Is AOW a required prerequisite to do a Divemaster?

[Zef]

We know PADI's OW course certifies you to dive to a recommended limit of 60' in conditions similar to what you were trained in

PADI OW course does not certify one to dive to a recommended limit of 60'.

PADI OW course certifies divers to dive within recreation limits.

The expectation is that you as the diver will exercise your prudent judgement with regard to how you dive once certified.

If your judgement deems that you should take further formal training, then do that.

If your judgement deems that your experience is best grown under the supervision of a pro, then do that.

If your judgment deems that you will keep yourself within a certain depth range, then do that.

If your judgement is to evluate the prevailing conditions of the environment you wish to dive in and reflect on your skill set, and then decide you can execute a dive safely, then do that.

The bottom line is that how you proceed once certified is up to you in your judgement, it is up to you to decide how much risk you are willing to accept, and it is up to you to decide whether your skill and knowledge are adequate to mitigate those risks.

-Z

 

[wstorms]

I believe this is what the folks on the side of the argument I am on have been saying all along.

Note my wording "respect the particular envelop". You are talking about expending the envelop.

For most training agencies, the accepted limit for recreational scuba diving is 40meters. There are a few that have that limit set at 50meters, but 40 meters is the prevailing limit. Discussing the accepted recreational depth limit is beyond the scope of this thread and continually reinjecting it into the discussion is disingenuous.

And yet, by your logic, the "recreational limit" has exactly the same meaning as the "OWD = 18 meters max" even outside of training limit: none. Both do not exist by the letter of the law, but are pretty much agreed up by the diving community. Now my guess would be somebody on your side of the debate would argue that the recreational dive limit somehow does apply to all recreational divers, but the 18 m doesn't since that is agreed only with training in mind. Here I will argue that all agencies try to influence people to stay within those limits. For example; check the PADI OWD website: Open Water Diver | PADI
It states:
"As a PADI Open Water Diver, you’ll be trained to a maximum depth of 18 metres/60 feet, and are qualified to dive in conditions as good as, or better than, those in which you trained."
Again, I agree there is no legal binding, but can you honestly say this is in any way suggesting to go beyond those same limits?

I don't understand how you can justify that it is ok for someone to apply their judgment to increase their depth from 12 meters to 18 meters but not beyond that. The only reason I can think of is that you are zealously fixated on 18 meters as a depth standard for OW divers.

I have seen divers that probably shouldn't be at 18 meters despite their OWD status either, but the 18 meter limit is simply the best we have to create some objective boundaries to further limit based on best judgement as needed. The 18 meter limit is backed by the agencies, so at the very least ISHTF I applied my best judgement by sticking to it.

despite that even agencies such as PADI state and/or imply otherwise

Where? When? I am really looking to find any such implication. Where is it implied that divers are encouraged to go beyond the limits of their training, in order to gain experience?
What is suggested over and over again is continuous education, with a professional accompanying them in the form of a formal training course.

Facts have been presented to you by multiple participants in this thread...You have chosen to ignore them in favor of your beliefs.

Again, I agree there is no legal requirement to use training standards as diving standards. I do not think I have said otherwise. I am arguing to simply use them as such, since it's the implied way to do things and the best method we got.

@Hartattack and I both quoted and listed several published statements urging people to stay within the limits of their training. All these publications are either public or can be checked by any PADI professional.

The closest thing to a published fact arguing in favor of your side of the discussion was @boulderjohn s article. I do not doubt the intent of the article, John as the author has made that very clear, but as a reader I still fail to see the message between the lines. There certainly is no statement like "we from PADI encourage you to build experience beyond your training limits without any form of further formal training".
If there is such a publication anywhere, please share it. It would mean I (and many like me) am completely wrong about the intentions of the agency I teach with, and if so, it would be in everybody's best interest to actually publish that, so I can learn from it and correct my ways.
Until such guideline is published, I will continue to demonstrate my best judgement by staying on the conservative side of the fuzzy line, not on the aggressive side.

I do agree that without any new published statements to review, there is no real point in continuing this debate. It seems unlikely we are going to change each other's mind. I hope that future readers focus on the conservative way of building experience and expand their limits with further training. Thanks to everybody in the tread for keeping the conversation nice and polite, too often treads like this tend to get polluted with stuff like "your opinion is different from mine therefor you are an @#$%". I do appreciate the discussion, it is certainly insightful to see other viewpoints, even if we don't agree with each other's.

 

[Zef]

Now you will argue that the recreational dive limit somehow does apply to all recreational divers, but the 18 m doesn't since that is agreed with training in mind.

It is not appreciated that you are putting words in my mouth.

Personally I do not care what other divers do that are not diving with me. If a newly minted diver chooses to descend past whatever one deems is the recreational limit, that is on that diver. along with anything that results from that action. I would hope that people have better judgement than that, but it is their choice and not my place to stop them or even inject my unsolicited opinion. I would only inject myself if I believed their actions where objectively putting or going to put another party in danger. My duty in these situations is very limited, even as a dive professional, and my involvement would be as well to limit my personal liability.

As I mentioned previously, You obviously have a strong belief about depth limits. That is fine. Impose that upon yourself and those you dive with....just realize that not everyone holds the same belief that you do.

The main argument is whether the limit you believe to exist actually does or not. This topic has been discussed ad nauseam, with on one side there are those that believe there is a depth limit imposed on divers based on their certification level, and they preach that one should advance as a diver in the context of further certification(s). Then there are those on the other side that believe that those limits are suggestions for divers to reflect on and make personal decisions about.

The world can happily exist with people from both sides.

-Z

 

[Diving Dubai]

If your judgement deems that you should take further formal training, then do that.

On the PADI OW student form there is a section signed by the divers, which clearly states that the training they receive is only consistent with the environment they learned in, and to seek further training plus abide by code of practice.

Yes I appreciate it's a recommendation and they don't have to follow it but...

In the BSAC world, Post cert you're required to take depth progression dives with someone competent to sign you off - appreciate that works in a club scenario

I personally will not take anyone below the recommended depth of their cert card. People react differently on deep dives, I'd rather believe that they've at least undergone a couple of deep dives under appropriate supervision

Our AoW courses here have 3 great dives. Dive 2 is Deep - 24m sandy bottom on artificial reef, no drama. Dive 3 Wreck, nice boat with sand at 30m often a bit of poor vis and surface current to increase stress. Dive 4 Compass Nav, again 24m off a wreck - over featureless terrain and poor vis.

This last dive is especially good since as with most students with the compass, they charge off at a sprint and are task loaded, along with being at depth they suck through their gas. It's always a very eye opening experience for them.

I'm going to fully agree with @wstorms stance about not taking people lower than recommended depth. As a dive Pro I accept a certain responsibility. what people do on their own time I don't care. Dive with me, my rules. Simple

People can bitch at me all they want, but we also have different rules here. There's no such ability to sue someone for their mistake (no liability insurance needed) however the Authorities won't accept recommendation, to them its a hard line.

So if I have an incident with an OW student at 19m I'm going to jail.. no if's nor buts

It's happened a couple of times

 

[wstorms]

It is not appreciated that you are putting words in my mouth.

That's fair enough. I edited my post to better reflect the sentiment, without putting words in your mouth or anybody else. It was intended as a short recap of the debate, not to imply anything you in particular said.

Personally I do not care what other divers do that are not diving with me. If a newly minted diver chooses to descend past whatever one deems is the recreational limit, that is on that diver. along with anything that results from that action. I would hope that people have better judgement than that, but it is their choice and not my place to stop them or even inject my unsolicited opinion. I would only inject myself if I believed their actions where objectively putting or going to put another party in danger. My duty in these situations is very limited, even as a dive professional, and my involvement would be as well to limit my personal liability.

I do agree everybody has the right to do as they please, including making mistakes / doing things that are unwise. I just feel we do not need to encourage people to do so. For me, the only thing that is really debated, is whether or not it is encouraged by the agencies.

 

[Zef]

For me, the only thing that is really debated, is whether or not it is encouraged by the agencies.

Some have spoken with one or more agencies to obtain clarification on this topic. There seems to be a general unwillingness to accept that info. Perhaps you should reach out to some of those agencies yourself for your own edification.

-Z

 

[Zef]

On the PADI OW student form there is a section signed by the divers, which clearly states that the training they receive is only consistent with the environment they learned in, and to seek further training plus abide by code of practice.

The issue is...what constitutes training?

Is "training" only defined as a formal, course of instruction, that leads to issuance of a certification card?

or, can training take on more broad context where it is informal and does not lead to certification?

-Z

 

[wstorms]

Perhaps you should reach out to some of those agencies yourself for your own edification.

Please, give me 1 reference to a published statement as a starting point to do so. Until then:
PADI:
Dive Deeper into Your Scuba Training "We can create the best opportunities for learning through high quality training."
Five Ways you can Learn to be a Better Scuba Diver "When pushing at the edge of your ability, follow recognised courses and use instructor supervision to stay safe. "
Open Water Diver | PADI "As a PADI Open Water Diver, you’ll be trained to a maximum depth of 18 metres/60 feet, and are qualified to dive in conditions as good as, or better than, those in which you trained."

GUE:
Recreational Diver Level 1 "A GUE Recreational pass means that divers will be certified to dive with their diving team without the supervision of a dive professional to a maximum depth of 70 ft/21 m."

TDI/SDI:
SDI Open Water Scuba Diver - SDI | TDI | ERDI | PFI
"Upon successful completion of the SDI Open Water Scuba Diver course, graduates may:
Conduct open water dives in conditions similar to their training
Continue their dive education by enrolling in SDI Advanced Diver and Specialty courses"

 

[Zef]

Please, give me 1 reference to a published statement as a starting point to do so. Until then:
PADI:
Dive Deeper into Your Scuba Training "We can create the best opportunities for learning through high quality training."
Five Ways you can Learn to be a Better Scuba Diver "When pushing at the edge of your ability, follow recognised courses and use instructor supervision to stay safe. "
Open Water Diver | PADI "As a PADI Open Water Diver, you’ll be trained to a maximum depth of 18 metres/60 feet, and are qualified to dive in conditions as good as, or better than, those in which you trained."

GUE:
Recreational Diver Level 1 "A GUE Recreational pass means that divers will be certified to dive with their diving team without the supervision of a dive professional to a maximum depth of 70 ft/21 m."

TDI/SDI:
SDI Open Water Scuba Diver - SDI | TDI | ERDI | PFI
"Upon successful completion of the SDI Open Water Scuba Diver course, graduates may:
Conduct open water dives in conditions similar to their training
Continue their dive education by enrolling in SDI Advanced Diver and Specialty courses"

Looks good...

...as long as one defines training as instructor led in the context of a course of instruction under the umbrella of an agency.

-Z

 

[Bob DBF]

"As a PADI Open Water Diver, you’ll be trained to a maximum depth of 18 metres/60 feet, and are qualified to dive in conditions as good as, or better than, those in which you trained."

And if those conditions exist at 20m?

What is suggested over and over again is continuous education, with a professional accompanying them in the form of a formal training course.

Of course, the financial future of an agency and their members depend on the continued purchase of training.

For me, the only thing that is really debated, is whether or not it is encouraged by the agencies.

If, in fact, the agencies agreed with your point of view, they would be issuing a warning that training limits are to be treated as actual limits by agency professionals. Then start suspending and revoking credentials for violating standards. Perhaps you should be more active in your agency's operation and have them change their policies.