Redesigning AOW

[Damselfish]

My biggest beef with PADI AOW, besides the misleading name, is that I don't feel most of the specialties should be options for this. And there should be more requirements, fewer options. I have no problem with specialties like fish ID or UW photography being available for people who want to take them, I just don't think they should count towards AOW. Obviously there is room for much more in a recreational path beyond this, but renaming AOW to OW2 and making it better defined with content and dives that actually contribute to core in-water skills would be a good start. A few more dives wouldn't be bad either. Since a fair number of ops consider AOW the ticket to deeper dives, it might be good if there was a little more emphasis on this, perhaps a second deep dive and more theory, not just go to 61 feet and solve a puzzle. This would be pretty easy to do within the current framework, though PADI would probably sell a few less specialties.

I don't think I would require PPB as part of AOW/OW2. Rather, require either PPB specialty, or demonstration of good bouyancy skills, as a prerequisite to AOW/OW2. I'm also inclined to require some number of independent dives between OW and OW2, even if it's a very small number. People would get more out of it.

Same for PADI Master Diver. The NAUI one certainly sounds more deserving of the term, but I'd have less problem with the PADI version if the 5 specialties had to at least be chosen from a subset of the meatier specialties, and certain specialties were required. Having some options is good for regional differences but the current setup with that name is just silly.

 

[raymond phule]

So don't go on those trips or dive with those resorts if that's really that big of a problem for you.

Here we have the in principal mandatory. Maybe I want to go on those trips? Maybe all trips or fun dives here require a certificate?

And if you're not interested in taking AOW, I'm really lost as to why you'd want to take Rescue.

I have no problem with taking courses if they seems to be good. Most people say rescue is a good course. A lot of people dont think most AOW courses are very good.

But I would like to take one of the good courses, for examples Bob's.

It is also only 2 important dives, the rest doesn't matter.

And the liability and nitrox. Have someone actually sued and won against a store for filling nitrox? It is more likely that the stores sees money in the course.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I have no problem with specialties like fish ID or UW photography being available for people who want to take them, I just don't think they should count towards AOW.

Depends on how they're taught.

Underwater photography, for example, can be a wonderful way to teach proper trim and buoyancy control. And it's very difficult to wave your hands around when they've got a camera in them, and you're trying to focus your attention on framing a subject.

The difficulty, as I see it, is that most UW photography classes focus on the mechanics of the camera, rather than the mechanics of the diver ... when in fact, the ability to approach your subject and hold your position while composing the shot you want is the difference between taking a mediocre shot or a great one ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

My favorite dive is a mid-water navigation dive. The entire dive is conducted at 20 feet ... which for the most part means they're too far off the bottom for any kind of visual reference. One diver gets the compass, the other gets the depth gauge and bottom timer. Their task is to work together to navigate a timed course and end up back at the buoy line where they started. Obviously they have to work together ... reinforcing the notion that dive buddies are supposed to do more than simply be in the water together. It's a difficult dive (many DM's I know can't do it) because it requires awareness, buoyancy control, and teamwork. Although it's a nav dive, the actual navigation is the least of it.

Please tell us a little more about this dive. If I were to take students out to 50' deep water here on a day when we could not see the bottom from 20' deep, only wild guesses would get you back to the down line after a decent sized rectangular or triangular course. The impossible circular course might actually have a higher success rate. I could only see this dive in a stagnant body of water (ie quarry or pond) which many divers do not have access to (not to mention desire).

 

[jbmooney]

Depends on how they're taught.

Your point is well taken, Bob, but it seems to me that this is the problem for most if not all of the basic courses. It's necessarily a problem to some extent no matter how you structure the course progression (a thoughtful, conscientious, well prepared, and observant teacher is always going to be better than one who lacks one or all of those assets), but the current structure seems to magnify these shortcomings in favor of getting students to keep coming back for more classes by making the instruction come in very easily digestible, un-challenging bites.

I understand that, and it may be necessary, but it has three serious drawbacks:

1) Future dive companions, guides, instructors, etc., have no way of judging how a course was taught, so the card is essentially meaningless to them (outside of a very basic "CYA" level of meaning that may please insurance companies, but doesn't provide much real comfort, it seems).

2) Students can end up feeling like they're being nickel-and-dimed to death, as we go through paying for a series of courses that don't make us much better divers. As I said, I enjoyed my AOW course and thought I got something worthwhile from it, but it is a little depressing to discover that the work is widely regarded among many divers as being something of a joke - nobody likes being viewed as a patsy.

3) Students have no way of knowing in advance which courses are well taught and which ones aren't. We aren't experienced enough to know what we don't know, and so we don't ask the questions necessary to pick a good course for us. Many (if not most) of us clearly end up in courses that are taught in cursory or sloppy fashion, which leads to that feeling that all we've done is "Put Another Dollar In". That's got to turn some of us off, and contribute to the significant numbers of inactive certified divers. (This board could help remedy some of that independently of the agencies for those who are lucky enough to find it - I'd love to find a NE analog of your AOW course, but don't know how to look - anyone got a recommendation?)

More clearly defined standards would help with all of that, but that doesn't mean the institutions have to reduce the numbers of courses they offer. Short and readily achievable courses are no doubt right for some divers, and I'm all for keeping revenue streams open for dive shops, but a more rigorous alternative would be nice. Not everyone balks at the extra time and expense involved, and I'd think that for a dive shop or school to be able to offer that alternative would enhance, rather than damage their cash flow.

Again, I'm not expecting that coursework will replace experience, but it has to augment and/or ground it well, or it's a waste of money for those who are looking for mastery of essential skills. What's more, as important as experience is, it's not a magic bullet either - there is no difference in the numbers between someone who has challenged himself and improved over 50 dives and someone who has done the same dive 50 times, but I'd much rather dive with the first guy in a challenging environment.

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

Wouldn't you agree that most recently certified divers would be diving supervised to begin with? So getting a "Resort" C-card that would allow you to do so anywhere wouldn't be much different. I think the current Resort diver allows you to dive with that resort for that day only. I could be wrong.

Not sure but you may be talking about two different programs: The PADI Intro/Discover/Resort dive is an open water dive after a short lecture and quick confined water session. After the initial CW session the diver may typically continue instructor guided open water diving for his entire stay at that resort without any more CW sessions. PADI Scuba Divers do get a c-card, for getting half way through the OW course (Chapter 1-3 KR's, quizzes 1-3, CW 1-3, OW 1 & 2, plus a couple required dive optional skills). This allows pro guided diving down to 40', anywhere, forever (theoretically). Dive shops are not supposedly allowed to supply Scuba Divers with fills or gear for non-pro led dives.

 

[Teamcasa]

Depends on how they're taught.

Underwater photography, for example, can be a wonderful way to teach proper trim and buoyancy control. And it's very difficult to wave your hands around when they've got a camera in them, and you're trying to focus your attention on framing a subject.

The difficulty, as I see it, is that most UW photography classes focus on the mechanics of the camera, rather than the mechanics of the diver ... when in fact, the ability to approach your subject and hold your position while composing the shot you want is the difference between taking a mediocre shot or a great one ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

That’s a fact!

Almost anyone can take pictures or shoot some tape. The art of Photography/ Videography/Cinematography is the same above or below the water line.

Teaching a diver to become a good underwater photographer IS teaching them how to maintain perfect buoyancy, how to hold a shot without marine damage, the nuances of backscatter and flash/light control along with the mechanics of handling camera gear above and below. An underwater photographer also effects buddy awareness. The buddy, as well as the photographer need to be clear on the dive gear, dive plans and what to do if scenarios.

 

[jbmooney]

...only wild guesses would get you back to the down line after a decent sized rectangular or triangular course.

Not sure I see why this should be so. Successful performance would require the ability to evaluate and account for current drift, but if it were impossible, the plane you took back to the mainland would crash every time it had to try to land out of the clouds - instrument pilots do what you describe as impossible every day, and they're moving a lot faster than we do underwater.

What am I missing?

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

Are you serious? Where did I say anything at all about my skill level and if am consciosly about that?

Was it anything controversial at all in my post?

I believe this is in regards to the overall tone of your first 16 posts. They could all be moved to whine and cheese from my perspective.

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

...only wild guesses would get you back to the down line after a decent sized rectangular or triangular course.

Not sure I see why this should be so. Successful performance would require the ability to evaluate and account for current drift, but if it were impossible, the plane you took back to the mainland would crash every time it had to try to land out of the clouds - instrument pilots do what you describe as impossible every day, and they're moving a lot faster than we do underwater.

What am I missing?

I believe instrument landings were not very successful back when compass and altimeter were the only instruments. If the down line had a radio beacon and my divers had a directional radio beacon finder they would probably find the line even without compass.

If you have no frame of reference (ie the bottom) how do you know the amount of correction in both direction and distance? The vast majority of my certified dives have had both current and surge. When I teach compass use in OW, AOW and UNS, I tell my students without using landmarks (ie the bottom) compassing is not navigating, unless in a stagnant body of water.