustrate the point you are making here at all. On the contrary; it is published as part of the "training" chapter. The entire point of that chapter seems to be to emphasize the value of additional training.
Your wording in the article always includes the training aspect as well. At the end of the first alinea you provide the context for the rest of the article: "In this example, the scenario promotes using sound judgement in deciding whether to enter a wreck in the PADI Wreck Diver Specialty Course".
So in my eyes, you are still working within the limits of the training standards (and rightly so since it is a course). The only reference I can find (honestly I did look) that vaguely promotes the point you are making here is towards the end of the second to last paragraph where you say: "Good judgement can also allow divers with more experience and training, such as cave training that includes effective use of suited lights, will be able to work in areas without clear daylight."
But even here, you say that divers need additional training to safely expand their (previous) limits. I do not see the argument (or PADI's blessing for that matter) in favor of expanding your experience beyond training limits.

I do agree with you that some training limits do hit a dead end at some point. For example, diving below 90 meters or advance wreck penetration would not be possible if you stay within the excisting training limits. The main difference is that there is no standardised follow up training available for those activities. At some point, you are on your own. However, this does not apply for an OWD diver, who has plenty of continuous education options available. Those limits are quite easy to expand by taking additionl training.
It also seems against PADI's interest as a training agency to encourage divers to educate themselves beyond training limits. After all, a big part of the PADI businessmodel revolves around selling courses.
This is also mentioned (on a diver level) in the "Standard safe diving practices statement of understanding" that should be signed by every OWD student. It states:
"I, ___________________________________________________, understand that as a diver I should:
1. Maintain good mental and physical fitness for diving. Avoid being under the influence of alcohol or dangerous drugs
when diving. Keep proficient in diving skills, striving to increase them through continuing education and reviewing
them in controlled conditions after a period of diving inactivity, and refer to my course materials to stay current and
refresh myself on important information.
2. Be familiar with my dive sites. If not, obtain a formal diving orientation from a knowledgeable, local source. If diving
conditions are worse than those in which I am experienced, postpone diving or select an alternate site with better
conditions. Engage only in diving activities consistent with my training and experience. Do not engage in cave or
technical diving unless specifically trained to do so."

And on a professional level, the Member code of practice states:
"As a PADI Member, you agree to the following:
1. Put the safety of diving clients and students as your first priority and responsibility. In doing so, abide
by the requirements and intent of PADI Standards and Procedures in the PADI Instructor Manual, PADI’s
Guide to Teaching, Training Bulletin and other updates while applying your best judgment during
the PADI courses and programs you conduct."

To me, all this means you should stay within training limits, and apply them as diving limits (and especially if you are a professional and therefor a rolemodel). Don't get me wrong, I would be really interested in promoting more training instead of selling more courses, so if you do have a published source that it is ok for divers to go beyond the limits of their training I would be happy to read it.

 

[wstorms]

Btw, might be better to move the last 4 pages or so to another tread? OP has been answered.

 

[lowwall]

So we agree. Where we differ is on the acceptable risk of depth. You think 65ft is okay, I disagree and will continue to keep my OW divers above the 60ft certification limit unless they are in a Deep Diver or AOW course of instruction. Just as you would not guide my example diver above on a Tech 1 level dive without them being in a certified course of instruction.

You are ignoring a critical difference between your two hypotheticals. An OW diver is certified to 130'. An OW diver is not certified for decompression divers or 50% nitrox.

You are choosing to take a recommendation, not a requirement, that is specified to be for new divers and applying it to every OW diver regardless of ability or experience. While that may be your prerogative, it is certainly not the official position of your agency.

I also think you misunderstand much of what Gareth Lock is trying to get across. You should be thinking through the parameters of each specific situation. Inflexible rules are not an acceptable substitute for good judgement.

 

[wstorms]

An OW diver is certified to 130'

And that right there is the focus point of the entire discussion. If you look at the letter of the law;
- there is no law
- let alone an international one
- even if there was one it can't be enforced

All rules / standards / recommendations published by training agencies are by that logic mere suggestions. It would also imply that there is no certification limit at all for divers. Now, it is true that anybody can buy divekit and go for a dive, without any form of formal training. There is no law against that. It does not mean it is a good idea to do so.

Since there is no formal oversight of diving activities, the next best thing is self governing by the agencies, clubs, operators and most of all divers themselves. As argued before, I am a strong believer that when an agency recommends something, to treat that recommendation like a standard / rule even if there is no legal obligation to do so.
So in case of an OWD, the recommendation of pretty much every agency is to stay within 18 meter (I think CMAS and BSAC have 20 meter limits, could be wrong there). They all strongly encourage further education and even demand that before you can go to an even higher level of training. Implying OWDs are qualified to dive to 40 meters is a very broad legal interpretation at best, and is not in line with minimizing risks and safe diving practices. It is definitely not in line with the publications of the agencies. Again, I do understand that the agencies publications may not be legally binding, but that shouldn't be the point. I fail to see how 2 OWD divers show good judgement if they gradually increase their limits beyond those mentioned in their training.

You should be thinking through the parameters of each specific situation. Inflexible rules are not an acceptable substitute for good judgement.

I agree with being a thinking diver. I agree with John's article in the sense that divers should think each situation through before they do something. I agree there are some cases where you can do something, and some where you can't. But all this should be seen within the diving envelop you are trained for!
I can't think of a single situation where there is a good reason to willingly, knowingly plan to go beyond those limits, when suitable formal training is available. Could you give me an example of when you would use good judgement to do so?

 

[Zef]

And that right there is the focus point of the entire discussion. If you look at the letter of the law;
- there is no law
- let alone an international one
- even if there was one it can't be enforced

All rules / standards / recommendations published by training agencies are by that logic mere suggestions. It would also imply that there is no certification limit at all for divers. Now, it is true that anybody can buy divekit and go for a dive, without any form of formal training. There is no law against that. It does not mean it is a good idea to do so.

Since there is no formal oversight of diving activities, the next best thing is self governing by the agencies, clubs, operators and most of all divers themselves. As argued before, I am a strong believer that when an agency recommends something, to treat that recommendation like a standard / rule even if there is no legal obligation to do so.
So in case of an OWD, the recommendation of pretty much every agency is to stay within 18 meter (I think CMAS and BSAC have 20 meter limits, could be wrong there). They all strongly encourage further education and even demand that before you can go to an even higher level of training. Implying OWDs are qualified to dive to 40 meters is a very broad legal interpretation at best, and is not in line with minimizing risks and safe diving practices. It is definitely not in line with the publications of the agencies. Again, I do understand that the agencies publications may not be legally binding, but that shouldn't be the point. I fail to see how 2 OWD divers show good judgement if they gradually increase their limits beyond those mentioned in their training.



I agree with being a thinking diver. I agree with John's article in the sense that divers should think each situation through before they do something. I agree there are some cases where you can do something, and some where you can't. But all this should be seen within the diving envelop you are trained for!
I can't think of a single situation where there is a good reason to willingly, knowingly plan to go beyond those limits, when suitable formal training is available. Could you give me an example of when you would use good judgement to do so?

You are mistaking "limits for training" as "limits of training". Recreation certification for open water certifies divers to the recreation limit, 130ft/40m. The agencies that govern training/certification stipulate that training scenarios will not take place in water deeper than 18m.

If is one thing to impose a stricter standard on how you dive, that is your choice....I tend not to enter the water with new divers carrying cameras/gopros/etc and if someone was to pull one out after I am suited up I would politely come down with a non-descript illness/feeling of malaise that I would use as an excuse to not get in the water to avoid diving with the person if they insist on carrying/using camera gear. That is a personal imposition not an agency imposition.

Agencies do not impose depth limitations on openwater divers outside of training environments/scenarios, other than the recreation limit. But divers such as yourself can certainly impose limitations on the dives you conduct.

This subject has been beaten to death in various discussion threads the past couple of years. On one side are the folks who believe that divers are limited based on their training, and on the other side are the divers who verified with training agencies that they do not impose any such standard down to the recreation limit.

-Z

 

[Hartattack]

You are ignoring a critical difference between your two hypotheticals. An OW diver is certified to 130'. An OW diver is not certified for decompression divers or 50% nitrox.

You are choosing to take a recommendation, not a requirement, that is specified to be for new divers and applying it to every OW diver regardless of ability or experience. While that may be your prerogative, it is certainly not the official position of your agency.

I also think you misunderstand much of what Gareth Lock is trying to get across. You should be thinking through the parameters of each specific situation. Inflexible rules are not an acceptable substitute for good judgement.

Hi lowwall, let's take a look at my agency's standards for an Open Water Diver (OW) because I think you might be getting that depth confused with AOW.

Course Standards Certification Requirements
• Complete five knowledge development segments, including quizzes and final exam.
• Complete Confined Water Dives 1-5.
• Meet water skills assessment requirements.
• Complete Open Water Dives 1-4. at Depth
Open Water Dives 1 and 2 — 12 metres/40 feet
Open Water Dives 3 and 4 — 18 metres/60 feet
When conducting three dives in one day, the maximum depth for the last dive is 12 metres/40 feet.
Excursion dives taken before Dive 3 — 12 metres/40 feet

Deep Dive: A deep dive is conducted at a depth between 18 to 30 metres/60 to 100 feet.
* Exceptions: Some courses such as Deep Diver and TecRec courses allow for greater depths

Instructor Judgment:
Because PADI Standards define learning and performance requirements for courses or programs conducted anywhere in the world, they must fit a large variety of teaching circumstances.
• Maximum limits — Standards for ratios and depths are listed as maximum limits. This means that you must apply sound judgment in determining what is appropriate for training each time you conduct a course or program. It’s your professional responsibility to conduct a risk assessment by evaluating variables such as water conditions – temperature, visibility, and water movement – entries/exits, the individual abilities of each of your student divers, the number of certified assistants available, your abilities and limitations, etc., to determine what ratio will ft the situation; reducing the ratio from the maximum, if needed.

Conduct this risk assessment before the dive, and continue to assess and evaluate during the dive taking into account changing variables.

• Minimum requirements — Conversely, standards such as of course prerequisites – logged dives, age, instructor rating requirements – are all listed as minimums. For example, when the age of prerequisite is 10 years old, this is the absolute youngest age you may accept. And, you must apply prudent judgment to determine whether or not a particular 10-year-old is ready for the course or program.

Lastly, our #1 rule in our Code of Practice:

Code of Practice As a PADI Professional, you enjoy a rewarding role – teaching and introducing others to scuba diving. You have the chance to change lives for the better and to experience things most humans will never have the opportunity to enjoy. With this ability comes a very important obligation to your students, clients, and all those who come to you to be taught or led underwater: You are responsible for the safety of others. As a PADI Member, you agree to the following:

1. Put the safety of diving clients and students as your first priority and responsibility. In doing so, abide by the requirements and intent of PADI Standards and Procedures in the PADI Instructor Manual, PADI’s Guide to Teaching, Training Bulletin and other updates while applying your best judgment during the PADI courses and programs you conduct.

None of you are going to sit here and advocate to change my mind about taking an Open Water Certified Diver beyond their limits of certification unless they are in a stated course of instruction to do so. That's my hardline as an instructor. If you don't like that—¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

 

[wstorms]

You are mistaking "limits for training" as "limits of training".

Actually I do understand the semantic difference, I am arguing that limits for training SHOULD be seen as limits of training, going by the intend of the standards, not the letter of the (non existing / non applicable) law.

Recreation certification for open water certifies divers to the recreation limit, 130ft/40m.

The 40 meter limit is also not governed by law, but by agency publications, some agencies even allow you to go deeper. If the publications do not count as rule / standard in one case, why would they apply to the max of recreational diving? Why suggest a limit at all?

Agencies do not impose depth limitations on openwater divers outside of training environments/scenarios, other than the recreation limit.

They do not impose because they don't have legal authority to do so. They do encourage limiting your diving, and apply training limits as dive limits.

On one side are the folks who believe that divers are limited based on their training, and on the other side are the divers who verified with training agencies that they do not impose any such standard down to the recreation limit.

Both point of view are true at the same time. I do agree that agencies do not impose such standards, but will add that they don't do so because they simply can't. They most certainly suggest / influence divers to stay within the limits of their training.
I have never seen any published recommendation where divers are encourage to take their own experience beyond their training level on their own.
Also I cannot think of a scenario where a professional who knows what options are widely available chooses to ignore those options, and exceed training limits because of a "good judgement" call.
Not counting emergencies, why would you (general you) do such a thing?

 

[Miyaru]

Imagine this situation:

A guy who has been diving regularly walks into your divecenter. He has an open water card and a nitrox card. His logbook shows dozens of dives below 18m/60ft, many of those with EAN32 to 30m and a couple of dives with EAN28 to wrecks at 40m/130ft.

He wants to sign up for tomorrow's dive to a wreck at 35m deep.
You stick to the rules (mentioned and defended before in this thread), so you say that he can look at the wreck from 18m/60ft deep max.
And to add insult to injury, the buddy of this guy, who has the same impressive logbook, shows his advanced open water card but does not have a deep diver card. So you tell that guy he can join but has to look at the wreck from 30m deep max.

The manager of the divecenter listens to your conversation. What might happen?
A. He will overrule you, with the argument that experience beats certification.
B. He'll tell you to find another divecenter, since you've been turning any diver without a Deep certification away.
C. A and B
D. He'll back your story and sells them one AOW course plus two Deep Specialty courses.

 

[Zef]

I have never seen any published recommendation where divers are encourage to take their own experience beyond their training level on their own.

No one is suggesting that one do this on their own, but instead dive with people who are more experienced or to dive with another and slowly and incrementally gain experience in a well thought out, objective driven manner....all dives should have an objective.

Also I cannot think of a scenario where a professional who knows what options are widely available chooses to ignore those options, and exceed training limits because of a "good judgement" call.
Not counting emergencies, why would you (general you) do such a thing?

Because experience is not gained in a vacuum. And formal training in the context of client paid/instructor led is not always necessary.

There is not much difference between diving at 18m and diving at 22m....the major differences being the slightly increased air consumption 5 meters deeper than 18m and the difference in no-deco time for that depth. The depth, air consumption issue, and no-deco time should be discussed during the dive brief, and more attention paid to checking air pressure and dive time/no-deco time during the dive to drive home the point. Once a couple of dives are made to in this fashion the open water diver has the requisite experience to plan and execute dives to that depth. Rinse and repeat for most objectives within the scope of reacreational diving.

There is nothing necessarily magical about paying for a class other than how empty one's wallet becomes and the plastic card one gets at the end. Just because you take a class with an instructor does not mean you come out at the end of the class with more knowledge or skill than when you started....you should, but there is no guarantee.

-Z