PADI Divemaster without Advanced?

[tursiops]

You did 31 dives! They really wanted you to practice!!!

Ha. thanks. "Dive 31" corrected to "dive #1." Damn shift key....

 

[boulderjohn]

It really depends on the diver and the specialty. Night, for example, in Dive #3 has 3 mins of lights out. That is really difficult for some folks (monsters in the dark...) so the full specialty really helps them get over a personal hurdle. Search and Recovery is pretty good on dive 31, but some really good techniques and practice occur on dives #2 and #3, and it all comes together on dive #4. It is a terrific specialty, with real skills, but is time-consuming and tiring to do and to teach, and can't be done well everywhere.

I did not say that all AOW dives are all you need to know about every subject--just some.The original goal of AOW, as created by the Los Angeles program and NAUI, was to introduce divers to a variety of diving interests in the hope that they would find something they like and would then pursue further.

Let's say that after the AOW night dive I decided that I did not care whether I learned anything more about night diving, because I decided I was never going to do a night dive again. Okay, there might be some good learning to be had in the specialty, but why should I be required to do dives I don't want to do to gain experience and knowledge I don't want?

If you were to take the AOW altitude dive with me, I would give you the article I wrote on altitude diving in addition to the official instruction. I think that is plenty, especially considering that I learned last year that an SSI program uses my article in lieu of the SSI materials for their altitude specialty course. Isn't that enough? What happens during an altitude course that makes the extra dives valuable? Why should I have to take those extra dives if I feel I have everything I need already?

Using the AOW dives as they were intended when the course was created nearly 60 years ago--as a sampler to see if you want to go on to learn more--still makes sense to me. If you want to take the full course, go ahead and take it. If you don't want to take the full course, put your time and money into learning that you do want.

 

[Leatherboot69]

In practical terms, particularly from a dive operator perspective, doesn’t AOW just ensure that a diver has had a minimum of nine accredited training dives under instruction including intro to some key skills (deep and nav)? Which by my count is better than having had four OW dives under instruction. Makes sense to me.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

In practical terms, particularly from a dive operator perspective, doesn’t AOW just ensure that a diver has had a minimum of nine accredited training dives under instruction including intro to some key skills (deep and nav)? Which by my count is better than having had four OW dives under instruction. Makes sense to me.

My guess is that insurance companies have been suckered in by the name. For deep, there are no skills. It only means a diver has been at least once to a depth from 61 to 100 feet. In my area, I've heard instructors take their AOW students to 61 feet as they were scared to go deeper. Doing so did meet performance requirements.

The nav skill is easy, unless your instructor is a twisted f#ck and makes you do a triangle which is a lot harder with a slope. Please don't talk to my previous AOW students. I deny everything.

To me, it just means someone has at least 9 dives, and that's it.

 

[tursiops]

unless your instructor is a twisted f#ck and makes you do a triangle which is a lot harder with a slope.

I hope you are joking, since a triangle would not be to standards.

 

[Leatherboot69]

My guess is that insurance companies have been suckered in by the name. For deep, there are no skills. It only means a diver has been at least once to a depth from 61 to 100 feet. In my area, I've heard instructors take their AOW students to 61 feet as they were scared to go deeper. Doing so did meet performance requirements.

The nav skill is easy, unless your instructor is a twisted f#ck and makes you do a triangle which is a lot harder with a slope. Please don't talk to my previous AOW students. I deny everything.

To me, it just means someone has at least 9 dives, and that's it.

Sure, but it’s a guaranteed nine training dives with an instructor to set standards rather than four training dives and five potentially random ones, so that’s better right? Particularly when so many people on SB complain about low training standards and how OW isn’t long enough?

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Sure, but it’s a guaranteed nine training dives with an instructor to set standards rather than four training dives and five potentially random ones, so that’s better right?

Something is better than nothing. Kind of like SpareAir as a redundant gas source when diving below 30 meters. Better than nothing, but is it adequate in practice?

If a student had a solid OW course, that person is better off than someone with a poor OW/AOW course. Ultimately it comes down to seeing the person in the water, which is why some dive operations require checkout dives. There are few certifications that equate to diver competence. AOW is certainly not one of them.

 

[Leatherboot69]

Something is better than nothing. Kind of like SpareAir as a redundant gas source when diving below 30 meters. Better than nothing, but is it adequate in practice?

If a student had a solid OW course, that person is better off than someone with a poor OW/AOW course. Ultimately it comes down to seeing the person in the water, which is why some dive operations require checkout dives. There are few certifications that equate to diver competence. AOW is certainly not one of them.

Sure, but that applies both ways. A student with a solid OW/AOW is going to be better than one with just a solid OW. A student who has met the standards for AOW is better than a student who has met the standards for OW. It’s not about AOW equating to greater competence; it’s about giving people more training and *introductory exposure* to different environments and skills.

If there was no AOW and OW was nine dives everybody would be complaining it should have ten lol

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Sure, but that applies both ways. A student with a solid OW/AOW is going to be better than one with just a solid OW.

Absolutely!

A student who has met the standards for AOW is better than a student who has met the standards for OW.

Not true. It depends on how they met those standards

It’s not about AOW equating to greater competence; it’s about giving people more training and *introductory exposure* to different environments and skills.

From an insurance POV, I would "think" (I don't own an insurance company, I believe there is someone on SB who does, but I don't remember who they are, so I cannot tag them) that competence is the issue. I don't believe AOW succeeds in what you said however. People will scream and shout that is what it intended and point to marketing materials, but when you dig into the details, you can see the potential of that intention not being met.

 

[Leatherboot69]

Absolutely!

Not true. It depends on how they met those standards

From an insurance POV, I would "think" (I don't own an insurance company, I believe there is someone on SB who does, but I don't remember who they are, so I cannot tag them) that competence is the issue. I don't believe AOW succeeds in what you said however. People will scream and shout that is what it intended and point to marketing materials, but when you dig into the details, you can see the potential of that intention not being met.

Of course, but you could say that of any course with any agency depending on the school and instructor. That is an issue of training assurance, not the objective training standards themselves.

Insurance companies can only work on the facts as published. AOW ‘only’ aims to achieve the below, nothing more:

“-Gain more diving experience
-Practice navigation
-Sample different types of diving
-Explore below 18m/60ft
-Improve your buoyancy
-Use a compass”