BSAC advice on Old Advanced Diver course

[bubbles]

I have recently been told by the chairman of my branch, that I can not complete my Advanced Diver under the old scheme. I have completed all of the required SDC's and actually started the SDC's before 2002.

However as I only had my Dive leader signed off last year, he implied I don't qualify. Even though the web site states "Members who have already begun training for a BSAC diver grade should complete the training for that grade before transitioning to the new scheme for any further training."

I contacted BSAC head office and was surprised at the response I recieved. Previoulsy when I have contacted BSAC about this course, I have enquired as an instructor and have been told things like "there is no end date for the scheme but don't tell your students that". Although surprised at this, I haven't said anything but looking back I realise I should have.

My recent enquiry was by email and was as a student seeking assistance from the head office. The response I received was waffly and had no real direction. I phoned the person and was told after further discussion, that yes it seemed that it would be better for me and the club to complete the old scheme. However when I asked for that in writing, I was told no they would not provide it.

I am extremly disappointed, with the advice and support I have received from BSAC on this. As it differs depending on who they are talking to, student or Instructor.

I have been a member of BSAC since 1998 and have alwasys tried to give something back to the club, which was one of my drivers for becoming an insturctor. However when I find myself in need, I find myself standing alone. Funny that!!

[edward haynes]

I'm afraid your Chairman is correct.

Here is the explination.

Until you qualified as a Dive Leader you could not formally start the Advanced Diver course.

However, you where permitted to attend lessons (theory and practical) for higher diver qualifications: see the sub-section "Attending Theory Lessons for Higher Grades:" in the Branch Officers Handbook.

Speak to your Diving Officer on the way forward as some of the SDCs you have done may have been from the current AD course.

Not what you wanted to hear, but I hope I've explained things.

Edward

[bubbles]

Thanks for your reply Edward.

Perhaps my post was not succint enough, the point I was trying to make was that BSAC give you different information depending on whether you speak to them as an instructor or a student.

At the end of the day we are all members of BSAC whether we are students or instructors and should be entitled to the same information.

[Dave]

Thanks for your reply Edward.

Perhaps my post was not succint enough, the point I was trying to make was that BSAC give you different information depending on whether you speak to them as an instructor or a student.

At the end of the day we are all members of BSAC whether we are students or instructors and should be entitled to the same information.

I fully agree with you. Hopefully the person was joking when he said o not tell you students, but members have a right (imo) to know the precise rules and be able to get them in writing if needed. Hardly the hardest of things for someone to jot them down in an email and send them

Dave

[iainmsmith]

I'm afraid your Chairman is correct.

Here is the explination.

Until you qualified as a Dive Leader you could not formally start the Advanced Diver course.

However, you where permitted to attend lessons (theory and practical) for higher diver qualifications: see the sub-section "Attending Theory Lessons for Higher Grades:" in the Branch Officers Handbook.

Edward,

If the trainee can have lessons signed off in their logbook (as per the link you posted), how can they be considered not to have started the course?

Iain

[Mike Halligan]

Until you qualified as a Dive Leader you could not formally start the Advanced Diver course.

However, you where permitted to attend lessons (theory and practical) for higher diver qualifications: see the sub-section "Attending Theory Lessons for Higher Grades:" in the Branch Officers Handbook.

Speak to your Diving Officer on the way forward as some of the SDCs you have done may have been from the current AD course.

Edward,

Thank you for answering frankly and attempting a defence. Regrettably, however, it appears dangerously close to casuistry of the n'th degree, IMHO of course.

Our anonymous friend 'Bubbles' says he began the SDC-based 1995 AD qualification (apparently in good faith) when first he attended a qualifying SDC (as did I, a SD attending Boat Handling in 1996) but he actually completed DL somewhat later (as did I, in 1997). Nothing in my copy of the Instructor Manual for that AD course denies the guy his chosen route to 'old' AD. Let us remember that in some Branches it can be very difficult still to find instructors able and willing to teach beyond SD OW skills. Only a few years ago, this was a major issue for the BSAC.

Now you, Edward, together with selected representatives of HQ, make out that because some bright spark came along in the meanwhile with a new syllabus (of which many Branches and members were unaware for several months), this student cannot pursue his elected course of study to its logical conclusion and be awarded the qualification whose criteria he meets and which remains available for award to others. Little wonder, then, that he (an Instructor) and his DO take differing views, as allegedly do individuals within HQ. This smacks of the (thankfully discreditted) allegation that the 1995 AD syllabus has a strictly limited shelf-life.

So far as I am aware, the intention of the BSAC is to train and then support scuba divers in diving safely to gain experience over time. Nit-picking over eligibility and/or trying to apply criteria from one environment in another does not aid acceptability of the excellent new syllabus. Rather it detracts from its utility and aggravates an already difficult situation.

We really must not cut away in this fashion the foundations upon which Instructors, TOs and DOs must work. Voluntary effort in aid to the BSAC ought not be sacficed on the altar of political whim among those disposed to politics, but should be supported as honest endeavour addressing the published intention of the organisation.

We are in grave danger of alienating those most able to smooth the path to full adoption of the 2002 syllabus. Cannot someone intervene to clarify for both parties what actually needs to be done in the particular circumstances?

Regards,

Mike

[David Walker]

So far as I am aware, the intention of the BSAC is to train and then support scuba divers in diving safely to gain experience over time. Nit-picking over eligibility and/or trying to apply criteria from one environment in another does not aid acceptability of the excellent new syllabus. Rather it detracts from its utility and aggravates an already difficult situation.

I'm not going to try to say what is the right or wrong way of doing things here, but taking a common sense approach it seems that you should be doing the new course. Lots of people may do eg boat handling with no intention of doing AD - if they suddenly decide to do AD after the syllabus changed can you really say that they started AD as soon as they did boat handling, and so are eligible to do the old scheme AD? As you say BSAC is a voluntary system, and as such it doesn't mean that you can try to cheat the system to do an old course. As the courses changed, that reflects the fact that someone somewhere felt that a new, more important skill set was important as the sport develops - if there was no benefit in doing the new AD rather than the old AD, then the syllabus wouldn't have changed!
Point is, however you interpret the precise wording of the transition from old to new, if you take any sort of common sense approach then you would come to the conclusion that trying to desparately cling onto the old AD syllabus years after it ended just because you did a boat handling course 7 years ago is just silly. After all, if you want to be an AD then surely you should be at the stage that you want to learn that little bit extra, you should be perfectly willing to accept that things change and maybe the old ways aren't best anymore after all the developments in the sport.

So, forget the official definitions, stop trying to work your way around the system to get what you want, just start the new AD course - I think it's obvious that what you are trying to do is not in the spirit of the rule which was to let people who had legitimately been doing AD training to finish, not to give people the choice of two AD courses for several years down the line.

David

[Dave]

I'm not going to try to say what is the right or wrong way of doing things here, but taking a common sense approach it seems that you should be doing the new course. Lots of people may do eg boat handling with no intention of doing AD - if they suddenly decide to do AD after the syllabus changed can you really say that they started AD as soon as they did boat handling, and so are eligible to do the old scheme AD?

Indeed. And so why shoudln't they be able to continue. Someone progressing through the grades may well have taken advantage to do the AD SDCs when they came up, especially if it has been put to them in a "this is worth doing, it will come in useful for AD later on"

As you say BSAC is a voluntary system, and as such it doesn't mean that you can try to cheat the system to do an old course. As the courses changed, that reflects the fact that someone somewhere felt that a new, more important skill set was important as the sport develops

If this was the case, then logically surely anyone with an old AD qualification should no longer be counted as being of that grade since their assessed skills are not of that level

if there was no benefit in doing the new AD rather than the old AD, then the syllabus wouldn't have changed!
Point is, however you interpret the precise wording of the transition from old to new, if you take any sort of common sense approach then you would come to the conclusion that trying to desparately cling onto the old AD syllabus years after it ended just because you did a boat handling course 7 years ago is just silly.

How is it silly. It is silly, imo, that no cut off point was defined for validity of the old course, however a decision was made to not put one in place. It is that which leaves the remnants of the old AD course around ad infinitum.



So, forget the official definitions, stop trying to work your way around the system to get what you want, just start the new AD course - I think it's obvious that what you are trying to do is not in the spirit of the rule which was to let people who had legitimately been doing AD training to finish, not to give people the choice of two AD courses for several years down the line.

Depends on your definition of legitimacy. I think it can be viewed that the person has quite legitimately embarked on the course.

Leaves the question of whether the club is provided for the members or whether the members are just pawns for a clique.

One thing I would like to see is that when the council decides to tinker with things would be for the plans to be advertised on the site to look for those with an interest to get involved on it.

Dave

[Mike Halligan]

I'm not going to try to say what is the right or wrong way of doing things here, but taking a common sense approach it seems that you should be doing the new course. Lots of people may do eg boat handling with no intention of doing AD - if they suddenly decide to do AD after the syllabus changed can you really say that they started AD as soon as they did boat handling, and so are eligible to do the old scheme AD? As you say BSAC is a voluntary system, and as such it doesn't mean that you can try to cheat the system to do an old course. As the courses changed, that reflects the fact that someone somewhere felt that a new, more important skill set was important as the sport develops - if there was no benefit in doing the new AD rather than the old AD, then the syllabus wouldn't have changed!

I've a slight problem with your position on this. I'm uninvolved and trying to see things from Bubbles' viewpoint and also that of his Chairman (who may or not be NQI). I shall not bother "doing the new course" as you so kindly suggest. I happen to teach it!

I'm not trying to cheat a system. I've absolutely no suspicion that Bubbles or his Chairman would. I am pointing up that there isn't a system. NQIs were sold one thing when the syllabus was revised and have tried to interpret it reasonably. Since then, several red herrings have been tossed in and it has become another thing. Bubbles' problem merely highlights an unintended impact of the launch.

Point is, however you interpret the precise wording of the transition from old to new, if you take any sort of common sense approach then you would come to the conclusion that trying to desparately cling onto the old AD syllabus years after it ended just because you did a boat handling course 7 years ago is just silly. After all, if you want to be an AD then surely you should be at the stage that you want to learn that little bit extra, you should be perfectly willing to accept that things change and maybe the old ways aren't best anymore after all the developments in the sport.

Oh, well I do beg your pardon. I wasn't aware I am devoid of common sense, cheat to obtain qualifications, fail to go the extra mile, cling desperately to the past and will not accept change? Should I shred my AD and OWI now, or later? (Neither is more than 5 years old but they might be old and shell-backed.)

I, and many like me, have been trying very hard to adopt and promote the new syllabus, a struggle not eased by such ill-informed comment.

So, forget the official definitions,
Eh?

stop trying to work your way around the system to get what you want,
Eh?

just start the new AD course -
Eh?

I think it's obvious that what you are trying to do is not in the spirit of the rule which was to let people who had legitimately been doing AD training to finish, not to give people the choice of two AD courses for several years down the line.

If you'd only started with "The Spirit of the rule was", then you'd be spot on! Pity that you've rather spoilt it with a rash assumption.

Mike ;-)

[David Walker]

If you'd only started with "The Spirit of the rule was", then you'd be spot on! Pity that you've rather spoilt it with a rash assumption.

It was in my mind, just the words never occurred to me til the end... :o\
I'm not suggesting that people with the qualifications should do the new scheme, but rather those who haven't done virtually any of the old AD (just a qualifying SDC) should really do the new one - I haven't done anything properly towards AD, but have for example done a drift dive which is one of the qualifying dives - if the syllabus changed tomorrow and I decided to really look at AD in 5 years time, would I really not think I had any claim to do the old (current) syllabus just because i'd done that qualifying dive.

David

[edward haynes]

Edward,
Thank you for answering frankly and attempting a defence. Regrettably, however, it appears dangerously close to casuistry of the n'th degree, IMHO of course.

Mike

When the next update of the BOH is conducted are you willing to write the bit on ?Sequence of Instruction?. I will take all the help I can.

All

There are two separate issues within Bubbles question (IMHO):

1. Can an individual undertake training above the current qualification course he/she is doing? Yes, provided it has been underpinned by progressive learning of the subject, theory and practical. (The BOH unfortunately only covers theory lessons; maybe on the next update we will correct that.)

2. Can an individual who, in September 2002, was undertaking a particular Diver Qualification course, from the 1995 syllabus, start the next level after September 2002? I think not. After the student was awarded their Diver Qualification from the 1995 syllabus, their Diving Officer should have ensured they received additional training covering the components introduced in the 2002 syllabus for that Qualification level. They should then undertake the next Diver Qualification level following the 2002 syllabus. In consultation with their Diving Officer training received under the 1995 syllabus could be off-set against appropriate parts of the 2002 syllabus, but the individual?s Diving Officer would need to ensure all lesson components where covered before signing it off.

In summery: I think Bubbles should be talking to his Branch Diving Officer (not Chairman) about the skills/experience he has attained from AD training (1995 or 2002 syllabus) prior to getting his DL, so he can progress through the current AD syllabus and gain credit for AD skills/experience already undertaken.

Edward

[iainmsmith]

2. Can an individual who, in September 2002, was undertaking a particular Diver Qualification course, from the 1995 syllabus, start the next level after September 2002? I think not.

But Bubbles did _not_ start that level after September 2002 - the SDCs were started prior to this, hence the specified training for AD was started prior to this date.

(Out of interest, Bubbles, which of the SDCs had you completed by Sept 02 and when did you do them?)

After the student was awarded their Diver Qualification from the 1995 syllabus, their Diving Officer should have ensured they received additional training covering the components introduced in the 2002 syllabus for that Qualification level. They should then undertake the next Diver Qualification level following the 2002 syllabus. In consultation with their Diving Officer training received under the 1995 syllabus could be off-set against appropriate parts of the 2002 syllabus, but the individual?s Diving Officer would need to ensure all lesson components where covered before signing it off.

But given that the diver in question has completed all the training for the qualification and has (at most) only the assessments to do (4 x marshalling, 1 x Rescue Management, 1 x Rescue Skills and a theory test), surely it makes far more sense to allow them to complete the course they started than to tell them that they have to undergo yet more training.

Indeed, given that there was no cut-off date applied to the old AD syllabus, it could well be that a diver made the effort to complete the SDCs for the old syllabus in order to do the assessments and complete the qualification, only now to be stonewalled. Doesn't exactly seem fair, does it?

Iain

[Mike Halligan]

Mike

When the next update of the BOH is conducted are you willing to write the bit on ?Sequence of Instruction?. I will take all the help I can.

I most certainly am willing, subject to your editorial control.


In summery: I think Bubbles should be talking to his Branch Diving Officer (not Chairman) about the skills/experience he has attained from AD training (1995 or 2002 syllabus) prior to getting his DL, so he can progress through the current AD syllabus and gain credit for AD skills/experience already undertaken.

Agreed, if Bubbles did not embark on AD SDCs prior to September 2002. (If he did, who let him do so without warning?)

The Branch Chairman, responsible for cohesion, chuminess and collaboration, should perhaps not trespass on the DO's territory - where ambition and regulation may on occasion conflict. (IMHO)

Mike

[pete gosnell]

Hi All,
The more I read the forum pages the more dispondent I get. I got to thinking "Should I still be diving" I started in 1977, passed my 2nd class diver, let alone AD, in 1982, my CI in 1985 and took my OWI in 1998 and I've only done 409 dives ( I had a break of 10 yrs 87-97 )I only use air to dive with and all I want to do is dive and do it safely.
Someone said in an earlier post something about stuff in the new syllubus not being in the old so therefore you should do the new regardless. What about me and all the other 2nd class divers? Are we regarded as passed it?
I would continue on the old syllubus and finish your AD.Rules, so I'm told, can be broken or bent. After all with the BSAC syllubuses come and go.We will be saying the same again when the next change comes in and I buy my 4th set of instructor training notes.
My 10Ps worth.
Pete. DO

[Andy Wade]

Hi All,
The more I read the forum pages the more dispondent I get. I got to thinking "Should I still be diving" I started in 1977, passed my 2nd class diver, let alone AD, in 1982, my CI in 1985 and took my OWI in 1998 and I've only done 409 dives ( I had a break of 10 yrs 87-97 )I only use air to dive with and all I want to do is dive and do it safely.
Someone said in an earlier post something about stuff in the new syllubus not being in the old so therefore you should do the new regardless. What about me and all the other 2nd class divers? Are we regarded as passed it?
I would continue on the old syllubus and finish your AD.Rules, so I'm told, can be broken or bent. After all with the BSAC syllubuses come and go.We will be saying the same again when the next change comes in and I buy my 4th set of instructor training notes.
My 10Ps worth.

And it's well worth at least 10p too.
Gosh, you sound as old as me ;-)
I feel the same as you quite a lot when I read the forums,
new ideas and changes are always happening and it can sometimes be hard to keep up.
In practice I've found that I can easily hold my own with other divers as I have so much experience anyway. It's not necessary to know _absolutely_ everything anyway.
The main thing to remember is that being an old fuddy duddy who still dives on air (like me), that we know our own limitations and are still alive to tell the tale despite all that so called 'dangerous' diving that we have done.
I do agree with the deep air stuff, and nowadays I wouldn't dive deeper than 30 m anyway, it's my own self imposed limit.
You are past it when and only when, you decide.
Of course everyone does have a responsibilty to themselves and their buddy to keep up to date and safe. But the qualification learned years ago is the foundation on which you have added your experience.
Whilst I do have some sympathies with the original poster, I'd be more concerned with satisfying the new syllabus and I'd just get recognition for what I have already done and complete the latest course, if only to satisfy my diving partners that I can 'Cut the Mustard', so to speak.

[edward haynes]

When I was training an ABLJ was concidered to dangerous for trainees. Snorkel Diver was required to learn it's use.

No your not too old.

Edward

[Andy Wade]

When I was training an ABLJ was concidered to dangerous for trainees. Snorkel Diver was required to learn it's use.

No your not too old.


Actually I sometimes wonder if removing the Snorkel Diver qualification was a good move, far too often I have seen scant attention paid to what I see are basic requirements such as correct finning technique and the lack of ability to control position in the water.
New divers kicking hell out of the water/air interface as they descend, and treading water/finning like mad on the surface because they haven't put any air in their BC and they're overweighted to an extreme.
Do we pay enough attention to these skills in the current training scheme or is it just down to a lack of thoroughness on the part of individual instructors?
Just thinking out loud really, but I'd be interested to hear how widespread the problem is.

[michael smith]

Two years ago my club had twice as many beginners than we had equipment for. So we split them into two groups. One did Club Diver: the second did Snorkel Diver, and then swapped on alternative weeks. The standard of these beginners in open water were the best we had seen for sometime.

In a lot of club's once the beginners complete their course, the pool is usually under used. What you could do is run some of the snorkel courses to keep members fitness up, or perhaps run a lifesaver course.

Regards Mike