ST4 - Deeper diving

[MattS]

I have to give the Sports Deeper Diving lecture on Monday and have been looking through the instructor manual.

In the section Diving With Computers; no where does it mention that you should never switch from a computer to tables durng a dive series. Can someone please tell me if this is covered in an earlier lecture? AFAIC this is a must know.

More worryingly on Pg 162 (last para of the continued section) we have this little gem.

"If the buddy pair are a 'mix', one diver using tables and the other a computer, plan and run the dive to tables - they are the more punitive. However, the computer diver should still monitor their computer for depth and time according to the joint plan."

IMVHO That is plainly wrong and possibly dangerous teaching.

Firstly. For a single multi-level or no stop profile Tables will most likely be more punitive. But for a U-profile mandatory stop profile (like a UK wreck) a modern computer is going to be significantly more punitive than 88s.

Secondly. The 88s require a desat time of 16 hours whilst modern computers are closer to 3 days. During a multi day series (say Scapa) a computer user is going to be accrueing a residual load that the Table user will be clearing each night.

Surely we should be teaching to follow the most conservative ALWAYS. Now if I change 'run the dive to tables' to 'follow the most conservative' does that constitute a change to the syllabus? Does anyone know if the Exam question 'You have a computer and are diving with a buddy on Tables, what do you do?' exists anywhere?

There is no way that I am prepared to teach people to violate stops just because their buddy's 88s say they are clear. If I have missed something blindingly obvious then let me know. At the moment I am wondering who writes/proofs this stuff and may decline to give the lecture.

I would appreciate some comments.

Regards
Matt

[Chris Cherrington]

There is no way that I am prepared to teach people to violate stops just because their buddy's 88s say they are clear. If I have missed something blindingly obvious then let me know. At the moment I am wondering who writes/proofs this stuff and may decline to give the lecture.

I would appreciate some comments.

Regards
Matt

Matt, are you mixing up repetetive and single day diving?? The 88 tables are designed to be punative towards repetitive diving as that was the unknown at the time of drafting. Bulhmann tables are very like the computer.

Not sure that you are totaly correct in that the computer takes longer to clear residual than tables either - the 88s give a break after a few days as mandatory.

You are clearly right that the most conservative model should prevail - this might therefore change from dive to dive and no-one should miss a stop because someone else's deco model does not require it.

With an in-water situation both divers should wait for the other person's deco to clear and remain in the water as a buddy - so they would both do the longest/most conservative stops.

I agree its confusing but the answer is easy as far as I can see.

Best
Chris

[MattS]

:=There is no way that I am prepared to teach people to violate stops just because their buddy's 88s say they are clear. If I have missed something blindingly obvious then let me know. At the moment I am wondering who writes/proofs this stuff and may decline to give the lecture.
:=
:=I would appreciate some comments.
:=
:=Regards
:=Matt

Matt, are you mixing up repetetive and single day diving??

No I don't think so. I am taking the quote as writ and seeing big holes in it.

The 88 tables are designed to be punative towards repetitive diving as that was the unknown at the time of drafting. Bulhmann tables are very like the computer.

First dive since last weekend. 30m 30mins on a flat wreck. Off the top of my head; 88s 1m at 6m Vs Buhlmann 2min at 6m + 12 mins at 3m. The Buhlmann's require significantly more deco. Following the 88 table plan as per the Instructor manual is going to bend a Buhlmann computer and upset the marshal's day.

Not sure that you are totaly correct in that the computer takes longer to clear residual than tables either - the 88s give a break after a few days as mandatory.

Conceded it is not clear. The maximum SI on 88s is 16 hrs with a, no more than 3 days, caution. The maximum SI on Buhlmann Tables is 48 hours. A Buhlmann computer will use a desat time of 6 x max Half-Time, so about 62 Hrs. But the practical result is clear; is it likely that a diver using a computer on the 1st dive of day three incurrs a stop time longer than the 88 requires? Heck yes.

You are clearly right that the most conservative model should prevail - this might therefore change from dive to dive and no-one should miss a stop because someone else's deco model does not require it.

With an in-water situation both divers should wait for the other person's deco to clear and remain in the water as a buddy - so they would both do the longest/most conservative stops.

I agree completely. I expect everyone trained prior to 2003 would agree. But it appears a direct contradiction to what is now written in the Instructor manual.

I agree its confusing but the answer is easy as far as I can see.

Agreed it is easy when you know the answer. The problem I have is that as my personal diving advances further past the BSAC middle-of-the-road, I increasingly rely on the instructor manual to make sure I teach what BSAC want me to. What I am not clear on is whether I can legitimately teach what 'I think' is correct.

The manual is pretty clear in what it says. If it is meant to say that then I would like to know so that somone else can take the lecture. If it is a mistake it needs changing quickly. I am suprised it has not come up before.

Sorry if I appear pedantic but I take this pretty seriously. If someone I trained ends up dead or injured, I want to be totally sure that it is not down to me interpreting the syllabus.

Thanks for the input

Regards
Matt.

[Mike Halligan]

Matt,

Have a look at Ocean Theory 4 "Planning to go Diving". A thorough delivery of OT4 and proper study of the Student Workbook should impress the full message, i.e.
one or t'other method to be used consistently;
no more than 3 dives per day, no more than 3 days in succession if using BSAC 88;
apply_the_more_conservative, when mixing methods in a buddy pair;
etc.

I guess we may add (of our own volition) the explanation why one may switch from tables to computers only by reaching full de-sat in between, i.e. breaking the series.

ST4 does state as you say, in the student Workbook, too. For now, I would be content to explain my reservations, setting out what I feel is a safer option and (to a limited degree) why. What is your DO's view?

You mention exam questions, but you mark and moderate the exams, so where's the problem? If you and your DO agree there is a deficiency in the lesson, I suggest you raise it with HQ and agree a workaround pending correction.


At the moment I am wondering who writes/proofs this stuff and may decline to give the lecture.
"This stuff" was written and proofed by volunteer instructors, like you and me. IIRC, the demand for earlier than intended publication came loud and strong from, oh yes, from this forum.

HTH

Mike

[terryh]

"This stuff" was written and proofed by volunteer instructors, like you and me. IIRC, the demand for earlier than intended publication came loud and strong from, oh yes, from this forum.

HTH

Mike

Sorry Mike. Not wanting to start a flame war, but we have
disected the DTP on this fora many times and two main points
were very evident.
1) Many sections were proof read by the authors themselves.
2) The sample of volunteer Instructors that checked some
sections, was VERY small.

In fact Instructors were screaming on these fora to see the DTP
prior to publishing, so we could check it over and work out any
anomlies. Sadly it didnt happen and we now a have a DTP which
IMO is err, let's say not quite A1. It just might have been so
much better if a larger sample of working Instructors had an
imput.

Over all else what I find lacking in the DTP and something that
could easily be fixed, is each sections authors reasons for the
order in which items and skills are presented. A basic author
to Instructor note of what is trying to be acheived. The
Instructor manual tells you what to teach. It doesnt say
why you are teaching y instead of x, when logic says you should
be doing x.

Of course we can interpret and work it out and the more
certs / teaching you've done the easier it is. But surely the
approach should be that of a new ACI picking up the I. manual
to learn the syllabus for the first time?

Not a rant, just an observation.

Rgds
TerryH

[Mike Halligan]

Not a rant, just an observation.

Hi, Terry,

All good points, well made.

Just shows, to my simple mind, how very far we have moved recently, at a national level, from our antecedents.

The strictly hierarchic, overbearingly dogmatic, "the Club is all" heritage is just about dead (albeit some remains in one or two outposts) and only 20 years too late.

Regards,

Mike

[MattS]

Thank you Mike you have been most helpful.

Have a look at Ocean Theory 4 "Planning to go Diving". A thorough delivery of OT4 and proper study of the Student Workbook should impress the full message, i.e.
one or t'other method to be used consistently;
no more than 3 dives per day, no more than 3 days in succession if using BSAC 88;

That is very useful. I have now read the OT4 lecture

apply_the_more_conservative, when mixing methods in a buddy pair;

I found no mention in the OT4 lesson. I guess you could argue that OT4 does not need to mention it as no-stop times are similar across all tables and computers. The difference in computer times Vs table times are down to the computer multileveling and a table WILL be more conservative. I would personally still prefer 'do the most conservative' because it is simple to comprehend and remember. But OT4 is not incorrect.

etc.

I guess we may add (of our own volition) the explanation why one may switch from tables to computers only by reaching full de-sat in between, i.e. breaking the series.

I would say it is need to know, a golden rule. Certainly more important than knowing what type of memory the device uses.

ST4 does state as you say, in the student Workbook, too. For now, I would be content to explain my reservations, setting out what I feel is a safer option and (to a limited degree) why. What is your DO's view?

I will certainly be following your advice. However I disagree it is opinion. It is a fact that the safest option is to follow the most conservative course. It is a priniciple that underlies pretty much everything we teach about diving.

You mention exam questions, but you mark and moderate the exams, so where's the problem?

The problem is one of consistancy. In short we should be singing from the same hymn sheet. I am not adverse to having my own opinion when it comes to what BSAC reccomend. But it is something else entirely to present that as legitimate to a trainee within a lesson. If I teach what I think and a diver then goes on to be marked incorrect in a National exam I would consider that I had personally failed the student.

If you and your DO agree there is a deficiency in the lesson, I suggest you raise it with HQ and agree a workaround pending correction.

The reason for posting was to verify my position. Either this is in fact incorrect or I am now so far departed from the BSAC way that it would be best for the students if someone else did the lecture. I will be pointing this out to our DO and asking him to take it up with BSAC.

:=At the moment I am wondering who writes/proofs this stuff and may decline to give the lecture.
"This stuff" was written and proofed by volunteer instructors, like you and me.

I am rather low down in the BSAC instructor pecking order, and yes I am shocked that someone higher up has managed to write this and it has been published. It should be obvious to anyone that has experince with U-profile deco dives, that insisting Tables (88s) are followed will result in divers violating their computer profile. As a dive marshal what is your view of someone getting back on the boat with their computer indicating missed stops?

IIRC, the demand for earlier than intended publication came loud and strong from, oh yes, from this forum.

IIRC the demand was to see a draft. Personally I have found the comments from Chris and yourself helpful. I could have just made the changes and be damned but why do that when this forum provides an opportunity to get a second opinion.

Regards
MattS

[Mike Halligan]

Hi, Matt,

:=apply_the_more_conservative, when mixing methods in a buddy pair;

I found no mention in the OT4 lesson.
You won't, it is in the studybook.

:=ST4 does state as you say, in the student Workbook, too. For now, I would be content to explain my reservations, setting out what I feel is a safer option and (to a limited degree) why. What is your DO's view?

I will certainly be following your advice. However I disagree it is opinion.
Sorry, Matt, I also disagree. I treat it as a preferred option, not an opinion.


:=You mention exam questions, but you mark and moderate the exams, so where's the problem?

The problem is one of consistancy. In short we should be singing from the same hymn sheet. I am not adverse to having my own opinion when it comes to what BSAC reccomend. But it is something else entirely to present that as legitimate to a trainee within a lesson. If I teach what I think and a diver then goes on to be marked incorrect in a National exam I would consider that I had personally failed the student.

By the time a student gets to a National exam (Theory Instructor, FCD, NI) they should have a thorough understanding of these things _from_first_principles_, accumulated from their own research. If they're blindly quoting something you said in lesson OTnnn to make the pass/fail difference, then they don't deserve a pass (IMHO).

:=:=At the moment I am wondering who writes/proofs this stuff and may decline to give the lecture.
:="This stuff" was written and proofed by volunteer instructors, like you and me.

I am rather low down in the BSAC instructor pecking order, and yes I am shocked that someone higher up has managed to write this and it has been published. It should be obvious to anyone that has experince with U-profile deco dives, that insisting Tables (88s) are followed will result in divers violating their computer profile. As a dive marshal what is your view of someone getting back on the boat with their computer indicating missed stops?

You're not low down, we're all Instructors. In my case, I've been one all day, how about you? Just a thought, are we training Ocean Divers to do U-profile deco dives?

As a marshal, anyone whose comp indicates missed stops
doesn't dive that again day,
is treated with kid gloves,
is watched like a hawk (while we find the reason) and
is then treated accordingly, and always erring on the side of caution.

IIRC the demand was to see a draft. Personally I have found the comments from Chris and yourself helpful. I could have just made the changes and be damned but why do that when this forum provides an opportunity to get a second opinion.

a) Touche
b) Absolutely, see also Diveinstruct

Regards
Mike

[Steve Walker]

:=The problem is one of consistancy. In short we should be singing from the same hymn sheet. I am not adverse to having my own opinion when it comes to what BSAC reccomend. But it is something else entirely to present that as legitimate to a trainee within a lesson. If I teach what I think and a diver then goes on to be marked incorrect in a National exam I would consider that I had personally failed the student.

By the time a student gets to a National exam (Theory Instructor, FCD, NI) they should have a thorough understanding of these things _from_first_principles_, accumulated from their own research. If they're blindly quoting something you said in lesson OTnnn to make the pass/fail difference, then they don't deserve a pass (IMHO).
:=


Absolutely! And it's not just the students: There's been a fair few posts, mainly (IMO) since the intro of the new DTP, which seem to follow the manual so rigidly as to be barely credible (IMVHO).

Previously, I was under the impression that most Instructors used the set lecture material as guidelines for must know info, then (as myself and those who instructed me do/have done) expand on relevant points in an ad lib way, interacting with the students, giving details of pros & cons why's & wherefores, alternative ideas, and (perhaps most importantly) interesting tales of personal experience.

I imagine there could be some criticism of this approach in terms of inherent variance and suggestions of lack of consistency, but as has been previously pointed out on these boards, BSAC prides itself on turning out "thinking Instructors" rather than diving myrmidons.

I've found in my experience that student who fail the exams, when asked, will generally admit to not having done private study or revision prior to the exam, both these points are part of every lecture I give.

Cheers

[MattS]

Hi, Matt,

:=:=apply_the_more_conservative, when mixing methods in a buddy pair;
:=
:=I found no mention in the OT4 lesson.
You won't, it is in the studybook.

Aha I need to get hold of one of those as well then.

:=:=ST4 does state as you say, in the student Workbook, too. For now, I would be content to explain my reservations, setting out what I feel is a safer option and (to a limited degree) why. What is your DO's view?
:=
:=I will certainly be following your advice. However I disagree it is opinion.
Sorry, Matt, I also disagree. I treat it as a preferred option, not an opinion.

Did someone mention proof reading ;-) I still think the preferred option sounds contradictary.

:=
:=:=You mention exam questions, but you mark and moderate the exams, so where's the problem?
:=
:=The problem is one of consistancy. In short we should be singing from the same hymn sheet. I am not adverse to having my own opinion when it comes to what BSAC reccomend. But it is something else entirely to present that as legitimate to a trainee within a lesson. If I teach what I think and a diver then goes on to be marked incorrect in a National exam I would consider that I had personally failed the student.

By the time a student gets to a National exam (Theory Instructor, FCD, NI) they should have a thorough understanding of these things _from_first_principles_, accumulated from their own research. If they're blindly quoting something you said in lesson OTnnn to make the pass/fail difference, then they don't deserve a pass (IMHO).

In a kinda warm fuzzy way I agree with the principal. In a cold analytical way it just confuses me. What I can envisage is two divers who had two different instructors argueing over 'the correct' answer. OK that will always happen with things that are personal but this is merely standard procedure, there should only be one standard procedure.

:=:=:=At the moment I am wondering who writes/proofs this stuff and may decline to give the lecture.
:=:="This stuff" was written and proofed by volunteer instructors, like you and me.
:=
:=I am rather low down in the BSAC instructor pecking order, and yes I am shocked that someone higher up has managed to write this and it has been published. It should be obvious to anyone that has experince with U-profile deco dives, that insisting Tables (88s) are followed will result in divers violating their computer profile. As a dive marshal what is your view of someone getting back on the boat with their computer indicating missed stops?
:=
You're not low down, we're all Instructors.

Orwell wasn't it, 'everyone is equal and some are more equal than others'

In my case, I've been one all day, how about you? Just a thought, are we training Ocean Divers to do U-profile deco dives?

I sincerely hope not. I don't think SDs should be doing deco at all. But BSAC say they can, when they qualify as Sports they will and it falls to me to teach them how...ST4 is a Sports lecture.

As a marshal, anyone whose comp indicates missed stops
doesn't dive that again day,
is treated with kid gloves,
is watched like a hawk (while we find the reason) and
is then treated accordingly, and always erring on the side of caution.

Amazing how much we do agree on.

:=IIRC the demand was to see a draft. Personally I have found the comments from Chris and yourself helpful. I could have just made the changes and be damned but why do that when this forum provides an opportunity to get a second opinion.
:=
a) Touche
b) Absolutely, see also Diveinstruct

BTW Monday night I explained to the audience that their dive computers will not use the 88 algorithm. That this could mean the computer shows longer stops and that marshals / skippers object strongly to computers beeping. They should agree with their table carrying buddy beforehand that the most conservative plan is to be followed and they should use the plan mode for working air requirements etc.

Thankyou again for helping me come to terms with it all. I will get something drafted for our DO to approve and send it off to the more equal ones :-)

Regards
MattS

[MattS]

:=:=The problem is one of consistancy. In short we should be singing from the same hymn sheet. I am not adverse to having my own opinion when it comes to what BSAC reccomend. But it is something else entirely to present that as legitimate to a trainee within a lesson. If I teach what I think and a diver then goes on to be marked incorrect in a National exam I would consider that I had personally failed the student.
:=
:=By the time a student gets to a National exam (Theory Instructor, FCD, NI) they should have a thorough understanding of these things _from_first_principles_, accumulated from their own research. If they're blindly quoting something you said in lesson OTnnn to make the pass/fail difference, then they don't deserve a pass (IMHO).
:=:=


Absolutely! And it's not just the students: There's been a fair few posts, mainly (IMO) since the intro of the new DTP, which seem to follow the manual so rigidly as to be barely credible (IMVHO).

Is it realy too much to ask that following the manual rigidly should result in the syllabus having been taught? Just a thought.

Previously, I was under the impression that most Instructors used the set lecture material as guidelines for must know info, then (as myself and those who instructed me do/have done) expand on relevant points in an ad lib way, interacting with the students, giving details of pros & cons why's & wherefores, alternative ideas, and (perhaps most importantly) interesting tales of personal experience.

I do flexible, I do opinion, I do personal experience, I do interacting, I do alternatives. What I do not do is contradict what is in the instructor manual. The choices are follow tables, follow computers, do whichever is most conservative. The manual is catagoric 'Follow tables - they will be more punitive'.

Other examples that come to mind; Switching gas at 9m. Using PPOs >1.44. Taking the long hose. Nitrox 81% to 100%. Buddy breathing. These are alternatives I have used but if I mention them in a BSAC lecture I am not teaching the syllabus.

I imagine there could be some criticism of this approach in terms of inherent variance and suggestions of lack of consistency, but as has been previously pointed out on these boards, BSAC prides itself on turning out "thinking Instructors" rather than diving myrmidons.

I have no complaints about the inherrent flexibility. When it comes to teaching standard procedure, there can only be one. How about I start teaching that some skippers are a bit dodge so you can legitamately argue with them.

As to BSAC turning out thinking instructors and divers. IMVHO that very much depends on who you happen to be speaking to at the time.

I've found in my experience that student who fail the exams, when asked, will generally admit to not having done private study or revision prior to the exam, both these points are part of every lecture I give.

I do not see how my contradicting the literature helps! My original post was intended 'Have I got this wrong or is there a gaping hole in the literature?'

What do you think Steve. The manual says; if mixed with a buddy on tables, follow the tables. I want to say, do the most conservative whatever. Which would you do on a real dive?

Regards
MattS

[Steve Walker]

What do you think Steve. The manual says; if mixed with a buddy on tables, follow the tables. I want to say, do the most conservative whatever. Which would you do on a real dive?


Then you'd definately get my vote, I'd tell them "the manual says _this_; however in practice you'll find I and most others will do _this_..." That way you've imparted your experience and still followed the syllabus.

Additionally, I tell folk that if they're diving with me then there's a fair chance that they'll be doing "stops" even though the tables may tell them they're not necessary. Am I diving outside of BSAC guidelines? Perhaps, if we take the DTP as "law", but my previous club brought in it's own guidelines for stops and "deeper" diving following an incident some years ago (thankfully one that was not fatal though it was a close call)

TerryH and many others (I think myself included) have made no bones about the fact that we think the DTP could have been improved by more input from we instructors "on the ground", as it were, so I believe we're entitled to some leeway in how we put the info across, as long as the student understands that it's comparable to driving, none of us drive in everyday life the way when we took our driving test (or at least I have yet to see this !)
Also when I'm dealing with my undergraduate tutees I may tell them that X, Y& Z are "true" but will also let them know that further down the line they may find these "truths" are not quite the whole picture and may have to be discarded in favour of different "truths", rightly or wrongly I see diving the same.

Anyway, as I've said once or twice before in these matters "Vive la difference!"


Regards

[Mike Halligan]

:=:=:=apply_the_more_conservative, when mixing methods in a buddy pair;
:=:=
:=:=I found no mention in the OT4 lesson.
:=You won't, it is in the studybook.
Aha I need to get hold of one of those as well then.

Matt,
I tried for months to fathom the Instructor Manual as a casual reader (being unable to use it in earnest, as others were doing the teaching) and I found precious little success. Your observation and others like it were news to me and on examination of the manual very astute. However, we were all trained not to read the manual as if a script but to interpret the V/As in the light of Branch activity and our own experience. Thus I was uneasy but not cross - probably a normal state of affairs for a TO.

I bought Student Studybook (Ocean to Advanced) at DOC, browsed it thoroughly on the train home - 5 hours to cover 200 miles is now UK standard apparently - and I am now a great deal more confident all round. The Instructor Manual is IMHO excellent for fully briefed, qualified Instructors, but only as back-up material to the excellent V/A it accompanies. I don't rate it either as a bible for ADIs or for anyone trying to "wing it" through any of the content. The studybook has answered my growing unease that students could be sold short by the Instructor Manual.

I hope this helps you as it did me.

Mike