Talk:Advanced Open Water Diver

Night Dive 2006

Hey guys, in the Certification area its state that Until 2006, night diving was also mandatory, but this is no longer the case. It was dropped at the request of the Scandinavian countries, for whom there is almost no night during the summer months when most of the diving is done, as it created an unreasonable restriction on certifying advanced divers (which is a prerequisite for further training). Most other countries still recommend the night diver course. I cant find any source of this, tried to go through the training bulletins of that period from PADI without any success. I add an source is needed in the sentence. If some of you has the info you can edit or bring it here..

Thanks! - May 2020

Comments

Looking at the PADI curriculum (as described in the PADI Instructor Manual), a few things become obvious regarding the "Advanced" cource:

1. During entry level training (Open Water, not Scuba Diver), the scuba diver is trained in taking care of himself in normal (maintain bouyancy, respond to hand signals, keep within table limits etc) and "should be expected" types of emergency situations (like equipment malfunction, running out of air, leaky mask, lost regulator).

2. During AOW training, the student is trained to perform tasks non-essential to primary scuba diving, like diving from a boat, taking pictures, search and rescue, dry suit diving, altitude diving, peak performance bouyancy, deeper diving, night diving, drift diving, underwater navigation.

Therefore, the AOW training promotes ADVANCING the scuba diver's skills, but the training is not really "Advanced", mainly because while the scuba diver is introduced to skills required for solving specific tasks, there are really no parts of the curriculum that focuses on really advanced skills, like rescue diving and leading divers. Furthermore, there is no real stress training.

In addition, different "Advanced" divers will have different "advanced" skills. According to the PADI instructor manual, there are two core dives that they all must have: The deep dive (30 meters) and navigational dive. The remaining 3 dives can be choosen from any of a high number of optional dives. A diver choosing "Dry Suit", "Peak Performance Bouyancy" and "Search and Rescue" will have a fundamentally different skills sets from one choosing "Project Aware", "Boat diver" and "Underwater Photography".

"SCUBA SKILLS ADVANCEMENT" is in fact a much more descriptive title than "ADVANCED OPEN WATER DIVER", because the students really aren't that advanced and their learnt skills will vary greatly. "Advanced" is syntactically correct only after completing appropriate "RESCUE DIVER" training where complexity, advanced procedures, judgement and stress mastering is part of the training and the curriculum is much more fixed.

Weasel tag

There is a weasel tag on the "Advanced" name controversy. Whilst that section is not well written, I don't think it is that weaseley - this is a fairly open source of discussion, and the fact that BSAC and NAUI both modified their names to follow PADI is clear evidence of cause and effect. I have put in a bit of source material (including the infamour UK coroner's court decision slamming PADI's AOW course), but I will try and tidy that section up more generally at a later stage. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we need a separate page for NAUI? (Advanced Scuba Diver)

It seems like this page is very PADI-oriented. Would creating a separate page for the NAUI-specific Advanced Scuba Diver help solve this problem? Daemyth (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sourced information on differences might be appropriate in this article. The article is not titled PADI Advanced open water diver, it is intended to be generic. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Advanced Open Water Diver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111205050251/http://www.cmasamericas.com:80/standards.htm to http://www.cmasamericas.com/standards.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

B-Class review

B

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. Insufficiently referenced with several outstanding challenges. N The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. Unclear. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. Structure exists, probably OK. Y The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. Tone needs to be improved. A bit pointy in places. N The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Looks OK to me. Y

Quite a long way to go. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Stick to Facts, not Opinions

Under topics, someone wrote this as the final sentence:

These dives are purported to represent introductory knowledge and skills,[6] but it is also suggested (as demonstrated under "Your Next Adventure"[7]) that they serve primarily to provide an opportunity to sell the student on a future specialty course.[citation needed]

While that may be true, this is conjecture and opinion and, IMHO opinion, does not belong in a wikipedia article.

If we want to talk about opinion, I can share mine: I found the Advanced Open Water Diver a good experience. It advanced my skills and introduced me to what could come next. It was a clear, logical stepping stone and put me in front of an instructor to help guide me a little. One can complain about the title of the course if they want, but that's outside the scope of wikipedia.

As there is no citation for this opinion, I am rewritting this sentence to be less opinionated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jplflyer (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jplflyer: That's fair comment, as we really need to have independent reliable sources to draw conclusions about PADI's motivation in offering the AOWD course. Complaining about the title of the course actually is in the scope of Wikipedia if there are reliable third-party sources that discuss the issue. Find the sources first, of course, and only then can we write about it.

Your changes are an improvement, but – if you don't mind me saying so – are a little too enthusiastic. Nobody is going to "fine-tune" skills like navigation or buoyancy over a mere handful of dives, so I've toned that down a bit. Also, the encyclopedic tone demands that we don't address the reader in the second person. As soon as you start writing "you", you're out of step with the style used here. I hope you'll find my copyedit acceptable and perhaps even helpful. --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I had actually cut and pasted from the PADI "Myth Busting" page (which was already cited), and thus the words, "According to PADI". Perhaps I should have used quotes to be more clear. Jplflyer (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)