What really is an "Advanced Open Water" diver?

[Tripp]

I am curious as to the exact relationship of WRSTC to ISO.

 

[Belzelbub]

I'm with you, I don't think that doing 9 dives from OW should give you AOW. A minimum number of dives would be quire reasonable. What's the right number of dives, I don't know, perhaps 20-25.

It really depends on the individual. For some, 9 dives may be enough. For others 125 dives may still not be enough. I had over 150 dives between OW and AOW. There were three other divers taking the courses at the same time. Two had done some diving between OW. One was fresh out of OW. Actually, this diver was actually joining our dives as she did not pass them the first time.

Reading through this thread, there is clearly a lot of confusion about certification limits and recommended limits. A lot of that seems to be driven by dive ops. Which, I understand to some extent. It’s not reasonable for every dive op to evaluate each diver for any dive deeper than 60’, though they can probably tell a lot watching them gear up.

I do think it’s pretty silly to take a sampler course to get access to deeper dives, despite not actually learning anything new during that course.

 

[BDIVER1351]

I was certified in 1974 through YMCA and we were issued a basic "Scuba Diver" card. Of course there were no levels of diving certification back then. The best thing I did was to join an active Wreck Diving club and gained great experience diving with experienced wreck divers off of New Jersey and New York. I took a refresher course after time away from diving and it is an Open Water certification. I still don't consider myself an Advanced Diver. That's fine with me as I dive pretty shallow these days any way. That said, I do think continuous learning is the way to go for safe diving. Just sayin'.

 

[lowwall]

I am curious as to the exact relationship of WRSTC to ISO.

There isn't any. The WRSTC makes its own standard. It's recognized only by its own members and, crucially, their insurance companies.

The WRSTC started out as the RSTC. This organization was founded in 1987 by the for profit US certifying agencies (NAUI and YMCA were not included) specifically to create a standard with the twin goals of mollifying insurance companies and forestalling government regulation of the sport.

The RSTC, now WRSTC, standards are promulgated, reviewed, and enforced only by their member agencies. They are neither ISO nor ANSI standards. The WRSTC publishes a page with a title that suggests they meet ISO standards and includes a table cross referencing their standards and the ISO standards, but very carefully tiptoes around the fact that ISO has not accepted these as equivalents. Rather "the long-standing industry standards developed by the RSTC are consistent with the applicable ISO Standards." [emphasis added] - ISO approves 6 Diving Standards - WRSTC

The RSTC does control the applicable ANSI committee, but this appears to be primarily a defensive maneuver to keep anyone else from developing a US standard. The committee in its entire history has published a single ANSI training standard, in 1989 (Z86.3 UNDERWATER SAFETY - ENTRY-LEVEL SCUBA CERTIFICATION - MINIMUM COURSE CONTENT). It has never been updated and essentially no one refers to it. ANSI is a private organization, so you have to pay a fee to even read it.

 

[Tripp]

There isn't any. The WRSTC makes its own standard. It's recognized only by its own members and, crucially, their insurance companies.

The WRSTC started out as the RSTC. This organization was founded in 1987 by the for profit US certifying agencies (NAUI and YMCA were not included) specifically to create a standard with the twin goals of mollifying insurance companies and forestalling government regulation of the sport.

The RSTC, now WRSTC, standards are promulgated, reviewed, and enforced only by their member agencies. They are neither ISO nor ANSI standards. The WRSTC publishes a page with a title that suggests they meet ISO standards and includes a table cross referencing their standards and the ISO standards, but very carefully tiptoes around the fact that ISO has not accepted these as equivalents. Rather "the long-standing industry standards developed by the RSTC are consistent with the applicable ISO Standards." [emphasis added] - ISO approves 6 Diving Standards - WRSTC

The RSTC does control the applicable ANSI committee, but this appears to be primarily a defensive maneuver to keep anyone else from developing a US standard. The committee in its entire history has published a single ANSI training standard, in 1989 (Z86.3 UNDERWATER SAFETY - ENTRY-LEVEL SCUBA CERTIFICATION - MINIMUM COURSE CONTENT). It has never been updated and essentially no one refers to it. ANSI is a private organization, so you have to pay a fee to even read it.

Thanks. My personal experience with non-governmental agencies, is that they eventually go overboard in order to justify their own existence...

 

[mcohen1021]

As a PADI MSDT Instructor I teach PADI's AOW certification. This means that someone fresh out of OW class (4 open water dives) can do 5 more open water dives for a total of 9 open water dives and have a certification card that declares that they are an "Advanced Open Water" diver. I am sure that my fellow instructors will agree that this individual is not truly an advanced open water diver.

I am working on a presentation around this question so any opinions of what truly constitutes an Advanced Open Water diver will be appreciated! I have my own opinions of course but would love to hear from the ScubaBoard crowd.

Thanks for your input!

When I got certified, we were certified to 140 ft. Now, PADI figured out a way to make mo' money by certifying to 60, and requiring AOW for deeper. And some resorts like sandals follow suit, not taking divers deeper than 60 unless AOW -- regardless whats on a logbook showing the experience. Its crap really. They should accept experience over education all day long. I've seen AOWs that are terrible divers, and I've seen newbs with 25 total dives that are far better than the AOWs.

What constitutes AOW? Experience. What constitutes a better AOW? Experience + education. What constitutes a great AOW? Experience + education and a ton of low vis dives. Just my opinion

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Now, PADI figured out a way to make mo' money by certifying to 60, and requiring AOW for deeper.

I'm pretty sure no one has ever accused me of being a PADI apologist, but I do think you that statement is rather unfair. While I haven't been around as long as you, my understanding is that training has changed dramatically in order to meet the largest segment of the market. Gone are the long open water courses with the exceptions of universities and instructors that teach for agencies that allow instructors to add dives/skill requirements.

 

[Rukkian]

When I got certified, we were certified to 140 ft. Now, PADI figured out a way to make mo' money by certifying to 60, and requiring AOW for deeper. And some resorts like sandals follow suit, not taking divers deeper than 60 unless AOW -- regardless whats on a logbook showing the experience. Its crap really. They should accept experience over education all day long. I've seen AOWs that are terrible divers, and I've seen newbs with 25 total dives that are far better than the AOWs.

What constitutes AOW? Experience. What constitutes a better AOW? Experience + education. What constitutes a great AOW? Experience + education and a ton of low vis dives. Just my opinion

Part of the issue of experience is it is way to easy to cheat or flat out lie. I have seen many people simply going down to a certain depth, then surfacing just to get their dive counts up. I have seen it at many levels. I saw one bouncing to 100', which is really stupid simply because they wanted to qualify for tech, saw a couple that wanted to be instructors trying to get their 100 dives, and also new divers trying to get their next ssi level. It is also not hard to just flat out lie about it.

While few people would do this, even if they are not, just having a bunch of dives is not necessarily indicative of being advanced. I understand why some operators require something like aow or to do an actual checkout dive or 2 before taking divers to a certain place. While AOW does not guarantee that the person is any better, it at least gives the operator a leg to stand on if there is an issue, as they were officially certified by a certain agency to go to 100', even if they should not have been.

In a perfect world, none of this should be needed, but there are people in every walk of life that have no self awareness and think their crap don't stink.

 

[boulderjohn]

Now, PADI figured out a way to make mo' money by certifying to 60, and requiring AOW for deeper.

Totally untrue.

PADI does not require AOW for anything except for more advanced training. It cannot require AOW for anything--it has no legal authority to do so. No agency has the legal authority to require anything you do in your personal diving. A new OW diver is perfectly free to go to 140 in their personal diving, and they are free to do it under an operator's guidance if the operator allows it.

The people who are requiring AOW are dive operators who require for specific dives. That is their choice, most likely based on requirements from their insurance agency.

Several years ago PADI wrote a public letter to Belize in an effort to get the country and/or the dive shops to stop taking newly minted OW divers below 130 feet at the Blue Hole. All they could do is plead for them to make a change, because they have no legislative power on their own.

 

[Diving Dubai]

PADI figured out a way to make mo' money by certifying to 60, and requiring AOW for deeper.

The depth limits only apply to students under training. PADI or any other training agency have no power to dictate how you dive outside Training. What dive centres do is their own business


BSAC DO impose depth limits. Once certified at each level, you take depth progression dives under instruction and get those signed off, before the club will allow you to join dives at those depths.

BSAC and CMAS also consider Rec limit to be 50m (160ft) since that’s the PPO2 @ 1.4 on 21%. The 40m/140’ is a US invention

There's nothing wrong IMO in having a diver make a supervised dive to greater depths. I’ve seen students get quite stressed before the deep dives

In the same way I’ve seen Diver’s who claim to be experienced, freak when I brief a wall dive and remind them the sand is going to be 300 ft or more below them and to check their buoyancy