The name of this specific training level has been a topic of controversy within the diving community for many years. The crux of this debate is in the interpretation of the word 'Advanced' in its title, and what is the proper application or use of this adjective. Those organisations offering training and certification under the title Advanced Open Water Diver defend the use of the word Advanced, claiming that it describes the training accurately as being more comprehensive (i.e., more advanced) than the basic entry-level training. The opposing school of thought is that the use of the word 'Advanced' is essentially deceptive marketing, as graduates of the class very commonly then refer to themselves as "Advanced Divers". However, the training standards are not sufficient to raise a recreational diver (particularly the novice diver to whom the class is frequently marketed) to traditional expectations of general recreational diving skill mastery. This is relevant because in the USA the diving community continues to equate 'advanced' with 'expert.' As such, while it is agreed that the training is indeed more than the minimum basic requirement, it is insufficient to develop an objectively advanced (i.e., expert) diver. Specifically with regard to the PADI 'Advanced' certification standard, a 2006
coroner's court in the United Kingdom heard
expert evidence to the effect that "I do not believe that someone with eight dives should be classified as an advanced diver. It is madness." A related matter is NAUI's name changes from "Open Water II" to "Advanced Scuba Diver." NAUI's program was, at the time, a 38 hr. Open Water I course, followed by a six dive Open Water II course (aka "Sport Diver"), followed by the third course in the sequence, "Advanced Diver." At the time, PADI had a similar progression. Then, PADI eliminated its upper level course (Advanced Open Water Diver) and repurposed the title for its middle course to gain a competitive advantage. NAUI followed suit, in an unsuccessful attempt to maintain market share. Publicly, NAUI claimed that this change was intended to address customer confusion as to the comparative rigors of training required to earn specific certifications. ==References==