Ripped off for my AOW training

[victorzamora]

That was your mistake all the way around. Since he had never been on the wreck and didn't know how to assemble his equipment, and apparently you didn't either (one person can assemble any pony bracket currently sold) you should have said "Sorry, this isn't a good dive for you" and left him on the boat.

That's not mean, it's kind and safer.

flots.

Were it my call, I would've agreed. I was not part of the dive op, I was just a diver. How was it my place at all to make that decision? My point wasn't whether or not he should've been on the dive, my point was that he was from around where RJP is, diving in RJP's area, is a card-carrying AOW diver, and claimed to be capable of a high-current, deep, rec-wreck dive.

 

[boulderjohn]

My point wasn't whether or not he should've been on the dive, my point was that he was from around where RJP is, diving in RJP's area, is a card-carrying AOW diver, and claimed to be capable of a high-current, deep, rec-wreck dive.

And so this proves that he was told that by someone? Is it possible he came to that conclusion on his own?

In the past year or so, two police officers were arrested for DUI. They were not only just over the legal limit for alcohol, they were HUGELY over the limit--one of them more than three times the legal limit. Should I conclude that police officer training programs teach prospective officers that it is OK for them to drive drunk?

 

[FM1520]

Here's why.

The dive operator believes that a certain dive requires skill beyond the basics. How do they require it? Well, let's skip all the way to a dive accident and subsequent law suit. Consider two situations:
1. The dive operator has a hard and fast rule that the diver must have a certain credential such as AOW. The deceased diver did indeed have AOW. The operator was following policy, and the diver should have had the required skills for the dive. The fault lies with the diver for not exhibiting skill consistent with the level of certification.
2. The dive operator allows the crew to make a judgment based upon the diver's log book and possible other credentials. Was that log book faked? Even if it wasn't, if the diver was not capable of doing the dive, then the burden is on the dive operator to show that it used sound judgment in allowing the diver to do the dive.

If you are a dive operator, which situation sounds better to you?

Both the OW course and the AOW course specifically state that this is not true. Both state that more training should be done for dives outside of the student's experience and for dives deeper than 100 feet.

Both require the dive operator to make a judgment call. Here in SoCal there are very few, if any, dives sites that operators require an "advanced card", including the Yukon, Ruby E, all sites around Catalina and San Clamente, even the oil rigs which are in 700'.... In my experience, most operators have a statement in the release form that says you as the diver have the appropriate experience and skills.

 

[boulderjohn]

Both require the dive operator to make a judgment call. Here in SoCal there are very few, if any, dives sites that operators require an "advanced card", including the Yukon, Ruby E, all sites around Catalina and San Clamente, even the oil rigs which are in 700'.... In my experience, most operators have a statement in the release form that says you as the diver have the appropriate experience and skills.

I am thoroughly confused about your response. How does the fact that many operators do not include such requirements invalidate the fact that some of them do?

In the cases I was talking about, the ones in which the dive operation has created a policy that says a diver must have AOW for a particular dive, then the people running the dives have no judgment to make. If the diver has the AOW--OK. If not--no dive. Simple. If your policy is that you can only do the dive if your log book shows adequate experience, then the person running the dive must look at the log book and make a judgment about that experience, a judgment that can be challenged in court.

The cases you cite actually support my point. Those operators call for an OW card, with no judgment to be made by the operator. It is exactly the same as my example of the AOW card, only at a lower level--the people running the dive aren't making any judgment that can be challenged in court.

Now, it is possible for the people running the dive to make a judgment to set their policy aside. For example, a dive operator in Australia had a policy that all divers must do a checkout dive before doing any other dives. In the case of a young couple, they waived that policy because they decided the husband's Rescue Diver status meant they didn't need the dive. When the wife died, you can bet the operator lost in court and was heavily fined for using faulty judgment in lieu of a standard policy.

 

[flots am]

Were it my call, I would've agreed. I was not part of the dive op, I was just a diver. How was it my place at all to make that decision?

It's always your decision who to dive with, or "if". If he's obviously unqualified, you don't have to dive with him. If you don't want to have to handle an emergency, try to head it off before it happens, or at the very least, don't be part of it when it does.

If you can't get him to stay on the boat, privately tell the captain: "He can't assemble his own equipment." This will generally get the captain's attention on a truly advanced dive, who will sort things out. If that doesn't work, then you can stay on the boat. I'd lose the cost of a boat ride any day, in exchange for not enabling a suicide attempt.

This is recreational SCUBA. If you think someone is unsafe to dive with, then don't dive with them. Just like the Tango, disasters take two.

My point wasn't whether or not he should've been on the dive, my point was that he was from around where RJP is, diving in RJP's area, is a card-carrying AOW diver, and claimed to be capable of a high-current, deep, rec-wreck dive.

I have no idea what the wreck is like where you were diving, but if it's really deep and high current, I would expect the boat to require a lot more than PADI AOW, since all that really indicates is a dozen or so dives where nobody died. Generally, truly advanced dives require evidence of similar recent dives.

flots

 

[RJP]

Also, are you saying you've never seen a diver with less than 20 total dives get on a charter requiring an AOW cert? If you have, are you saying every one of those guys had an instructor that was SUPER invested in churning out a fantastic diver and went SUPER far above and beyond the minimum requirements?

Sure I have - I was one of them! I got my AOW with logged dives 5-9. My dive #10 was on wreck dive off NJ. I did pretty well, because I had instructors that were super invested in churning out fantastic divers. Here I am a few weeks later on dive #16 in 2006...

And here I am just last week, after close to 1,000 dives...

Not much has changed, other than lots of diving (and lots more training) has made me a more experienced diver over the last eight years... but all that experience and additional training was built on a foundation of great training by "super invested" instructors in OW and AOW classes. It can be done, and is being done all the time. (All of the wailing and gnashing of teeth here on ScubaBoard notwithstanding.)

As to whomever you met in Mexico... as others have mentioned above, training is only as good as what the student and the instructor both put into the effort. Not sure if he was trained in NJ or on vacation somewhere, but I'll bet you a year's worth of nitrox fills that he wasn't trained by anyone I've trained with.

---------- Post added November 27th, 2013 at 08:12 PM ----------

Were it my call, I would've agreed. I was not part of the dive op, I was just a diver. How was it my place at all to make that decision? My point wasn't whether or not he should've been on the dive, my point was that he was from around where RJP is, diving in RJP's area, is a card-carrying AOW diver, and claimed to be capable of a high-current, deep, rec-wreck dive.

Lots of people claim lots of things. There's lots of divers in NJ that don't actually dive up here, and a great many weren't trained here either. In fact, if he claimed he did his AOW with a Deep dive to 62ft I can assure you he did not train at a NJ shop (or anywhere local) because everyone in NJ does their training at the same place (Dutch Springs) and every shop I know does the deep dive to the "6x6 Truck" which sits at 90ft.

 

[diving4ever]

I see no evidence that the OP didn't receive a diligent and thorough course. It is quite possible that all the necessary performance standards were met and yet, the course may still have been unfulfilling.

The certification agency sets out the scope and standards for any given course. The instructor/operation applies those. You cannot criticize the instructor/operation for providing nothing more than the minimum - if that's all you ask for, all that is agree by contract on purchase, then that is what you should be happy to receive. Complaining, especially publicly, about that could easily be determined as slanderous.

There are instructors/operators who routinely provide far beyond the bare minimum. They are obviously who you should look for.

What? I respectfully disagree. Of course I can criticize someone for providing the bare minimum of effort on a service I paid for. In what world is that not the case? If I order a medium rare steak at a restaurant and it arrives medium rare but tough and cold...I can complain about it. I can complain about it even if the menu didn't state that the steak would arrive warm and tender. I can complain in person, online, via sky writer if I want. Slander is a legal term that doesn't really apply here except under very rare circumstances; as evidenced by the fact that everyone with a Tripadvisor account isn't being hauled into court.

Honestly, I'm surprised to hear dive instructors defend mediocre or substandard work by peers. Its obvious from this thread that many divers find the formal instruction offered virtually useless. Industry professionals should have a vested financial interest in creating a high demand product. Think about it. If I want to buy a regulator I can (if I choose) do that online. If I want to take a class, I have to use a LDS or local dive professional. Its one of the few core services that can't be fully replicated online, and as such is important to keeping divers connected to LDSs.

 

[RJP]

Industry professionals should have a vested financial interest in creating a high demand product.

Sadly, the demand is highest for "easy and cheap" training rather than "diligent and costly."

Offering a high-quality product does not create demand, and demand doesn't connote high-quality; notice that McDonald's sells far more burgers than Morton's sells steaks.

---------- Post added November 27th, 2013 at 08:42 PM ----------

Honestly, I'm surprised to hear dive instructors defend mediocre or substandard work by peers.

Not sure I've seen that here. I think what Andy was saying is that, in the OP, there wasn't any specific evidence that the instructor provided anything less than a good class... merely the poster's dissatisfaction with it, largely based on his perception of the diving skills of other people in the class.

 

[SoCalRich]

The instructor can make all the difference in any training, none of the early training stages are meant to be brain breakers. And all training should be taken seriously. But I think an AOW cert. gives a lot of people the opportunity to improve their skills in a supervised setting. Plus it is needed to get a rescue diver cert (Great cert. fun training). All training creates awareness and awareness improves safety. Interview your instructor, dive with the instructor? If you don't click move on. This is an extremely safe sport BUT it can be very unforgiving for the careless or stupid.
Good Divin
SoCalRich

 

[SanDiegoSidemount]

Here's the rub.

It's pretty clear to me after reading all these posts that regardless of the letters in the organization's acronym, the level of training a student gets really comes down to the instructor, and their diligence, dedication, expectations and standards.

Just meeting the training organization's minimum standards doesn't seem to be enough, regardless of the organization or the course*.

However, how many students are aware of this fact when they sign up for "AOW" training? Many probably don't even know who will be teaching them at the time they sign up.

So how to educate consumers to choose more wisely and ask the right questions?

If they're here on SB reading these kinds of posts, then that's probably education enough. But that's a tiny fraction of those who want dive training.

---------- Post added November 27th, 2013 at 05:03 PM ----------

*Footnote, guess what: standards-based teaching has never worked, and never will. Not for dive education, not for any other type of education.

Anyone here have kids in elementary school taking standardized tests every year? It's pretty much common knowledge at this point what those "standards" are doing to teaching and to our schools in the US.

It's pretty easy to spot K-6 teachers who "teach to the tests", versus the engaged professionals who are really looking out for their students' long term best interests. Same with dive training.