instructor requirments [Archive] - BSAC Scuba Diving Forums

john williams

05-10-2004, 17:03

Just noticed on the bsac website the instructor requirments statement fror the teaching of the new syllabus:

"All instructions is to be carried out or supervised by a NQI, minimum OWI. "

Not wanting to start a war here, but does that mean that Club instructors are no longer allowed to teach the syllabus, since the IT Scheme effectively grades them below OWI???

The key to this is the word "supervision".

A CI can teach anyone - not just one to one, but anyone directly.

As long as the CI leads the session and does the teaching themselves then it counts.

An OWI can supervise others (i.e. they can utilise Assistant Diving Instructors and then- provided they are themselves happy that the lesson was taught effectively and that the students met the acheivement targets - sign off the lesson)

The CI cannot do that - they can only sign off their own work.

You will notice however that further up the tree (I'm thinking specifically ofsome of the AD stuff) that an AI is the *preferred* - or even *required* - level of instructor.

So - the generalisation I outline above does not always count.

John

iainmsmith

06-10-2004, 10:15

:=Just noticed on the bsac website the instructor requirments statement fror the teaching of the new syllabus:
:=
:="All instructions is to be carried out or supervised by a NQI, minimum OWI. "
:=
:=Not wanting to start a war here, but does that mean that Club instructors are no longer allowed to teach the syllabus, since the IT Scheme effectively grades them below OWI???

The key to this is the word "supervision".

A CI can teach anyone - not just one to one, but anyone directly.

As long as the CI leads the session and does the teaching themselves then it counts.

An OWI can supervise others (i.e. they can utilise Assistant Diving Instructors and then- provided they are themselves happy that the lesson was taught effectively and that the students met the acheivement targets - sign off the lesson)

The CI cannot do that - they can only sign off their own work.

Given that under the old DTP CIs _could_ supervise ACIs (or ADIs as they are now) in the classroom, in the pool and in OW, was it a deliberate decision to remove this competence from existing CIs, or is it merely an unfortunate accident of writing, arising from the new DTP having been written around the concept of OWIs, rather than CIs as the first level NQI?

Iain

John Williams

07-10-2004, 15:54

Given that under the old DTP CIs _could_ supervise ACIs (or ADIs as they are now) in the classroom, in the pool and in OW, was it a deliberate decision to remove this competence from existing CIs, or is it merely an unfortunate accident of writing, arising from the new DTP having been written around the concept of OWIs, rather than CIs as the first level NQI?

Iain

As I understand it:
The reason that the system was changed was that we were out on a legal limb allowing Instructors who had demonstrated competence to teach only in a pool to then go teach in open water. There is no restriction on a CI leading a pool training session or a classroom session. (or for that matter someone who has completed the IFC and TIE from running a classroom session staffed by others - or someone who has completed the IFC, PIE and KA from running a pool session staffed by others)

The examination was moved to a point where that legal loophole was closed i.e. the new level NQI had been examined as competent to teach in classroom, pool and open water.

No-one has ever said that a CI has not demonstrated competency in teaching diving (far from it). What they have said is that - to cover themselves and BSAC against the increasingly legislative world we live in that they should recognise that managing a team of others to acheive training objectives in an environment where they have not demonstrated their own competence is possibly one step too far.

If a CI wants to teach in Open Water then that's fine!(but they'd be more safely covered to do so if they were OWI)

...but if you want to manage a team of others to acheive training goals in OW then either go be assessed as competent in OW (by going on an OWIC to be taught the relevant extra skills and then log some time doing it/take the PIE) before taking the next step of supervising others to do something you are probably very good at - but dont have the papaerwork to back it up in court.

The new AI syllabus actually takes that further step (I believe) to train the AI to manage a team of others and to assess their competence as Instructors - so that is the preferred level of Instructor to supervise a club training expedition/lead SDCs (especially those where SDC instructor qualifications are to be assessed)

NIs on the other hand are those that assess the competence of AIs to assess the competence of others (and also to maintain the quality of the ITS - staffed by AIs who have taken the extra step to become Instructor Trainers)

NI examiners and NDO...well figure it out for yourself ;-))

That all seems reasonable and progressive to me...does it not seem that way to you?

John

iainmsmith

07-10-2004, 17:02

As I understand it:
The reason that the system was changed was that we were out on a legal limb allowing Instructors who had demonstrated competence to teach only in a pool to then go teach in open water.

Hmmm...arguable. What legal limb were you thinking of? (Given that HSE has no authority over recreational matters, I'm not sure which legislation you had in mind). Given that there was an established system in place which had been perfectly functional for a number of years, I'm not sure I see the rationale for change. However it is an increasingly unimportant issue as CI numbers decrease as they convert to OWI.

OTOH, it seems a bit of a kick in the teeth for existing CIs to be told that they are no longer allow to do things that they have been doing for years when, potentially, someone that they taught to dive is now able to supervise when they themselves are not.

The new AI syllabus actually takes that further step (I believe) to train the AI to manage a team of others and to assess their competence as Instructors - so that is the preferred level of Instructor to supervise a club training expedition/lead SDCs (especially those where SDC instructor qualifications are to be assessed)

This I find concerning. If there's an argument that CIs should not be supervising in OW as they have not been assessed in it (indeed, old-style OWIs have not been so assessed either) then surely pushing the above line is going to raise the spectre of OWIs not being considered suitable to manage an instructor team as they have no training in such (considering that by signing off on an ADI's lesson is essentially assessing the ADI's competence).

And how many SDCs still require Approved Instructors? Boat Handling and Nitrox. Are there any others? As an OWI/NXI, I'm going to be extremely hacked off if I'm no longer permitted to assess the competence of instructors, as it's only by that mechanism that we've been able to put together our club's nitrox instructor team.

I'm also interested in the justification for retaining any sort of instructor approval process, given that the line taken over PRM and O2 Admin was that having been assessed as an instructor, there was no further need to assess their ability to teach. I don't agree with that logic, but there is a discrepancy in approach to those courses vs others.

Additionally, if AIs are going to be the "preferred" instructor level to run a club training trip, how long before "preferred" becomes "required"? (It already appears to have happened with OWI and OW training). If AIs are "preferred", will that be part of SDPs? If so, what implications for training Branches without AIs?

Potentially, we're heading towards a situation where running club training trips becomes a reason to do AI... While a number of us don't really see the value of progressing to AI, restricting what we currently do is going to cause considerable annoyance, rather than encourage.

That all seems reasonable and progressive to me...does it not seem that way to you?

Up to a point. However, as above, I'm concerned about progressing along this route to what would seem to be its logical conclusion.

Iain

janos

07-10-2004, 18:49

Hmmm...arguable. What legal limb were you thinking of? (Given that HSE has no authority over recreational matters, I'm not sure which legislation you had in mind).

IANAL, but Diving at Work regs are not the only legislation. If I (as an amateur instructor) were prosecuted for negligence, then provided I had followed BSAC guidance and SDPs etc, I could plead that I was just following best practice laid down by my governing body (ie HQ). Obviously this defence is not available to HQ if it was ever prosecuted, and (I guess) this why the guidelines were changed.

Laters,
Janos

terryh

09-10-2004, 13:41

The new AI syllabus actually takes that further step (I believe) to train the AI to manage a team of others and to assess their competence as Instructors - :=

But isnt that the DO's job? If it is to become part of AI,
isnt that the slippery slope towards DO's being AI's instead
of ADV (pref NQI)?

TerryH

john williams

09-10-2004, 16:18

:=
:=The new AI syllabus actually takes that further step (I believe) to train the AI to manage a team of others and to assess their competence as Instructors - :=

But isnt that the DO's job? If it is to become part of AI,
isnt that the slippery slope towards DO's being AI's instead
of ADV (pref NQI)?

TerryH

No...the DO is there to manage the training ... s/he can do so by using the skills of more highly qualified/experienced divers appropriately.
But where/when was the DO trained to do so?
If this training is included in AI (and it does not fit into OWI training nicely) then should this not make AI the best person to fill the job of DO?

Something branches might like to take into consideration at election time?

Also worth considering: Any AD/OWI in the DO spot is going to have a much harder job managing an FCD/NI than the other way around. Another factor which branches should consider when elections come around.

The NDO has to hold the highest qualification available within the BSAC - so that no-one can gainsay her.

Why should this not follow for the branch?

At present the minimum acceptable qualification for a Branch DO is AD (pref NQI)

I'd like to see it move immediately to AD/NQI ...how can it be right to have someone not qualified to teach in charge of safety and training standards in a branch?

I'd also like to see a recommendation that the most highly qualified diver/instructor be the canditate for election to BDO preferred by HQ

Of course - if your branch is not a training branch (i.e. one that does not award qualifications)then there should be no requirement for the DO to be an instructor of any grade at all.

John

gridler

09-10-2004, 17:35

Seems like common sense to me, I agree John. I have always said that the role of BDO is one of quality assurance and to do that they should be the person qualified to make judgements. I accept that there are a lot of divers within the branchs that have been diving longer and may have a lot of experience and may not agree. There has to be a structure in place. We have to move on, the blame culture we live in will before long result in legal action the risk assessments are not just for diving they also refer to branchs and the running of these branches.

Philip Smith

09-10-2004, 18:26

The NDO has to hold the highest qualification available within the BSAC - so that no-one can gainsay her.

Why should this not follow for the branch?

Because it is unreasonable to expect every branch to have a FCD/NI?

I'd also like to see a recommendation that the most highly qualified diver/instructor be the canditate for election to BDO preferred by HQ

I don't see what 'the candidate ... preferred by HQ' is supposed to mean.

Philip Smith

David Walker

09-10-2004, 18:58

At present the minimum acceptable qualification for a Branch DO is AD (pref NQI)

I'd like to see it move immediately to AD/NQI ...how can it be right to have someone not qualified to teach in charge of safety and training standards in a branch?

Well the most highly qualified diver presently in regular attendance at our branch is DL/OWI, and the DO holds that qualification too. We do have a couple of ADs, but not who are able to commit to regular training or even club night meetings, and a less qualified DO is much better than a highly qualified one who we see maybe a couple of times per month. I only know of one AI who could even be said to be associated to the branch, although in reality he is essentially an ex-member, lives 150 miles away and only comes up here probably twice a year.

So yes, it might be nice to have all DOs as FCD/NI, but we need to be realistic - what about the clubs who don't meet that requirement? We function with a DO less than the current standards, and in reality although he's officially an 'Assistant DO' - if the requirements increase, then we'll simple have more of these 'Assistant DOs' who function in exactly the same was as a normal DO - pointless!

David

John Williams

09-10-2004, 20:27

:=The NDO has to hold the highest qualification available within the BSAC - so that no-one can gainsay her.
:=
:=Why should this not follow for the branch?

Because it is unreasonable to expect every branch to have a FCD/NI?

never said it was reasonable. All I said was that the NDO had to have the highest available qualification ...and that the person most highly qualified within the branch would be the ideal candidate to take on the job there (for the same reasons - no-one could gainsay them!)

:=I'd also like to see a recommendation that the most highly qualified diver/instructor be the canditate for election to BDO preferred by HQ

I don't see what 'the candidate ... preferred by HQ' is supposed to mean.

That HQ would prefer to see the most highly qualified person filling the role...I thought it was fairly clear!

John

John Williams

09-10-2004, 21:09

So yes, it might be nice to have all DOs as FCD/NI, but we need to be realistic - what about the clubs who don't meet that requirement? We function with a DO less than the current standards, and in reality although he's officially an 'Assistant DO' - if the requirements increase, then we'll simple have more of these 'Assistant DOs' who function in exactly the same was as a normal DO - pointless!

I seem to have confused the issue here.

What I said was that a less qualified DO might have issues if a FCD/NI were present. In that case it would be nice if the FCD/NI stood as Do ...so that branch had the most highly qualified diver/instructor as an option.

If there is no FCD/NI then the branch should seriously consider the merits of electing the diver who has the highest qualifications within the branch...so that there is no-one locally who might try to gainsay the DO.

Having said that ..the DO does need to be there and be committed. I'd far rather have a AD/OWI who was there and committed to the job than a beter qualified absentee.

Whatever the recommendations are we ought to be seeing branches encouraging their senior divers to stand for election, or help others to get properly qualified before seeking election. We should not be seeing more "acting DOs" ...because it is not really fair to ask unqualified people to take on that responsibility without the training and the peice of paper to support them.

John

iainmsmith

09-10-2004, 21:27

:=:=The NDO has to hold the highest qualification available within the BSAC - so that no-one can gainsay her.
:=:=
:=:=Why should this not follow for the branch?
:=
:=Because it is unreasonable to expect every branch to have a FCD/NI?

never said it was reasonable. All I said was that the NDO had to have the highest available qualification ...and that the person most highly qualified within the branch would be the ideal candidate to take on the job there (for the same reasons - no-one could gainsay them!)

So what if a) that individual does not wish to take up the job of DO or b) the Branch do not _want_ that individual as DO?

:=:=I'd also like to see a recommendation that the most highly qualified diver/instructor be the canditate for election to BDO preferred by HQ
:=
:=I don't see what 'the candidate ... preferred by HQ' is supposed to mean.

That HQ would prefer to see the most highly qualified person filling the role...I thought it was fairly clear!

But by making that statement, does it create a compulsion on the Branch to accept the preference? If so, see above and if not, why say it?

Iain

Philip Smith

09-10-2004, 22:21

:=Because it is unreasonable to expect every branch to have a FCD/NI?

never said it was reasonable. All I said was that the NDO had to have the highest available qualification ...and that the person most highly qualified within the branch would be the ideal candidate to take on the job there (for the same reasons - no-one could gainsay them!)

No, you said why should the _same_ not follow for the branch, i.e. that candidates should have the highest qualification available within the BSAC (which is FCD/NI). Even if it was only meant as an aspiration, I don't agree. As long as candidates have the required qualification they can be elected and then they should have the compliance of any more-highly qualified branch members. If the BDO always had to be the most-highly qualified member, many branches would end up with the same person in charge for years on end, which is usually not healthy.

:=I don't see what 'the candidate ... preferred by HQ' is supposed to mean.

That HQ would prefer to see the most highly qualified person filling the role...I thought it was fairly clear!

Your wording could mean that HQ would express a preference in particular branch elections. Council and the NDO set the ground rules, but generally have nothing to do with individual branch elections. HQ are not involved either. If you only meant that HQ/Council would have such a preference in general, then I thought you had already covered that by wishing for a recommendation (from Council or HQ presumably).

Philip Smith

Mike Halligan

09-10-2004, 22:23

:=So yes, it might be nice to have all DOs as FCD/NI, but we need to be realistic - what about the clubs who don't meet that requirement? We function with a DO less than the current standards, and in reality although he's officially an 'Assistant DO' - if the requirements increase, then we'll simple have more of these 'Assistant DOs' who function in exactly the same was as a normal DO - pointless!

What I said was that a less qualified DO might have issues if a FCD/NI were present. In that case it would be nice if the FCD/NI stood as Do ...so that branch had the most highly qualified diver/instructor as an option.

If there is no FCD/NI then the branch should seriously consider the merits of electing the diver who has the highest qualifications within the branch...so that there is no-one locally who might try to gainsay the DO.

Having said that ..the DO does need to be there and be committed. I'd far rather have a AD/OWI who was there and committed to the job than a beter qualified absentee.

Whatever the recommendations are we ought to be seeing branches encouraging their senior divers to stand for election, or help others to get properly qualified before seeking election. We should not be seeing more "acting DOs" ...because it is not really fair to ask unqualified people to take on that responsibility without the training and the peice of paper to support them.

Hi, John,

Having been an Acting DO, let me please echo David's concern. It is difficult to recruit and retain active members in sports clubs of all kinds. Experience of one year as captain or committe is enough to see off many. For some, the threat alone is enough. Service of the common-good seems no longer laudable in UK society. (Rampant self-interest seems more the watchword here now.)

A committee and branch that aspires to excellence encourages the best qualified to stand for election to the crucial DO position, and then supports that DO. However, many Branches find themselves having to make the best of the willing but less qualified volunteer. I accept that there should be prejudice in favour of the member with the greatest experience in the diving routinely undertaken in-Branch. But, that is not necessarily the person most highly qualified in badge-collecting terms.

IMHO, to increase pre-requisite qualifications for DO risks two undesirable effects,
a slow decrease in numbers attempting the diving/instructor grades specified and
a rapid increase in numbers of ADOs.

That's just another viewpoint applied to the same problem.

Regards,

Mike

Philip Smith

09-10-2004, 22:29

We function with a DO less than the current standards, and in reality although he's officially an 'Assistant DO'

A Dive Leader elected as BDO is an "Acting DO" (not "Assistant").

Philip Smith

gridler

09-10-2004, 23:44

We all have to work within our limits but in the ideal world we would have the most qualified ( on paper ) as DO. the role of DO is the most importent so within the branch does it not make sense that person has the badges as some would say to do the job. not the best time to post as my fingers seem to be struggling

David Walker

10-10-2004, 08:15

A Dive Leader elected as BDO is an "Acting DO" (not "Assistant").

That'd be the one! :O)

One extra thought which I didn't mention before - although we're forced into having someone as an Acting DO (through lack of anyone else), it's not always an ideal position to be in. In reality the club has had an Acting DO for as long as I can remember, but they've always had the experience to go with the qualifications and so never a problem. Our current DO basically became that the day after he passed the last bit of OWI, and a number of the more experienced members who only come back occasionally expressed concerns about the suitability.
It may be the case that a different system is needed in the appointment of DO - raising the requirement won't make a difference, because as I said before all that means is that someone's job title changes from DO to Acting DO - but they do exactly the same job. Maybe it's a case that there needs to be more guidance for Acting DOs in practical terms, or maybe just that there does need to be an absolute lower limit for qualification AND experience of even an Acting DO. Of course HQ can advise a DO on certain things, and our DO is barely ever off the phone to HQ, but that is part of the concern - it's someone who isn't used to decision making, wants very firm rules for everything, and when we're out on a boat in a heavy swell with the skipper wanting a decision of whether to dive or not, neither the instructor manual nor HQ are there to give the answer! Maybe a 'Diving Officers' SDC (not compulsory though), looking at the 'management' style skills the DO needs that you don't get through usual diver training - look at decision making - even just giving them all a basic rule such as "if you don't know, you don't dive" would save on club members being thrown around in the back of a boat for 10 minutes while the DO tries to work out that even if it was worth diving, only one or two of us would have any chance of getting back into the boat!

It is a problem of getting people who want to do it. Especially considering our instructors, all of our more experienced instructors have been doing it for a number of years now, lots of leaving at 5am to go to Stoney, lots of organising courses every year, and after doing that for so long they are no longer interested in the more formal, set roles, but rather prefer to be able to drop in and help whenever they like - it takes the responsibility off them. How do we make people want to be DO? Well, I have no idea really, which is why the system is as it is - not perfect, but there's little that can be done to make it better without simply closing branches down for not having the correctly qualified members!

David

Philip Smith

10-10-2004, 11:09

One extra thought which I didn't mention before - although we're forced into having someone as an Acting DO (through lack of anyone else), it's not always an ideal position to be in.

I sympathise with your branch's predicament. It can be very difficult to get someone to stand.

Maybe a 'Diving Officers' SDC (not compulsory though), looking at the 'management' style skills the DO needs that you don't get through usual diver training - look at decision making - even just giving them all a basic rule such as "if you don't know, you don't dive" would save on club members being thrown around in the back of a boat for 10 minutes while the DO tries to work out that even if it was worth diving, only one or two of us would have any chance of getting back into the boat!

That sort of decision-making is covered in the Advanced Diver course. Incidentally, in judging the suitability of conditions, people commonly think "we could dive in that", but don't think "could we carry out a rescue in that if we needed to?" If it seems marginal, it's probably not safe.

Philip Smith

John Williams

10-10-2004, 17:35

So what if a) that individual does not wish to take up the job of DO or b) the Branch do not _want_ that individual as DO?
:

a) They wont agree to stand for election
b) They wont get elected

But by making that statement, does it create a compulsion on the Branch to accept the preference? If so, see above and if not, why say it?

No...it's a recommendation. Make with good intent. But, as with all advice given in such a way branches would be free to ignore it.

Why say it?
Experience has shown that "junior" divers have less success at managing "senior" divers than the other way around. Particularly when they have a difference of opinion. Branches should be made aware that things tend to run more smoothly when the DO is the most qualified diver/instructor - of course if all your "senior" divers are completely un-opinionated and supportive of a "junior" DO then you'll have no problems.

John

John Williams

10-10-2004, 17:58

:=:=Because it is unreasonable to expect every branch to have a FCD/NI?
:=
:=never said it was reasonable. All I said was that the NDO had to have the highest available qualification ...and that the person most highly qualified within the branch would be the ideal candidate to take on the job there (for the same reasons - no-one could gainsay them!)

No, you said why should the _same_ not follow for the branch, i.e. that candidates should have the highest qualification available within the BSAC (which is FCD/NI). Even if it was only meant as an aspiration, I don't agree. As long as candidates have the required qualification they can be elected and then they should have the compliance of any more-highly qualified branch members. If the BDO always had to be the most-highly qualified member, many branches would end up with the same person in charge for years on end, which is usually not healthy.

Not what I said at all!
The NDO must have the same or higher qualification as anyone in the BSAC (the forum in which they seek election)

The Branch DO would be well served to hold the highest qualification in the forum in which they seek election (THE BRANCH!)

However - nowhere have I said that ONLY the person with the highest qualifications should be eligible for election. I simply said that this would negate some of the problems experienced by "junior" DOs and Acting DOs.

A HQ recommendation highlighting that fact would help "juniors" to encourage "seniors" to stand (perhaps using "juniors" as Asst DO - to show them the ropes as it were)

It would also seek to encourage those with aspirations to manage the branch diving programme to raise their level of qualification before taking on a difficult role (we don't want people to "burn out" with the stress of managing "senior" divers and never volunteer again!)

Your wording could mean that HQ would express a preference in particular branch elections. Council and the NDO set the ground rules, but generally have nothing to do with individual branch elections. HQ are not involved either. If you only meant that HQ/Council would have such a preference in general, then I thought you had already covered that by wishing for a recommendation (from Council or HQ presumably).

Your argument here is circular .. going nowhere.
Yes! I'd like a general recommendation from HQ that a DO should have a minimum qualification of AD/NQI - but also that the branch should be aware of the advantages of choosing the most highly qualified candidate available (and willing)

John

Philip Smith

10-10-2004, 20:11

Not what I said at all!

As I said, it was far from clear what you were saying at first. Thank you for clarifying.

Your argument here is circular .. going nowhere.

That part was not an argument, never mind a circular one. It was different possible interpretations of what you'd written to show why it wasn't as clear as you thought.

A HQ recommendation highlighting that fact would help "juniors" to encourage "seniors" to stand (perhaps using "juniors" as Asst DO - to show them the ropes as it were)

The trouble with "recommendations" nowadays is that, through the terms of the insurance policy, they appear to become de facto rules. "Seniors" should know that the BDO wields the delegated authority of the NDO and if they don't want to stand themselves, they should show the discipline and courtesy of supporting (or at least not undermining) a less-qualified or experienced person in that post.

Philip Smith

John Williams

10-10-2004, 20:55

"Seniors" should know that the BDO wields the delegated authority of the NDO and if they don't want to stand themselves, they should show the discipline and courtesy of supporting (or at least not undermining) a less-qualified or experienced person in that post.

Philip Smith

Now I can FULLY agree with that sentiment...but what part of Utopia Avenue do you live on??

The BDO should get that level of support - but in the real world it puts the "junior" in a VERY difficult position when a "senior" starts throwing their weight around.

All that unpleasantness could be avoided if the "senior" took the responsibility themselves (or, as you say, recognised that they turned it down and respect the person that stood up to the challenge!)

John

mark willoughby

15-10-2004, 22:12

:=One extra thought which I didn't mention before - although we're forced into having someone as an Acting DO (through lack of anyone else), it's not always an ideal position to be in.

I sympathise with your branch's predicament. It can be very difficult to get someone to stand.

:=Maybe a 'Diving Officers' SDC (not compulsory though), looking at the 'management' style skills the DO needs that you don't get through usual diver training - look at decision making - even just giving them all a basic rule such as "if you don't know, you don't dive" would save on club members being thrown around in the back of a boat for 10 minutes while the DO tries to work out that even if it was worth diving, only one or two of us would have any chance of getting back into the boat!

That sort of decision-making is covered in the Advanced Diver course. Incidentally, in judging the suitability of conditions, people commonly think "we could dive in that", but don't think "could we carry out a rescue in that if we needed to?" If it seems marginal, it's probably not safe.

Philip Smith

i have actually been speaking to some bsac committee...about what they would do if rules were actually broken by a bsac branch regarding instruction or any rule for that matter......it appears they cannot do anything....so i know this will open another can of worms..but why have rules and legislation..if when rules are broken...nothing can be done ?

Khaled Alwassia

16-10-2004, 11:19

What should all the branches do wich have no AD?

What shall they do if their AD is a brick?

What shall they do if their AD say "No thank you"

Please come back down to planet earth.

Khaled

Philip Smith

16-10-2004, 20:48

i have actually been speaking to some bsac committee...about what they would do if rules were actually broken by a bsac branch regarding instruction or any rule for that matter......it appears they cannot do anything....so i know this will open another can of worms..but why have rules and legislation..if when rules are broken...nothing can be done ?

This issue, or variants of it, have been discussed on these forums many times. The difficulty of enforcement is one of the main reasons that BSAC actually has very few "rules". BSAC has traditionally relied mainly on "recommendations" to promote good practices by its members. However, non-compliance with recommendations may leave you without third party insurance cover or the support of BSAC in the event of litigation (depending on the circumstances), so if these things are important to you (as they should be), the recommendations effectively are rules.

Philip Smith

John Williams

18-10-2004, 21:17

What should all the branches do wich have no AD?

What shall they do if their AD is a brick?

What shall they do if their AD say "No thank you"

Please come back down to planet earth.

Khaled

Planet Earth calling Khaled!

The DO needs to be someone capable (and preferably qualified) to put together a diving programme - and manage a team of marshals to deliver it (where suitably qualified marshals exist)

In a Training Branch the DO should also be capable(and preferably qualified) of instructing - and manage a team of instructors to deliver instruction (or appoint suitably qualified Training Officer to deliver said part of the DO responsibility)

If you don't train then you can ignore the second bit.

If you cannot fulfil the conditions of the first bit then you cannot be a DO (simple - BSAC regulation) - but you can be an Acting DO (with recourse to your Area Coach or Overseas Liaison Officer)

This discussion has never centred around the minimum (though I did say that I felt it was set too low as it did not take training responsibility seriously enough to require a qualification in delivering it)

What this discussion has centred around is that when you have those with more than the minimum qualification to fill a role being "managed" by those with "only" the minimum - there is often conflict. This conflict could be avoided if only the branch would recognise this and try to persuade those with the highest qualifications and greatest experience to stand for the position of DO and then support them in the role.

No-one has said that a DO *should/must* be FCD/NI - but wouldn't it be nice if every branch had several of them to choose from?

(I am a DO - I am AD/AI ..and I hold the highest level of qualification in my branch (only one other holds the same level and she is both my TO and my wife). Coincidentally I also have the highest level of experience in the branch)

I hope that when someone else (less qualified and less experienced than I) steps into my shoes that will have the grace and respect to support them or keep my gob shut (unless I feel safety is compromised). Many others would not support a "junior" DO in this way.

John

terryh

19-10-2004, 02:16

I hope that when someone else (less qualified and less experienced than I) steps into my shoes that will have the grace and respect to support them or keep my gob shut (unless I feel safety is compromised). Many others would not support a "junior" DO in this way.

Sorry I just dont't get this thread.

If you are that bad as a senior diver/Instructor that you wont
support a junior DO, then how on earth are you going to gain
the respect of the membership AS the DO?

After all isnt one of the most important qualities diplomacy?

TerryH

Andy Wade

19-10-2004, 09:35

:=
:=I hope that when someone else (less qualified and less experienced than I) steps into my shoes that will have the grace and respect to support them or keep my gob shut (unless I feel safety is compromised). Many others would not support a "junior" DO in this way.
:=

Sorry I just dont't get this thread.

If you are that bad as a senior diver/Instructor that you wont
support a junior DO, then how on earth are you going to gain
the respect of the membership AS the DO?

After all isnt one of the most important qualities diplomacy?

People who stab you in the back rarely do it in public.
They usually don't need to gain the respect of their branch membership as they had it already.
Speaking from personal experience, some Ex-DO's have a very rigid way of doing things, they see a new DO as a young upstart and would like to bend this new DO into their way of thinking, either the new DO complies because they have lots of respect for the Ex DO, or they tell them that it's OK, but they have a few new ideas of their own, or they just tell them where to get off, (sometimes in jerky movements).
Depending on how the situation is handled by both parties, there is either peace or war, and the gloves are off in some cases, and dirty tricks abound.
All this can take place either behind closed doors or in open view of the branch, people can take sides and you have a potential split of the branch.
Add a lack of qualifications to the new DO's position, and you have a very unsafe position if the Ex-DO wants to stir up trouble and generally undermine the new DO's decision making process.
I'm sure that lots of people reading this will identify with some or all of it.
I'm afraid it's human nature, the Alpha male fighting for control (Although Female Ex-DO's can be capable of stirring trouble up if they so wish..... seen that too.
IMO it's down to the Chairman of the branch to sort out problems like this, and to remind the EX-DO of their position, sometimes the best and quickest way to do this is to say, "Well if you don't like how the new DO is doing things, why don't you put yourself up as DO?" Put up or shut up as the saying goes.
Frankly, IMO Ex-DO's should be the main support for a new DO, whether or not they agree with them.
All too often this just isn't the case though.

terryh

19-10-2004, 13:51

:=
:=Sorry I just dont't get this thread.
:=
:=If you are that bad as a senior diver/Instructor that you wont
:=support a junior DO, then how on earth are you going to gain
:=the respect of the membership AS the DO?
:=
:=After all isnt one of the most important qualities diplomacy?
:=

People who stab you in the back rarely do it in public.
They usually don't need to gain the respect of their branch membership as they had it already.
Speaking from personal experience, some Ex-DO's have a very rigid way of doing things, they see a new DO as a young upstart and would like to bend this new DO into their way of thinking, either the new DO complies because they have lots of respect for the Ex DO, or they tell them that it's OK, but they have a few new ideas of their own, or they just tell them where to get off, (sometimes in jerky movements).
Depending on how the situation is handled by both parties, there is either peace or war, and the gloves are off in some cases, and dirty tricks abound.
All this can take place either behind closed doors or in open view of the branch, people can take sides and you have a potential split of the branch.
Add a lack of qualifications to the new DO's position, and you have a very unsafe position if the Ex-DO wants to stir up trouble and generally undermine the new DO's decision making process.
I'm sure that lots of people reading this will identify with some or all of it.
I'm afraid it's human nature, the Alpha male fighting for control (Although Female Ex-DO's can be capable of stirring trouble up if they so wish..... seen that too.
IMO it's down to the Chairman of the branch to sort out problems like this, and to remind the EX-DO of their position, sometimes the best and quickest way to do this is to say, "Well if you don't like how the new DO is doing things, why don't you put yourself up as DO?" Put up or shut up as the saying goes.
Frankly, IMO Ex-DO's should be the main support for a new DO, whether or not they agree with them.
All too often this just isn't the case though.

I'm not disagreeing with you Andy and yes many of us have been
there, but there are as you say mechanisms in place to
counter a senior diver/green DO conflict.

I've been involved with many a DO in quite a few clubs and
the ones that seem to have it sussed are on average NOT
the most qualified. Yes they have enough diver knowledge to be
competent, but above all else they have the diplomatic skills
to gain the respect of the membership.

The argument seems to be that the highest grades = the best
DO or rather the best solution as DO. That is IMO wrong.
The best DO is NOT the most qualified, but an individual
that has ENOUGH qualifications, married with the the right
personal skills.

As we all know, you can jump through hoops and get higher
grades, but that dosnt mean you will gain a personality at the
same time!

TerryH

Andy Wade

19-10-2004, 15:13

:=:=
:=:=Sorry I just dont't get this thread.
:=:=
:=:=If you are that bad as a senior diver/Instructor that you wont
:=:=support a junior DO, then how on earth are you going to gain
:=:=the respect of the membership AS the DO?
:=:=
:=:=After all isnt one of the most important qualities diplomacy?
:=:=
:=
:=People who stab you in the back rarely do it in public.
:=They usually don't need to gain the respect of their branch membership as they had it already.
:=Speaking from personal experience, some Ex-DO's have a very rigid way of doing things, they see a new DO as a young upstart and would like to bend this new DO into their way of thinking, either the new DO complies because they have lots of respect for the Ex DO, or they tell them that it's OK, but they have a few new ideas of their own, or they just tell them where to get off, (sometimes in jerky movements).
:=Depending on how the situation is handled by both parties, there is either peace or war, and the gloves are off in some cases, and dirty tricks abound.
:=All this can take place either behind closed doors or in open view of the branch, people can take sides and you have a potential split of the branch.
:=Add a lack of qualifications to the new DO's position, and you have a very unsafe position if the Ex-DO wants to stir up trouble and generally undermine the new DO's decision making process.
:=I'm sure that lots of people reading this will identify with some or all of it.
:=I'm afraid it's human nature, the Alpha male fighting for control (Although Female Ex-DO's can be capable of stirring trouble up if they so wish..... seen that too.
:=IMO it's down to the Chairman of the branch to sort out problems like this, and to remind the EX-DO of their position, sometimes the best and quickest way to do this is to say, "Well if you don't like how the new DO is doing things, why don't you put yourself up as DO?" Put up or shut up as the saying goes.
:=Frankly, IMO Ex-DO's should be the main support for a new DO, whether or not they agree with them.
:=All too often this just isn't the case though.

I'm not disagreeing with you Andy and yes many of us have been
there, but there are as you say mechanisms in place to
counter a senior diver/green DO conflict.

I've been involved with many a DO in quite a few clubs and
the ones that seem to have it sussed are on average NOT
the most qualified. Yes they have enough diver knowledge to be
competent, but above all else they have the diplomatic skills
to gain the respect of the membership.

The argument seems to be that the highest grades = the best
DO or rather the best solution as DO. That is IMO wrong.
The best DO is NOT the most qualified, but an individual
that has ENOUGH qualifications, married with the the right
personal skills.

As we all know, you can jump through hoops and get higher
grades, but that dosnt mean you will gain a personality at the
same time!

I think it is dangerous ground to try and pull up the ladder, saying that a DO must be an NQI/FCD/AI/whatever, indeed the job position is often difficult enough to fill by arm twisting begging and general pleading, without adding extra qualifying factors.
How many branches have just the one candidate each year that is prepared to do the job?
Quite a high majority I'd guess, and I'd bet that most of them are doing it under suffrance too - "There's no-one else who will do it, so I'll take it on again"
IMO leaving it set at AD is the best option.
Now if we made it compulsory to read the branch handbook, that might be a good idea!
All we have to do now is make AD attractive enough for people to want the qualification.....

John Williams

19-10-2004, 16:01

I'm not disagreeing with you Andy and yes many of us have been
there, but there are as you say mechanisms in place to
counter a senior diver/green DO conflict.

...and one of the best ways to avoid the need to employ those mechanisms it is not to put the branch in that situation in the forst place.

No-one has said anything about making anything compulsory. It has just been suggested that there is a potential for conflict in certain situations.

Those situations can be avoided ... and due regard should be taken for the benefits of avoiding them.

If, on balance, a branch feels the potential pitfalls of a "junior DO" are outweighed by the positive aspects of vigour, enthusiasm, committment etc then fair enough.

The ideal would be a combination of both (either in the same person, or as part of a cohesive and cooperative team)

John

terryh

19-10-2004, 16:34

All we have to do now is make AD attractive enough for people to want the qualification.....

Noooooooooo!! Dont't open that can of worms.
Why would I want to become an AD?

No extra depth. No more PRM/O2 etc. than in DL. In fact most of
it seems to be a review/semi-nursery slope for Marshalling and
branch planning.

Ok, so here's an idea. As most of the content of courses has
gone down a grade, how about including actual Advanced topics
in Advanced?

A compulsory Nitrox ticket might be a good start, maybe even
cut the "Adventurous diving" rubbish and actually include ERD
etc. Planning Branch dives & advanced? Doesnt that mean
decent Trimix, SCR, CCR knowledge? I'm not saying we have to be
super-divers with every ticket going, but IMO a grade needs
to be more, than more of the same.

Question: Would a DL with a good number of UK club dives be
as good as an Adv with the same?

Many of us go outside of BSAC to progress our diving career
and pay large sums to do it. Money is less of an object at this
level. Worth is.

Make it viable and relevant, then people will want to do it.

TerryH
PS: I am already an Adv.

janos

19-10-2004, 18:19

David Walker

19-10-2004, 20:05

A compulsory Nitrox ticket might be a good start, maybe even
cut the "Adventurous diving" rubbish and actually include ERD
etc. Planning Branch dives & advanced? Doesnt that mean
decent Trimix, SCR, CCR knowledge? I'm not saying we have to be
super-divers with every ticket going, but IMO a grade needs
to be more, than more of the same.

Problem with that is that some people don't want to do Technical Diver to be Advanced Diver - for things such as DPM that need an AD (and I think AI) to teach, does that mean that the only people who can teach about planning and marshalling dives are qualified to 130m on a trimix rebreather? Someone could quite happily do 20m dives their whole life, some of which would be challenging, but even if they'd done 10,000 dives, planned 1000 to 500 different locations, they still wouldn't be able to teach DPM unless they did courses in things which are irrelevant to the diving they do.

Depends on the definition of Advanced Diver really - until that is really sorted then no one really knows what should be in the course. It may be that we really don't need an Advanced Diver at all, or rather that Advanced Diver is eg Dive Leader with 10 SDCs - that gives people the option to keep doing the diving they like, maybe make some compulsory, but in general allow more freedom to dive as you want to dive at the higher level.

As an aside, my interpretation of the grades is basically this:
Ocean Diver - can look after themself
Sports Diver - can provide useful assistance to a buddy in an emergency
Dive Leader - able to deal with the inexperienced divers, with moderate organisational skills
Advanced Diver - able to organise diving for a large group
First Class - bugger knows - just gives them something to do I suppose...

That's my interpretation - AD seems like little more than extended DPM with a bit of a skills review really. They add some deeper stuff as qualifying dives just to flesh out the qualification, there's not a great deal of instruction in those other techniques, just a quick theory lesson. Something like Advanced Diving Techniques would be a perfect part of AD, and frankly I was surprised on seeing ADT as a qualification that it wasn't simply a few of the dives from AD.

David

terryh

20-10-2004, 01:17

Problem with that is that some people don't want to do Technical Diver to be Advanced Diver - for things such as DPM that need an AD (and I think AI) to teach, does that mean that the only people who can teach about planning and marshalling dives are qualified to 130m on a trimix rebreather?:=

No, but isnt it a good idea to at least have enough of the
theory to be able to successfully marshal more advanced dives?
How many clubs are happy cruising along at 20-30m levels when
along comes a SCR etc. maybe as a guest diver.
Shouldnt a so called Advanced be confident enough to take
this on WITH sufficient knowledge to be safe?

Ocean Diver - can look after themself
Sports Diver - can provide useful assistance to a buddy in an emergency
Dive Leader - able to deal with the inexperienced divers, with moderate organisational skills
Advanced Diver - able to organise diving for a large group
First Class - bugger knows - just gives them something to do I suppose...

That's my interpretation:=

But a Sport diver is supposed to be able to plan his own dives
and do deco. A Dive leader has the DPM planning to do larger
groups.

So unless i'm planning an exhibition to darkest Borneo, what
does Advanced give me?

TerryH

John Williams

20-10-2004, 12:26

I think the current system works well and there's no point in changing it. We have an NI in the club who is so busy doing things at a National level (the clue's in the name I guess) that it's not fair to ask him to be branch DO as well (although he's always there for advice if needed.)

I can't imagine that any other NI's are any less busy.

Laters,
Janos

You obviously have to look at levels of committment in and out of the branch.

The key issue here is that some "junior" DOs have difficulty managing "senior" divers - a situation that can easily be avoided by encouraging those "senior" divers to take on the role themselves.

No-one said that appointing the Senior Instructor in the branch was going to be made mandatory - just that branches should be made aware of the advantages (to weigh against the local disadvantages)

The other factor in this debate is whether the minimum qualification for a DO should be raised to stipulate that DOs in a Training Branch should be qualified to train (i.e. NQI)

John

Mike Halligan

20-10-2004, 17:37

The other factor in this debate is whether the minimum qualification for a DO should be raised to stipulate that DOs in a Training Branch should be qualified to train (i.e. NQI)

John,

At risk of boring you, I repeat what I posted earlier .....
"IMHO, to increase pre-requisite qualifications for DO risks two undesirable effects, a slow decrease in numbers attempting the diving/instructor grades specified and a rapid increase in numbers of ADOs."

If we were to start designating some Branches as "training Branch" and others not, then we risk a steady migration of experienced NQIs away from those Branches, in order to avoid being forced into the DO role. I cannot conceive that I am alone in my fears. If I thought that by increasing my instructional rating, skill, knowledge or experience I would thus place myself at risk of having to serve as DO, then I would stop instructing tomorrow.

Regards,

Mike

Mike Rowley

20-10-2004, 20:00

John Williams

20-10-2004, 20:47

If we were to start designating some Branches as "training Branch" and others not,

We do this now! (so where is the problem in continuing to do something we have done for many years?)

If I thought that by increasing my instructional rating, skill, knowledge or experience I would thus place myself at risk of having to serve as DO, then I would stop instructing tomorrow.

No-one is ever forced to take on a role that they do not want.
If you do not want to be a DO then do not allow your name to appear on a ballot paper! (simple really!)

Do you not agree that if you can get someone trained to instruct to take on the role that this is better than someone not trained to teach?
(and by extension that the better trained they are at performing the role the better they will be at it!)

Do you not agree that, in today's litigeous society that to take on the management of a team of instructors, put together a training programme and lead it - without being qualified to do it ....is less than desirable?

ADOs are precisely that - "Acting" and NOT qualified to be a DO! They are required to utilise the skills/experience of others who are qualified to take on the role to check that what they are doing is sensible (that advice can come from within or without the branch).

The BSAC as a whole and the branch on a local level should be INSISTING that ADOs be phased out. Many do a REALLY good job - but the risk they are taking on behalf of others is not one we should be asking them to take on. It is simply not fair on them to ask them to sik their unqualified neck out so far!

John

David Walker

20-10-2004, 21:23

One way of dealing with the problem of Acting Diving Officers is for branches to offer financial support for the ADO to gain Advanced diver certification. This may have the added benefit of providing a little added incentive to be the ADO.

I don't think getting AD really costs all that much, unless you count the diving and want to pay for all of the DO's (or rather ADO's) diving for a few months - which I don't think is a good idea at all. You don't need a lot of money to do a lot of diving once you've got the kit (which i'm assuming by the time you're DL and ADO you do) - I manage, no reason nobody else can.

David

David Walker

20-10-2004, 21:32

The BSAC as a whole and the branch on a local level should be INSISTING that ADOs be phased out. Many do a REALLY good job - but the risk they are taking on behalf of others is not one we should be asking them to take on. It is simply not fair on them to ask them to sik their unqualified neck out so far!

I think it very much depends on the person. Our old DO had been doing it for years - he's DL/OWI, and didn't have any desire to move any further. AD offered absolutely nothing to bother jumping through the hoops to do it. I'm pretty sure he'd be far better at being a good DO than many new AD/OWIs.

He's still around, offering advice to our new (A)DO to try to make sure he understands the job properly and after most bits of training talks to him asking what he thinks went right or wrong, what decisions he might have been better in the circumstances, that kind of thing - mentoring I suppose is the best desciption of it, and we're glad that he's still around to give that advice and constructive criticism

Just remember, bits of paper don't mean a lot - whether they're really suitable for a role is far more important!

David

Philip Smith

20-10-2004, 22:55

John, earlier you said:
I'd like to see it move immediately to AD/NQI ...how can it be right to have someone not qualified to teach in charge of safety and training standards in a branch?

.. and advocated an immediate move to a minimum qualification for DOs of AD/NQI. Now you say:

Do you not agree that, in today's litigeous society that to take on the management of a team of instructors, put together a training programme and lead it - without being qualified to do it ....is less than desirable?

Given what you said earlier about a future AI syllabus including elements of management, the impication of the above question seems to be that you think the minimum qualification for DO should actually be AD/AI. Terry asked ealier if that was your view and it seemed to me that you denied it. Is it your view that we should move to AD/NQI now as a step towards AD/AI in the future?

Philip Smith

iainmsmith

20-10-2004, 23:25

The BSAC as a whole and the branch on a local level should be INSISTING that ADOs be phased out.

You don't like University Branches do you, John?

Many do a REALLY good job - but the risk they are taking on behalf of others is not one we should be asking them to take on. It is simply not fair on them to ask them to sik their unqualified neck out so far!

Let's shut down all Branches who aren't in the fortunate position of having an AD/NQI to run them. Excellent idea. Not.

Iain

Andy Wade

20-10-2004, 23:36

:=
:=If we were to start designating some Branches as "training Branch" and others not,

We do this now! (so where is the problem in continuing to do something we have done for many years?)

:= If I thought that by increasing my instructional rating, skill, knowledge or experience I would thus place myself at risk of having to serve as DO, then I would stop instructing tomorrow.

No-one is ever forced to take on a role that they do not want.

Oh yes they are John, many people do the job of DO because they don't want to see their branch fold because no-one else will do it. Yes they do put themselves forward, but under suffrance. Been there done that.

If you do not want to be a DO then do not allow your name to appear on a ballot paper! (simple really!)

Do you not agree that if you can get someone trained to instruct to take on the role that this is better than someone not trained to teach?
(and by extension that the better trained they are at performing the role the better they will be at it!)

Do you not agree that, in today's litigeous society that to take on the management of a team of instructors, put together a training programme and lead it - without being qualified to do it ....is less than desirable?

ADOs are precisely that - "Acting" and NOT qualified to be a DO! They are required to utilise the skills/experience of others who are qualified to take on the role to check that what they are doing is sensible (that advice can come from within or without the branch).

The BSAC as a whole and the branch on a local level should be INSISTING that ADOs be phased out. Many do a REALLY good job - but the risk they are taking on behalf of others is not one we should be asking them to take on. It is simply not fair on them to ask them to sik their unqualified neck out so far!

If the branch has qualified Instructors that don't want to be DO, I see nothing wrong with an acting DO delegating the running of the training to them.
It's all about teamwork, and if it works, then the branch can continue training and diving until such time as a person who is AD can take on the role of DO.
If you don't mind, I'll quote what you said earlier:

"We do this now! (so where is the problem in continuing to do something we have done for many years?)"

.

Mike Rowley

21-10-2004, 10:31

:=One way of dealing with the problem of Acting Diving Officers is for branches to offer financial support for the ADO to gain Advanced diver certification. This may have the added benefit of providing a little added incentive to be the ADO.

I don't think getting AD really costs all that much, unless you count the diving and want to pay for all of the DO's (or rather ADO's) diving for a few months - which I don't think is a good idea at all. You don't need a lot of money to do a lot of diving once you've got the kit (which i'm assuming by the time you're DL and ADO you do) - I manage, no reason nobody else can.

I was specifically referring to the training necessary, both practical and theoretical, the diving is of course fun and shouldn't need any incentive.

John Williams

21-10-2004, 10:54

Just remember, bits of paper don't mean a lot - whether they're really suitable for a role is far more important!

I (personally) could not agree more.
It's a shame that the courts and the insurance companies don't seem to recognise this though!

Those were the risks I was talking about. No amount of being good at the job substitutes for qualifications.

Would you want an unqualified person performing surgery on you?
(even if they were really good at it?)
What would you do if the op went wrong and you found out the "Doctor" was not qualified?

Same deal for the ADO - the insurance and courts would have a field day!

John

John Williams

21-10-2004, 11:04

Mike Rowley

21-10-2004, 12:58

Let's shut down all Branches who aren't in the fortunate position of having an AD/NQI to run them. Excellent idea. Not.

Iain

Taking your arguments to their logical conclusions I presume you would agree that we should allow experienced paramedics and theatre sisters to perform serious and complex surgery and homeopathic practitioners to set up as General Practitioners. I am sure you wouldn't mind setting aside all the years of study it has taken to qualify as a medical doctor in the interests of filling the shortage of doctors in this country. Equally, car mechanics with a few years of experience should be allowed to design bridges and aeropanes etc., etc. As an engineer, I wouldn't take exception to that!

I am of course, being very much tongue in cheek and a wee bit provocative but I have no doubt you catch my drift.

MattS

21-10-2004, 14:12

Another of those rare moments that I am (almost) in agreement with Terry ;-)

I once heard a qualified AD/NQI and DO tell someone in all seriousness 'Nitrox is for divers that can't breathe air properly'

Maybe the Advanced course would benefit from an appreciation of the technical side. How a rebreather works. The benefits of Nitrox. The mechanism of accelerated deco. The basics of Trimix. It has to be more interesting than, yet another first aid lecture. I don't think you need to go as far as actually qualifying people to do these things, just let them know they exist and that there are specialist courses available.

I think it is fair to expect an Advanced diver to know more than is required for their own diving. After all I know loads about boats but never drive one. Who knows it might even inspire a few to do some real Advanced diving.

terryh

21-10-2004, 14:13

:=
:=Let's shut down all Branches who aren't in the fortunate position of having an AD/NQI to run them. Excellent idea. Not.
:=

Iain

Taking your arguments to their logical conclusions I presume you would agree that we should allow experienced paramedics and theatre sisters to perform serious and complex surgery and homeopathic practitioners to set up as General Practitioners. I am sure you wouldn't mind setting aside all the years of study it has taken to qualify as a medical doctor in the interests of filling the shortage of doctors in this country. Equally, car mechanics with a few years of experience should be allowed to design bridges and aeropanes etc., etc. As an engineer, I wouldn't take exception to that!

But a GP will refer to a specialist, doesnt stop him practicing.
An AA mechanic will be fine until it gets a bit deep, then he
says call the main dealer.
A mecanical engineer will call on an electrical engineer,
structural engineer etc.

So what's really needed as DO?
An Advanced diver? Well we have a diver who has done a few
dives, has tickets on most of the specialities and is (in
BSAC's eyes) ok to plan large diving expeditions.

So as an AD, what's missing from the ability to be able to vet
or monitor NQI's teaching?
Safety, ratios & allocating resources - that's all part of
standard stuff. Personal experience at this level will easily
cover the freqency/level of skill training, so all that's
left is the actual syllabus.

So that will be an A4 list with skills, order etc!

Advanced - absolutely. NQI? Preferably yes, but absolutley
neccessary? No.

BSAC have it right - Advanced preferably NQI.

TerryH

terryh

21-10-2004, 14:31

Another of those rare moments that I am (almost) in agreement with Terry ;-)

Careful!

I once heard a qualified AD/NQI and DO tell someone in all seriousness 'Nitrox is for divers that can't breathe air properly'

Dohh! And I thought it was for going deeper!

Maybe the Advanced course would benefit from an appreciation of the technical side. How a rebreather works. The benefits of Nitrox. The mechanism of accelerated deco. The basics of Trimix. It has to be more interesting than, yet another first aid lecture. I don't think you need to go as far as actually qualifying people to do these things, just let them know they exist and that there are specialist courses available.

I think it is fair to expect an Advanced diver to know more than is required for their own diving. After all I know loads about boats but never drive one. Who knows it might even inspire a few to do some real Advanced diving.

BSAC say ....

ADVANCED DIVER
A fully trained, experienced and responsible diver who is
competent to organise and lead Branch diving activities.

So fully trained in what?
What if you have one Nitrox diver onboard, and your AD/Marshal
isnt?
What if it's an Ocean Diver/Basic Nitrox?
Blind leading the blind!!!!!!!

If we are not going to intergrate this elements into AD, then
at least we need to do enough theory to be able to effectivly
plan and marshal such dives. The alternative is the very approach that John was aluding to earlier on the
senior diver/DO thread. A diver with a SRC etc. will TELL
the AD/marshal what he/she is going to do and the AD just
nods in agreement.
That's NOT branch planning.

TerryH

Mike Rowley

21-10-2004, 14:51

:=
:=:=
:=:=Let's shut down all Branches who aren't in the fortunate position of having an AD/NQI to run them. Excellent idea. Not.
:=:=
:=
:=
:=Iain
:=
:=Taking your arguments to their logical conclusions I presume you would agree that we should allow experienced paramedics and theatre sisters to perform serious and complex surgery and homeopathic practitioners to set up as General Practitioners. I am sure you wouldn't mind setting aside all the years of study it has taken to qualify as a medical doctor in the interests of filling the shortage of doctors in this country. Equally, car mechanics with a few years of experience should be allowed to design bridges and aeropanes etc., etc. As an engineer, I wouldn't take exception to that!
:=

But a GP will refer to a specialist, doesnt stop him practicing.
An AA mechanic will be fine until it gets a bit deep, then he
says call the main dealer.
A mecanical engineer will call on an electrical engineer,
structural engineer etc.

So what's really needed as DO?
An Advanced diver? Well we have a diver who has done a few
dives, has tickets on most of the specialities and is (in
BSAC's eyes) ok to plan large diving expeditions.

So as an AD, what's missing from the ability to be able to vet
or monitor NQI's teaching?
Safety, ratios & allocating resources - that's all part of
standard stuff. Personal experience at this level will easily
cover the freqency/level of skill training, so all that's
left is the actual syllabus.

So that will be an A4 list with skills, order etc!

Advanced - absolutely. NQI? Preferably yes, but absolutley
neccessary? No.

BSAC have it right - Advanced preferably NQI.

TerryH

For once I find myself in complete agreement with you Terry. Just a pity that BSAC has dumbed down the AD sylabus so much over the years.

Mike

MattS

21-10-2004, 15:59

John

You said earlier

Those were the risks I was talking about. No amount of being good at the job substitutes for qualifications.

And you say now

What I do feel is appropriate is that the person in charge of the safety of training in a branch should at least have demonstrated elementary competence in the skills involved.

What I would like to see is a process whereby someone who is good at the job can be assessed as having elementary competence, within the branch.

We have lots of experienced divers, able and willing to be involved in training. What they do not have is the commitment to become qualified instructors. It currently takes 5 days over 4 events, at venues sometimes a hundred miles away. If you are lucky there might be two events a year in your region. If you are really lucky they might be on days you can actually make. If the branch is really, really lucky, they might see a competent and experienced diver becoming an instructor before they leave the sport.

IMVHO most of us seem to agree that the increasing requirements for qualification are merely to keep Lawyers happy. The challenge appears to be finding a way to keep Lawyers happy which is actually achievable in an average branch. I do not think it is simple, or that it can be achieved without some original thinking. However I do think that placing the first small step to NQI, within the branch, will help many divers climb the staircase to being instructors. If the current system really must be maintained then fine, BSAC need to run significantly more ITS events at significantly more venues.

iainmsmith

21-10-2004, 17:08

Taking your arguments to their logical conclusions I presume you would agree that we should allow experienced paramedics and theatre sisters to perform serious and complex surgery and homeopathic practitioners to set up as General Practitioners. I am sure you wouldn't mind setting aside all the years of study it has taken to qualify as a medical doctor in the interests of filling the shortage of doctors in this country.

Hmmm...you haven't seen what the Government are planning to do to medical training, have you? :-)

Equally, car mechanics with a few years of experience should be allowed to design bridges and aeropanes etc., etc. As an engineer, I wouldn't take exception to that!

I am of course, being very much tongue in cheek and a wee bit provocative but I have no doubt you catch my drift.

To an extent. However, having been such an ADO (DL/CI) at a time when I was the only person in the Branch with that many qualifications (ie the only person in a position to keep the Branch functioning) it was fairly simple - diving was limited to what I felt comfortable with. Yes, that meant that 35m was about the most we did (and even that, not very often). Almost all of the diving was training dives in Gildenburgh.

We've now got three ADs, two who are reasonably close, four trimix divers, 7 NQIs and 13 ADIs. Admittedly, a number of these are "old members", who now have to keep real jobs down in the real world and are much less active than they would like, but we're not longer thinking in terms of one person being the difference between the Branch collapsing and continuing. Then again, we're still a University Branch. Old members are likely to move on (indeed, we were expecting to have our DO and Deputy DO (= 2/3 ADs) move out of the area within three months of each other, but for the way that jobs worked out. But it could happen very quickly, with little notice, at which point the Branch goes back to being run by an ADO.

I look back on my time as ADO and wonder what and where I learned between then and becoming DO. The answer is reading the BOH. There is nothing in the AD syllabus that teaches one how to run a Branch. Yes - I'd already done DPM before becoming ADO...two years before...and the only real application it had had outside Gildy was a trip to Weymouth.

ADOs aren't automatically stupid. They know what they are comfortable with. It doesn't change much by becoming DO. If one is not comfortable with something, it doesn't happen.

If AD taught a diver something meaningful about running the Branch, then perhaps there would be validity in scrapping ADO as John proposed. However, this should not be taken as an argument in favour of adding more stuff into AD in order to act as an excuse to do so. The current system may not be perfect, but at times, it's the only thing that allows smaller, high turn-over Branches to continue functioning. The system isn't broke. Why try to fix it?

Iain

Mike Rowley

21-10-2004, 17:21

If the current system really must be maintained then fine, BSAC need to run significantly more ITS events at significantly more venues.

To do that requires more qualified instructors who are willing to gain further training to become instructor trainers. There is one ITS event running in Brixham this weekend with only four students on it. Branches and prospective instructors need to meet BSAC half way if the circle is to be squared.

It is no good saying we need more ITS events when so many of them are under used merely because the potential student instructors find them inconvenient or may have to travel to attend them.

You can have cheap instructor courses staffed by volunteer instructors recieving expenses only and staged at venues that cost the minimum to hire. Venues have long been a problem and becomming more difficult daily. Staffing of ITS events is currently stretched to the limit.

You can have instructor courses that are conveniently timed and situated for individuals at venues that are commercially booked at full commercial rates staffed by professional instructors who are paid full commercial rates plus expenses.

You can't have both. Contrast the cost of a BSAC course to the equivelent commercially provided course, PADI, TDI, IANTD or even RYA. The difference is substantial.

You could suggest that one way of overcomming the problem would be to allow in-branch instructor training. If branch instructors who were not ITS instructors were used for the instructor training there is obviously a standards issue, sub-standard instructor training leads to sub-standard instructors and inevitably to sub-standard divers. In addition this is often not very cost effective of facilities or instructor trainer resources and the very branches that have the most problems are those that do not have instructor trainers within them or the numbers of potential instructors or facilities to make a dedicated course viable. However,I think this option is available to branches that can provide the facilities and a resonable number of students. Branches can combine to stage an instructor training course that the ITS will staff if sufficient notice is given.

The current system of organising instructor training courses at venues around the country works efficiently but it does rely on the potential student instructors being willing to put themselves out a little in return for a relatively inexpensive course.

Some branches subsidise their members attendance at an instructor training course, this seems to work well.

You can have convenience but it costs!

Mike

Mike Rowley

21-10-2004, 19:00

If AD taught a diver something meaningful about running the Branch, then perhaps there would be validity in scrapping ADO as John proposed. However, this should not be taken as an argument in favour of adding more stuff into AD in order to act as an excuse to do so. The current system may not be perfect, but at times, it's the only thing that allows smaller, high turn-over Branches to continue functioning. The system isn't broke. Why try to fix it?

Iain

I would have to agree with that with the provision that branches always regard ADO as a temporary situation to be resolved by the ADO becoming a DO and that the branch gives he or she every assistance to achieve that.

When I was a Regional Coach we used to regard helping such branches a priority and regularly ran intensive weekend sessions for uni branches. I understand RCs offer this these days too.

Mike

Mike Halligan

21-10-2004, 19:39

:=If we were to start designating some Branches as "training Branch" and others not,
We do this now! (so where is the problem in continuing to do something we have done for many years?)
_You_ might very well, but _I_ have not unitl now seen/heard such a distinction being drawn.

:= If I thought that by increasing my instructional rating, skill, knowledge or experience I would thus place myself at risk of having to serve as DO, then I would stop instructing tomorrow.
No-one is ever forced to take on a role that they do not want.
If you do not want to be a DO then do not allow your name to appear on a ballot paper! (simple really!)
Just carry on deceiving yourself, John. The BSAC is a human system, I know extremely well how humans behave.

Do you not agree that if you can get someone trained to instruct to take on the role that this is better than someone not trained to teach?
No. I have just watched a very good past-pupils organisation busted by teachers who thought they could behave beyond the classroom as they do there.
(and by extension that the better trained they are at performing the role the better they will be at it!)
By extension, let's get a bunch of luvvies in then. They should be nothing short of miraculous.

Do you not agree that, in today's litigeous society that to take on the management of a team of instructors, put together a training programme and lead it - without being qualified to do it ....is less than desirable?
No. We have professional managers in all our institutions, businesses and services. Do you submit that they are incompetent?

ADOs are precisely that - "Acting" and NOT qualified to be a DO! They are required to utilise the skills/experience of others who are qualified to take on the role to check that what they are doing is sensible (that advice can come from within or without the branch).
Been there, done that and wouldn't inflict ADO on anyone.

The BSAC as a whole and the branch on a local level should be INSISTING that ADOs be phased out. Many do a REALLY good job - but the risk they are taking on behalf of others is not one we should be asking them to take on. It is simply not fair on them to ask them to sik their unqualified neck out so far!
You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. You didn't quote my premise, which was that demanding before appointment an increased pre-requisite qualification, you in fact _risk_ limiting your scope and undermining support, which could make it harder to achieve your objective. (If you declare my Branch a Training Branch and that its DO must be AI, I shall not undertake AI and remain in the Branch, one of only two mugs eligible to face your firing line.)

I did not say that your objective inappropriate in any case or all. I'm not at all sure what is your objective in suggesting the said change.

Mike

Philip Smith

21-10-2004, 22:30

Is it your view that we should move to AD/NQI now as a step towards AD/AI in the future?

Not at the moment ...and possibly never.

What I do feel is appropriate is that the person in charge of the safety of training in a branch should at least have demonstrated elementary competence in the skills involved.

It seems to me you are being inconsistent. You say the DO should have a qualification for the job they are to do. You say part of that job is managing a team of instructors. The OWI course does not provide training in managing instructors (rightly so), but you say a future AI course may. I don't see how your logic leads to a conclusion other than that future DOs should be AIs with management of instructors within the scope of their qualification. To advocate AD/OWI as a minimum qualification for DO (with "possibly never" a move to AI) is, by your reasoning, unfairly asking people to take on responsibility without the appropriate training.

On the other hand, if you are willing to accept that an OWI can be competent at something they don't have a certificate for (managing instructors), as you seem to be, why don't you accept that an AD (or ADO for that matter) could also be competent at management. I agree that it is desirable for DOs to be NQIs, especially if the branch trains, but I don't think it is realistic to require it.

Philip Smith

John Williams

23-10-2004, 20:08

John

You said earlier

:=Those were the risks I was talking about. No amount of being good at the job substitutes for qualifications.

And you say now

:=What I do feel is appropriate is that the person in charge of the safety of training in a branch should at least have demonstrated elementary competence in the skills involved.

What I would like to see is a process whereby someone who is good at the job can be assessed as having elementary competence, within the branch.

We have such a system ...it's called the ITS and the elementary competence is assessed at NQI level 1.

We have lots of experienced divers, able and willing to be involved in training.
Who should place themselves at the disposal of the NQI - someone qualified to deploy them effectively.

IMVHO most of us seem to agree that the increasing requirements for qualification are merely to keep Lawyers happy.

And our insurance premiums down! Not to mention protecting ourselves against the prosecution lawyers who would love to pull us to peices.

If the current system really must be maintained then fine, BSAC need to run significantly more ITS events at significantly more venues.

The BSAC currently has HUGE numbers of empty places on ITS events across the country. There is talk of combining Regions to make events viable rather than cancel them for lack of interest.

What we need is more people to decide that teaching SCUBA diving is fun - it adds a whole new elements to your diving. Acheiving through others is every bit as much fun as doing it for yourself. The ITS offers BOTH - acheivement for yourself and the opportunity to help others acheive - twice the fun for the investment of only 4-5 days!
It even gives he opportunity to chose whether you want to go practical or theoretical - or both!

If branches need instructors - then they should subsidise attendance
They should encourage multiple attendance - this helps the students/candidates to support each other and increases the chances of success as wellas getting the attendees to share cars (to reduce individual costs)

When I was last in a training branch the full costs of taking a successful ITS exam were met by the branch (you paid for the course yourself and you shelled out for the exam - but if you brought home a new instructor number , of whatever grade, the Branch had a presentation and gave you a cheque for your exam fee and travel & accomodation expenses. All you paid for was food and beer!). If the exam requested the use of a boat - the boat was provided by the branch!

How's that for incentive to succeed?

John

John Williams

23-10-2004, 20:12

:=The BSAC as a whole and the branch on a local level should be INSISTING that ADOs be phased out.

You don't like University Branches do you, John?

Rubbish!

I did my initial training with Liverpool University BSAC.

I developed my training, as an Undergraduate with Port Erin Marine Biological Station BSAC.

I am Area Coach to University Branches and have close links to others.

I don't know where you get your conclusion from at all!

Perhaps what is needed here is for Universities themselves to realise the importance of qualified instructors and open their very closed rules to allow associate members with qualifications to join Student Union affiliated branches?

Failing that - allow postgraduates to remain members - my own University days show how effectively postgraduate, staff and "friends of" Liverpool Uni BSAC ran the branch very successfully.

John

John Williams

23-10-2004, 20:26

(If you declare my Branch a Training Branch and that its DO must be AI, I shall not undertake AI and remain in the Branch, one of only two mugs eligible to face your firing line.)

Please tell me where I said that?

You can't ...because I never did!

I did say that I beleived that the AI syllabus now included a section related to managing a team of Instructors to acheive structured training objectives - and that this might make an AI (or higher) the ideal candidate for the job.

but I never said that anyone with less than AI should be excluded from applying for the job!

All I have said is that the role of DO encompasses the safe management of two clear functions:

1) Diving
2) Training

Is it so unreasonable to expect that the person applying for the job is qualified to undertake both aspects of the job to which they aspire?

I've also said that in branches who do not undertake the second element that asking someone to be qualified to do something they are not expected to do in the job is unreasonable and therefore in non-training branches the NQI bit should not be a requirement.

The BSAC has clearly categorised branches as "diving" (meaning not training) and "Training" (meaning diving and training to higher BSAC qualifications) for many years.

e.g. BSAC Direct is not a training brnach - so its instructor members do not qualify for Instructor Discounts.

John

iainmsmith

24-10-2004, 04:49

:=:=The BSAC as a whole and the branch on a local level should be INSISTING that ADOs be phased out.
:=
:=You don't like University Branches do you, John?

Rubbish!

I did my initial training with Liverpool University BSAC.

I developed my training, as an Undergraduate with Port Erin Marine Biological Station BSAC.

I am Area Coach to University Branches and have close links to others.

I don't know where you get your conclusion from at all!

Because, as in the case I outlined, ONE person, as ADO, made the difference between the Branch continuing as a viable entitity and folding. Without the option of having an ADO, a Branch can go from growth to collapse, simply because the ADs for reasons unconnected with diving, have to leave.

The ADO system, when necessary, works. It's not ideal, it's not perfect, but it's been around for a while, demonstrably works and can be the lifeline that keeps a Branch going for a year or two until it starts to grow again. I repeat, but for the possibility of having an ADO, my Branch would have folded twice in as many years.

Perhaps what is needed here is for Universities themselves to realise the importance of qualified instructors and open their very closed rules to allow associate members with qualifications to join Student Union affiliated branches?

Failing that - allow postgraduates to remain members - my own University days show how effectively postgraduate, staff and "friends of" Liverpool Uni BSAC ran the branch very successfully.

And if the Universities in question won't relax their rules? Or people's careers move them on? In a bad year, the core of a University Branch can be decimated in a way that doesn't happen in mainstream Branches. I repeat: provision for an ADO (as a temporary measure) can make the difference to the Branch's survival.

Iain

John Williams

24-10-2004, 23:26

The job of a DO has two parts:

1) Organising/Managing Diving

For this they need to be qualified to run dives themselves. At this time that equates to a minimum of DL. So why a DO should still be at AD level I am not sure (but I like the resulting experience/skill level/qualification that this brings to the role)

2) Organising/Managing Training
For this they need to be able to teach diving in their own right...which means NQI level 1

That's all I've said.

Maybe at some point in the future branches will realise for themselves that (although it does not necessarily follow) higher qualifications in either of those areas could lead to a greater capacity to fulfil the two roles more effectively.

I cannot foresee a time when BSAC might change the minimum requirement to AI. Though I suspect that it may have been tabled for initial discussion in 10-15 years.

I do feel that it is time to discuss dropping the minimum Diver Qualification to DL (though I don't really see the point if there is currently no difficulty in acheiving the state that all DOs should be AD - but equally : why have the level you need to do the job of DO higher than that required to actually do the dive marshalling part of the job?)

I do feel it is time to discuss that not only should all training be carried out by, or under the supervision of, an NQI - but that the pperson responsible for that supervision should also be an NQI.

What is "ideal", what is a "future goal" and what is "acheiveable" aare all very different things.

I beleive that we have enough NQIs out there - or the wherewithal to get them to start moving to a position where every branch DO should be an NQI.

If that is difficult for your branch then you are already experienceing difficulties in providing effective training without burning out your existing NQIs and need to seek support from the Regional Coaching Teams to devlop your instructional teams to the point where they make successful progress through the ITS - at least to OWI.

The support IS out there ...all you need to do to access it is to ask!

John

John Williams

24-10-2004, 23:46

And if the Universities in question won't relax their rules? Or people's careers move them on? In a bad year, the core of a University Branch can be decimated in a way that doesn't happen in mainstream Branches. I repeat: provision for an ADO (as a temporary measure) can make the difference to the Branch's survival.

Then it's your job to show them that not relaxing the rules endangers the safety of their members. Who are Universities to undermine the policies of the NAtional Governing Body?
I've had great success in helping my University branch associates in persuading their Union that a "Shadow Committee" of divers actually qualified to run the branch is desirable.

I can't recall ever asking for the ADO role to be abolished. Sometimes they are invaluable...but I still maintain that the responsibility they are asked to take on behalf of the branch - without the qualifications to back them up is HUGE. It is still unfair to put anyone into that position...the fact that some take it on shows courage (or foolhardiness) and committment.
That committment should be reflected by the branch in the form of subsidising that persons rapid progression through the ITS programme to OWI (or higher)

THE BSAC would support that with input from mentors, coaches, other local instructors ...in fact in any way you asked for it to be supported that was possible for them to arrange.

The BSAC recognises University branches as some of our most "productive" branches (i.e. introducing a disproportionately large number of members to the BSAC)
We recognise that they need support.

Tell the BSAC what it can do to help change the rules of the Union. Would a visit to the Union from your Chairperson accompanied by your Area Coach, your Regional Coach - or even someone from HQ be helpful? I'm certain that the first two can be easily arranged - and that the second would be a definate possibility.

Tell the BSAC what support you need in developing your own instructional teams and see how quickly the Regional Coaching team responds.

In Yorkshire we run instructor development workshops that move about the region - so that those who have been on an IFC (or an OWI) can practice and develop their skills with more highly qualified instructors (under the supervision of an ITS Staff Instructor/Examiner). All people pay for is entry to the pool (often donateed by the host branch and out-of-pocket expenses for the "staff" instructors. This typically runs to ?2-3 a pool session (or a free place in the boat if at sea).

If that is not convenient then we find a local mentor for you to liasie with to help your preparation.

If I blow our own trumpet - we've never had an exam candidate who came to us for help fail any part of the exam we offer support in (only one did not pass all the elements - he slipped up on the theory part!)

John

johnkendall

25-10-2004, 10:33

:=And if the Universities in question won't relax their rules? Or people's careers move them on? In a bad year, the core of a University Branch can be decimated in a way that doesn't happen in mainstream Branches. I repeat: provision for an ADO (as a temporary measure) can make the difference to the Branch's survival.

Then it's your job to show them that not relaxing the rules endangers the safety of their members. Who are Universities to undermine the policies of the NAtional Governing Body?
I've had great success in helping my University branch associates in persuading their Union that a "Shadow Committee" of divers actually qualified to run the branch is desirable.

I can't recall ever asking for the ADO role to be abolished. Sometimes they are invaluable...but I still maintain that the responsibility they are asked to take on behalf of the branch - without the qualifications to back them up is HUGE. It is still unfair to put anyone into that position...the fact that some take it on shows courage (or foolhardiness) and committment.
That committment should be reflected by the branch in the form of subsidising that persons rapid progression through the ITS programme to OWI (or higher)

THE BSAC would support that with input from mentors, coaches, other local instructors ...in fact in any way you asked for it to be supported that was possible for them to arrange.

The BSAC recognises University branches as some of our most "productive" branches (i.e. introducing a disproportionately large number of members to the BSAC)
We recognise that they need support.

Tell the BSAC what it can do to help change the rules of the Union. Would a visit to the Union from your Chairperson accompanied by your Area Coach, your Regional Coach - or even someone from HQ be helpful? I'm certain that the first two can be easily arranged - and that the second would be a definate possibility.

Tell the BSAC what support you need in developing your own instructional teams and see how quickly the Regional Coaching team responds.

In Yorkshire we run instructor development workshops that move about the region - so that those who have been on an IFC (or an OWI) can practice and develop their skills with more highly qualified instructors (under the supervision of an ITS Staff Instructor/Examiner). All people pay for is entry to the pool (often donateed by the host branch and out-of-pocket expenses for the "staff" instructors. This typically runs to ?2-3 a pool session (or a free place in the boat if at sea).

If that is not convenient then we find a local mentor for you to liasie with to help your preparation.

If I blow our own trumpet - we've never had an exam candidate who came to us for help fail any part of the exam we offer support in (only one did not pass all the elements - he slipped up on the theory part!)

Hi John,

I think this bit of the thread has got a bit confused. Iain (AIUI) was arguing the case for a DL/NQI ADO, I think you are arguing against a Non-instructor ADO. I certainly agree that the DO really should be an NQI, but can see where occasionally you may get a DO who is an ADI having to take up the reigns to cover a gap, or while they themselves get through the exams. The ADO system does work well for small branches with High turnovers (Like Uni Branches).

John

Martin

25-10-2004, 12:05

In the 2003/2004 Academic year, Aberdeen Uni Sub Aqua club was placed in the unfortunate position that's it's long suffering Diving Officer, a graduate of teh university, moved away with her work. This left the club with no-one qualified who was willing to take on teh post.

In order to allow the survival of the club, I took on the position of ADO as a Dive Leader/ Assistant Diving Instructor.

First off, i would completely agree that it is desirable that the diving officer be an AD/NQI. However, circumnstances do not always allow this. Especially with the new AD training programme - it's easy to attend lot's of regionally organised SDC's, but not so easy to run the programme in branch when you have not AI's, few active AD's, and even less OWI's (thats your typical uni branch, it seems).

The important thing for me was that I had the fully support of the regional coaching team, and especially the regional coach Doug Smith. I also had plenty of support from the local diving shop. When things went wrong (once), both the regional team, the university, and even the procurator fiscal, were there to back me and guide me through the process. (incidentaly - before this get's used as ammunition - it was a non-diving related incident, which just happened to occurr whilst diving - so said the PM report).

Not being an NQI myself at the time (I am now), it was extremely difficult to organise training. this is easily resolved with a high degree of diplomacy with the insturctors in teh area - begging works well, as does bribery.

As for awarding qualifications - that's easy. As stating the handbook, an NQI has to recommend them for the qualification, then you sign it. it all get's documented in the minutes.

it was a VERY steep learning curve, but manageable with plenty of support. It was certainly a good experience for me, all in all.

Philip Smith

25-10-2004, 13:33

The job of a DO has two parts:

1) Organising/Managing Diving

For this they need to be qualified to run dives themselves.

2) Organising/Managing Training
For this they need to be able to teach diving in their own right...which means NQI level 1

So, in relation to diving, you say they _need_ to be qualified not just to dive, but to manage the diving of others. But in relation to teaching, you say they _only need_ to be qualified to teach, not to manage the teaching of others. That is inconsistent, unless you acknowledge that you are not really talking about "needs" (based on fear of litigation or some other imperative), but about what is achievable now or in the near future.

Maybe at some point in the future branches will realise for themselves that (although it does not necessarily follow) higher qualifications in either of those areas could lead to a greater capacity to fulfil the two roles more effectively.

Who says they don't realise that now?

What is "ideal", what is a "future goal" and what is "acheiveable" aare all very different things.

Exactly, which is why you need to be clear which of these you are referring to. When you say what is "needed", as above, I think you really mean what you think is achievable now, rather than the ideal or a future goal. Your line of reasoning suggests that AD/AI should be a future goal, albeit a long-term goal, but yet you resile from that suggestion. I don't see why.

If that is difficult for your branch then you are already experienceing difficulties in providing effective training without burning out your existing NQIs and need to seek support from the Regional Coaching Teams to devlop your instructional teams to the point where they make successful progress through the ITS - at least to OWI.

Non-training branches don't need an NQI as DO. Training branches can have an NQI as TO. In either case, it is desirable that the DO is an NQI, but it does not need to be mandatory.

Philip Smith
(DO/AD/AI)

Mike Halligan

25-10-2004, 18:37

(If you declare my Branch a Training Branch and that its DO must be AI, I shall not undertake AI and remain in the Branch, one of only two mugs eligible to face your firing line.)
Please tell me where I said that?
You can't ...because I never did!
I was left, by your (twice) failing to acknowledge my warning that raising a standard can backfire, to browse your various posts. I concluded, erroneously, that you advocated increase in the pre-requisite for DO, from "AD (pref NQI)" to "AI".

All I have said is that the role of DO encompasses the safe management of two clear functions:
1) Diving
2) Training
Is it so unreasonable to expect that the person applying for the job is qualified to undertake both aspects of the job to which they aspire?
Yes, when the DO can delegate one and not the other, it does become less than absolutely necessary. Anything restricting the field for this crucial post needs excellent justification, which has not been provided thus far.

I've also said that in branches who do not undertake the second element that asking someone to be qualified to do something they are not expected to do in the job is unreasonable and therefore in non-training branches the NQI bit should not be a requirement.
The BSAC has clearly categorised branches as "diving" (meaning not training) and "Training" (meaning diving and training to higher BSAC qualifications) for many years.
They may have, but until now it has not been clear to me in 10 years. If you are advocating DL for non-training Branches, OWI for training Branches, you have my total agreement.

Regards,

Mike

jens hucke

26-10-2004, 11:25

:=:=
:=:=:=
For once I find myself in complete agreement with you Terry. Just a pity that BSAC has dumbed down the AD sylabus so much over the years.

Mike

Would you care to elaborate on the dumbing down bit?
Thanks
jens

David Walker

26-10-2004, 18:32

For once I find myself in complete agreement with you Terry. Just a pity that BSAC has dumbed down the AD sylabus so much over the years.

I was under the impression that the things that are no longer in AD are now covered earlier... aren't they "dumbing-up"? The only thing I can think of is that Nitrox is no longer a requirement (it was before, wasn't it?) but in reality I think virtually all ADs will have already done nitrox anyway and so isn't a big issue.
Are there any other major areas which have been taken out of AD and not reintroduced into the lower levels?

David

MattS

27-10-2004, 08:43

BSAC say ....

ADVANCED DIVER
A fully trained, experienced and responsible diver who is
competent to organise and lead Branch diving activities.
So fully trained in what?

BSACs description gets more untennable as sport diving expands. It is unlikely that you are ever going to find someone fully trained in all the specialisations.

What if you have one Nitrox diver onboard, and your AD/Marshal isnt?
What if it's an Ocean Diver/Basic Nitrox?
Blind leading the blind!!!!!!!

A marshal is already trained for this situation. Look at the ODs logbook, ask him to explain his plans, ask the opinion of others that have dived with him. And if the marshal is not comfortable he can prevent the OD from diving.

If we are not going to intergrate this elements into AD, then
at least we need to do enough theory to be able to effectivly
plan and marshal such dives.

Intergrating Nitrox particularly is a whole different thread. If BSAC do integrate Nitrox I very much hope they do not leave it until AD. Sports divers have the most to gain in terms of safety.

The alternative is the very approach that John was aluding to earlier on the
senior diver/DO thread. A diver with a SRC etc. will TELL
the AD/marshal what he/she is going to do and the AD just
nods in agreement.
That's NOT branch planning.

Marshals have to be comfortable with the dive plans of individual divers. A good marshal will check these before the day so that any misunderstandings can be resolved without the pressures of a deadline. Personally I don't think you will ever avoid having to trust people. I am not saying it should be unconditional, trust has to be earnt. But a DO or Marshal incapable of delegating responsibility down to an individual diver is likely to turn into the control freak that drives people away from branches.

PeteM

27-10-2004, 08:56

The only thing I can think of is that Nitrox is no longer a requirement (it was before, wasn't it?)

It was an optional module in group B along with Search and Recovery and Advanced Diving Techniques.

However, we now teach OD and SD's the fundermentals of Nitrox diving such as calculating MOD's which from the perpective of planning diving with others is all you really need to know.

Having just finished the old AD and being currently involved in preparing people for new DL and AD I think I am in a good position to comment on the differences and the dumbing up/down. This is however just my perception

Old sylabus had a lot more about running boats, i.e. boat handling, chart work, weather etc.

New sylabus has a lot more about actual diving, nitrox, rebreathers, better deco etc.

Majority of the changes are just moving with the times i.e. more complexity in the diving but less in the organisation because we rely on charter skippers more

Mike Rowley

27-10-2004, 18:16

My comment about dumbing down was somewhat tongue in cheek, grumpy old man stuff, you know.

Looking back in my quals log book I note that it took me 16 months to go from 3rd class Diver to 2nd Class Diver (equiv to AD). The big difference I suppose was that it was all done within the branch albeit Regional courses were available as well.

Dive Leader was not in existance then and some things have moved from the old 2nd Class to DL however, they tend to be taught at a lower level. It has to be said that 2nd Class Diver could vary in level from glorified 3rd Class to almost the level of 1st Class Diver depending on the branch you belonged to and the DO. I rather think that my branch was at the upper end, at least it felt like it. At that time we had 3 active AIs, several CIs and the Regional Coach in the branch so standards were kept fairly high.

There were 10 theory lessons which included Roped Diver Operations, Low vis and night Diving, Advanced Planning, Safety & Emergency actions, Basic Seamanship, Charts & Tides, Nav & Pos fixing, Decompression, U/W Nav & U/W search methods. Some of these subject areas have now moved to SDCs and become optional.

In addition to 20 specific assessment dives there were 7 assessment drils. Items that do not necessarily appear today were Tender to roped diver/roped diver, Low vis search and roped searches which involved several searches of various types, jack stays, swim lines, pendulum, circular etc. As I recall, it was not sufficient to just take part in each search at 2nd Class level you were expected to organise and manage each one.
There was also some nonesense stuff such as a 500m swim in full kit + 50 tow with AV and 2 assisted ascents.

There were 2 assessments of dive leading (now in DL of course)

In addition there were two assessments of acting as a Dive Marshall. In my branch this involved planning, organising and running two weekends diving, one on a hard boat and one with floppys before the DO would sign you off as competent. Other branches were somewhat more lenient, a couple of dives at Stoney Cove would suffice.

I suppose the big differences lay in the working project orientated diving and the seamanship stuff which came close to Day Skipper level. Also everything was mandatory, there were no options.

Diving has moved on exponentially since then. I think we have been a bit slow to move with it but some of the stuff that has been dropped was definately usefull and could have been kept alongside new stuff.

Thoughts of a BSAC Grumpy old man!

Cheers

Mike

Would you care to elaborate on the dumbing down bit?
Thanks
jens

Andy Wade

27-10-2004, 22:34

My comment about dumbing down was somewhat tongue in cheek, grumpy old man stuff, you know.

Looking back in my quals log book I note that it took me 16 months to go from 3rd class Diver to 2nd Class Diver (equiv to AD). The big difference I suppose was that it was all done within the branch albeit Regional courses were available as well.

Dive Leader was not in existance then and some things have moved from the old 2nd Class to DL however, they tend to be taught at a lower level. It has to be said that 2nd Class Diver could vary in level from glorified 3rd Class to almost the level of 1st Class Diver depending on the branch you belonged to and the DO. I rather think that my branch was at the upper end, at least it felt like it. At that time we had 3 active AIs, several CIs and the Regional Coach in the branch so standards were kept fairly high.

There were 10 theory lessons which included Roped Diver Operations, Low vis and night Diving, Advanced Planning, Safety & Emergency actions, Basic Seamanship, Charts & Tides, Nav & Pos fixing, Decompression, U/W Nav & U/W search methods. Some of these subject areas have now moved to SDCs and become optional.

In addition to 20 specific assessment dives there were 7 assessment drils. Items that do not necessarily appear today were Tender to roped diver/roped diver, Low vis search and roped searches which involved several searches of various types, jack stays, swim lines, pendulum, circular etc. As I recall, it was not sufficient to just take part in each search at 2nd Class level you were expected to organise and manage each one.
There was also some nonesense stuff such as a 500m swim in full kit + 50 tow with AV and 2 assisted ascents.

There were 2 assessments of dive leading (now in DL of course)

In addition there were two assessments of acting as a Dive Marshall. In my branch this involved planning, organising and running two weekends diving, one on a hard boat and one with floppys before the DO would sign you off as competent. Other branches were somewhat more lenient, a couple of dives at Stoney Cove would suffice.

I suppose the big differences lay in the working project orientated diving and the seamanship stuff which came close to Day Skipper level. Also everything was mandatory, there were no options.

Diving has moved on exponentially since then. I think we have been a bit slow to move with it but some of the stuff that has been dropped was definately usefull and could have been kept alongside new stuff.

I remember doing all this, just...
And I was with Joint Services doing most of the stuff under the beady eyes of the R.N. Lieutenant at JSSADC in Fort Bovisand so they were extremely keen.

I remember my mates being puzzled at how proud I was when I became a 'Second Class Diver' as if they thought it was second rate! Little did they know how much effort went into it!
But it wasn't just at 2nd Class/Advanced Diver level, the hard work started right from day one.
Just a quick look through the syllabus for tests A to G leaves me thinking that we have 'dumbed down' the system as a whole to encourage and enable a wider range of people to be able to become divers, which is no bad thing. There were other reasons for it too, such as competiton with other organisations.

Thoughts of a BSAC Grumpy old man!

Have you seen the series of programmes "Grumpy Old Men"?
I spend most of them nodding my head in agreement.
I must be getting old.
;-)