Ripped off for my AOW training

[ScubaInChicago]

Here's the rub......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.

Really, WTF?

 

[supergaijin]

So... what happens when SB members start failing 'beyond the minimum' AOW training?

My bet is they'll be right here the next day critiquing their own performances and saying how under-prepared they were before deciding to take the training.

If divers want 'real' training then they need to star paying instructors for 'training'- not the AOW laminated card. 99% of students are paying for the card- and that's what they receive.

$400 is stale peanuts compared to scuba overheads and the cost of training the trainer up to the point where they are able to give effective training. Somewhere north of $1000 is a good starting point I think.

 

[RJP]

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.

Around here "truly advanced dives" require much more than any card. Generally, it requires you - and your skills - being a known quantity to the captain and/or charter organizer. Trust me, we're not letting anyone show up for a trip out to the 869 or similar based on what their cards or logbook say.

On the other hand, if you show up at the dock for a trip to the Venturo Tug (65ft to the deck, 80fsw to the sand) with an AOW card... c'mon aboard. (You can even tell people in Mexico you're a genuine "Jersey wreck diver" when you get back.)

 

[DevonDiver]

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?

The slander would arise if/when you alleged that the instructor did not 'fully' teach you the AOW course, or failed to meet performance standards; when, in fact, they did.

Each section of the 'Adventures in Diving' manual contains an outline of the skills/requirements for each adventure dive. That is the minimum requirement for the dive.

For example, on the PADI Wreck Adventure dive:

"Wreck Training Dive One
Performance Requirements.
By the end of this dive, the student should be able to:
• Swim on the outside of a wreck, maintaining proper buoyancy control, and identifying and avoiding potential hazards, under the direct supervision of a Teaching Status PADI Instructor
• Navigate on a wreck so that the ascent point can be located without surfacing, with the assistance of the instructor.
• Maintain neutral buoyancy and body position so that the bottom is avoided."

On the wreck adventure dive, there are three performance requirements, comprising the following sub-divided skills:

1) Swim outside the wreck.
2) Maintain proper buoyancy control.
3) Navigate the return to the ascent point, with assistance.
4) Maintain body position.
5) Avoid hazards.

The instructor is given the following directions (Wreck Specialty Instructor Notes):

"F. Wreck Training Dive One
1. Navigation: The instructor leads, using navigation techniques appropriate for the wreck chosen. Buddy teams follow, copying the navigation technique. During this exercise, provide students with an overview of the exterior of the wreck.
2. Students control their buoyancy and remain neutrally buoyant as appropriate. Students avoid silting problems through buoyancy and fin control and watch for wreck and aquatic life hazards.
3. With students following and observing, instructor navigates on the wreck so class reaches the ascent point without surfacing."

So, basically, the instructor leads one, or more, buddy teams on the dive, providing them with navigation (which they copy). The students see an overview of the exterior of the wreck (swim around the outside). Students remain neutrally buoyant (an OW skill) and can avoid stirring silt by staying a reasonable distance away from the wreck/bottom. They look for hazards (explained in classroom). The instructor swims back to the ascent point and the students follow (and observe).

Summarized: the students follow the instructor around the exterior of a wreck, watching the instructor navigate and staying a sufficient distance from silt, whilst applying basic open water diving skills.

That is ALL the instructor is required (and recommended) to do with their students on that dive. IMHO, it teaches very, very little. Likewise, it is very, very hard for the student NOT to meet those performance requirements...

Of course, the interpretation of those standards counts for a lot: What is 'proper' buoyancy and position? Some instructors might view this as the performance standards demanded for Open Water certification (which is the prerequisite - and, hence, could be regarded as a baseline for pre-existing skills ability). Others might view this to a much higher level - interpreting that wreck diving requires a higher baseline for core skills in order to mitigate known hazards (silt). No indication is given in the instructor notes... so it's a free-for-all.

If I order a medium rare steak at a restaurant and it arrives medium rare but tough and cold...I can complain about it.

At McDonalds?

If PADI were a restaurant, it would be table d'hôte, not À la carte, nor would it win any Michelin stars... It is very much 'fast-food' - cheap, easy and convenient... for the masses.

Some instructors do run PADI courses on a more personal, individual, basis, but in doing so, they buck the trend. It is far from the norm.

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

It's not a defense, it is a statement of reality.

Personally, I think it is disgusting. That said, do you blame the instructors, or do you blame the agency standards that they have to work to?

"Sub-standard" would mean that the instructor failed to achieve the required standards. As you can see (above), it is very easy to meet the required standards. Thus, it is incorrect (and possibly slanderous) to state that an instructor is 'sub-standard' just because the course/dive was not a magnificent learning experience.

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.

The diving industry, especially PADI aligned centers, tends to adopt a 'loss leader' mentality. Courses are priced very, very cheaply (really, they are, when you consider the vast overheads). This means that profit occurs from volume of sale. Volume of sale is the antithesis of quality. Volume of sale demands shorter timescales, less overheads, finite duration - the quickest turn-over. Dive centers hope to recoup more profit from ancillary cost centers - booking holidays, selling equipment etc. In the modern internet age, that rarely happens... as you have identified. So dive centers are driven to quicker and quicker turnover and maximized course sizes as a last resort to stay afloat.

Quality is consumer driven. That's a stark reality. The sad fact is that very few diving consumers demand quality. I see this day-in, day-out. They shop around for the cheapest course - after all, you get the "same" card at the end of any course...don't you? I think of it as the 'license' mentality. Regardless of cost...regardless of the quality of instruction, the number of dives, the interpretation of standards... it's the "same" outcome... you get the same 'card' that says you can do X, Y or Z. So why not shop for the cheapest?

I hear it all the time when people contact me about training: "I want to get my wreck diver card". Consumers' mindset is that they are purchasing a card, a certification, not that they are purchasing training. Dive center 'A' charges $300 to get the wreck card... but dive center 'B' charges only $250... There is simply no comparison of like-for-like based on the training given or the competency output achieved..

Likewise, the majority of the scuba industry isn't "local" - it caters for holidaymakers. There is simply little/no benefit to 'attracting loyalty' from a limited duration consumer.

I'm a freelance instructor... and I do focus on quality. I make it clear that students "pay for training, but have to earn the certification". I price my training on a 'per-day' basis - courses are not designated in respect to the number of dives/days. They are not set duration. Why? Because I see that minimum requirements are just that...the least a diver should do... divers train until they are competent, according to my interpretation of the standards. That interpretation is exceedingly high.

The reality of my quality/competence driven business model is that I attract very few recreational divers. It's popular with advanced/technical level divers, but recreational divers rarely manage to appreciate why I can't give them a strict timescale.... or why their courses will cost more and last longer. They invariably see that as a negative.

In short, there is no "vested financial interest in creating a high demand product" - I would be penniless and destitute if I relied on doing that only with recreational-level courses. I've been there... tried that... and people simply don't want it.

 

[DaleC]

well written and honest post Andy.

 

[FM1520]

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.

I didn't mean to imply that it invalidates that fact, just pointing out a difference. When an operator calls for a "AWO" he is making a judgement that the dive requires that card and that it is sufficient - its more specific. If the operator only calls for a OW card his only judgement is that the diver is a diver. Whether or not the diver has the training and experience is up to the diver. Just different opinions in how to manage risk.

 

[boulderjohn]

I didn't mean to imply that it invalidates that fact, just pointing out a difference. When an operator calls for a "AWO" he is making a judgement that the dive requires that card and that it is sufficient - its more specific. If the operator only calls for a OW card his only judgement is that the diver is a diver. Whether or not the diver has the training and experience is up to the diver. Just different opinions in how to manage risk.

Let me explain it a little more. Perhaps it will help.

The operator decides the dive needs a little more ability and decides that it will require AOW certification. That is set up ahead pf time in company policy. From that time on, no one needs to make a decision. If 2 years later someone come to do a dice, the person running the dive need only ask if the diver has AOW. That's it. If there is a subsequent lawsuit, the only issue is whether or not the person running the dive followed company policy in requiring AOW.

On the other hand, let's say the company policy was that only divers who were proficient as evidenced by their prior experience would be allowed to do the dive. In that case, the people runing the dive would have to check each person's experience, as indicated by a log book that can be faked, and then decide if it is good enough. The people running the dive would have to make a judgment call for every diver. In a subsequent lawsuit, that judgment could be challenged.

In the first case, they are practically immune form a lawsuit. In the second case, they are practically inviting it. Do you see the difference?

 

[DevonDiver]

...making a judgement that the dive requires that card...

Actually, the judgement is that the dive requires the training, experience and competency that the card should represent. The card itself is merely a recognition that training was completed to a given standard and experience was gained in doing so.

Beyond that 'proof of training', it is the diver's responsibility to maintain currency of those skills and competencies. The dive center is not liable for that diver's responsibility. Some might, however, confirm that the diver has honored that responsibility by cross-referencing against their log books (but those can be faked).

Dive centers protect themselves legally, by demanding appropriate prior training and experience in a given dive activity, before taking customers to partake in that specific activity.

In using agency qualifications (records of training/certification cards) as proof of that training, the legal onus shifts to the training agency (they provide appropriate training), the training provider (they deliver that training to the stated standards) and the diver themselves (they maintain the currency of that training).

 

[victorzamora]

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

Sorry, I thought I posted it....he told me outright. He said his instructor told him once he had his AOW he could do any recreational dive because he'd be certified to 130ft, but no caves. His instructor also told him that there was no need to take Rescue because he shouldn't be rescuing people, he should be diving better. Rescuing people was for divemasters/instructors and "professional divers," like firefighters. He said he took his OW, AOW, and Nitrox in Jersey....and had cards for all of it.

 

[FM1520]

---------- Post added November 27th, 2013 at 09:54 PM ----------

Let me explain it a little more. Perhaps it will help.

The operator decides the dive needs a little more ability and decides that it will require AOW certification. That is set up ahead pf time in company policy. From that time on, no one needs to make a decision. If 2 years later someone come to do a dice, the person running the dive need only ask if the diver has AOW. That's it. If there is a subsequent lawsuit, the only issue is whether or not the person running the dive followed company policy in requiring AOW.

On the other hand, let's say the company policy was that only divers who were proficient as evidenced by their prior experience would be allowed to do the dive. In that case, the people runing the dive would have to check each person's experience, as indicated by a log book that can be faked, and then decide if it is good enough. The people running the dive would have to make a judgment call for every diver. In a subsequent lawsuit, that judgment could be challenged.

In the first case, they are practically immune form a lawsuit. In the second case, they are practically inviting it. Do you see the difference?

I understand completely. You are talking about the policy of AOW cert vs. the onsite review of a diver's quails - I completely agree. My point concerns the AOW policy, if the operator decides the dive needs a little more ability and decides that it will require AOW cert then he is saying that a diver with an AOW cert has that ability. Why distinguish between OW and AOW?