Teaching alternate air source use.........

[Brian C]

Here is an altogether more controversial question :-) but one I would really appreciate some instructors feeding back on.

When I dive OC, I carry my back-up regulator tucked under my chin on a bungee cord, this way:

1, I always know where it is
2, I can reach it virtually without hands
3, I know it isn't being dragged in the silt
4, I know it hasn't come out of its 'octo holder' and is dangling behind me.
5, In the dark, (silt out, light failure, whatever) both my buddy and I know where the emergency and back up regs are (around my neck and in my mouth)

As you may have guessed, in the event of an OOA, I donate from my mouth, as I feel this ensures:

1, My buddy knows where 'their' reg is at all times, in my mouth. (Not a hard place to find, ask my wife)
2, The OOA diver (them) is assured of a working reg; I'm breathing off it thus guranteeing the most stressed diver gets a good first breath.

I (the donor) am less stressed so can bend my head and pick up the backup no problem (2 seconds TOPS)

I am always reading that a highly stressed diver who is out of air is likely to go for the one in your mouth anyway, so why not train for this eventuality since it has so many other up sides already?

I pose these questions because although I would NEVER insist a student adopts this method and donates from their mouth, would there be any downsides to show/demonstrate this method and let them try it in the confines of a pool? Even adopt it from the outset if they preferred? (First learned, best remembered)

The only argument I can see against is that both divers are momentarily without air, however I feel that if a diver can't cope with 2 seconds air deprivation, this being a 'problem' is more a symptom of something a lot more serious and that would be my real concern.

I really am looking for solid (not spurious) arguments against this, as I (obviously!) feel that this method offers many more advantages than disadvantages over the traditional method.

Oh, and is there any rule that states students are not allowed to be shown this? I have skimmed the Instructor manual but can't find any reference other than 'remove the AAS from its stowage' Which 'could' mean mouth (that's where mine is stowed!)

Thanks all in advance for your input.

Brian C

[iainmsmith]

Here is an altogether more controversial question :-) but one I would really appreciate some instructors feeding back on.

Brian,

If you look back through the archives, you will see that I and others have posted extensively on this. Until the recent statement from the previous NDO, we taught donating the primary within my Branch, from scratch, for about three years for (amongst others) the reasons you state.

We had great success with this and we felt that our trainees were better equipped to deal with the unexpected. However, since the previous NDO's statement, it is no longer permitted to teach this technique as part of the entry level syllabus.

Iain

[Brian C]

Hi Iain,

Could you point me at where it states this method is forbiden as I have not been able to locate it.

Thanks

Brian.

PS
I have also posted the same couple of questions on divernet, again, nobody seems able to come up with a convincing rational against......in fact no one has offered a rational at all! So why is there a problem......? SSI apparently teach donating the primary regulator to new students as a preference.


:=Here is an altogether more controversial question :-) but one I would really appreciate some instructors feeding back on.

Brian,

If you look back through the archives, you will see that I and others have posted extensively on this. Until the recent statement from the previous NDO, we taught donating the primary within my Branch, from scratch, for about three years for (amongst others) the reasons you state.

We had great success with this and we felt that our trainees were better equipped to deal with the unexpected. However, since the previous NDO's statement, it is no longer permitted to teach this technique as part of the entry level syllabus.

Iain

[Brian C]

Hi Iain,

Having just spent 20 minutes trying to locate the report you mention below, as well as the rule changes you reffer to.....I can't find anything! Could you (or anyone else)possibly point me in the right direction please!

Thanks,

Brian


If you look back through the archives, you will see that I and others have posted extensively on this. Until the recent statement from the previous NDO, we taught donating the primary within my Branch, from scratch, for about three years for (amongst others) the reasons you state.

However, since the previous NDO's statement, it is no longer permitted to teach this technique as part of the entry level syllabus.

Iain

[David Walker]

I have also posted the same couple of questions on divernet, again, nobody seems able to come up with a convincing rational against......in fact no one has offered a rational at all! So why is there a problem......? SSI apparently teach donating the primary regulator to new students as a preference.

Possible Rationale Against:
Any diver, from a new Ocean Diver to a First Class diver could have a buddy who is OOA and needs your octo. For an experienced diver take any reg and it will be fine. For someone fairly new to diving, if you pull their reg out of their mouth at depth they might panic and that doubles your problems. Taking their octo means the diver with air stays in full control, can help their buddy immediately, and can more effectively deal with problems. There are lots of methods of making your octo more visible without the need to say "take mine".
The other consideration is the kit setup, and hoses inparticular. To donate the primary it would be very restrictive if you were using a normal length hose, which means changing hoses for long ones. For club kit that would be expensive, if you dive abroad and hire kit it won't be set up like that, for people without all of their own kit there is the issue of where they keep the hose with an unfamiliar setup each time...

I can see the benefits in certain situations, but basic no-deco non-overhead non-technical diving isn't one of them.

As for the BSAC ban on doing it, I do remember the thread, can't remember the exact reasons but the rules were clarified that "removing the octo from stowage" meant that stowage was NOT the mouth - stowage is not in use, and i'm sure everyone knows exactly what that is intended to mean and in saying "I stow mine in my mouth" you blatantly know that isn't what the rules mean.

David

[brian c]

David,

Thanks for the reply, in the interests of healthy debate, I'll try and counter!

Possible Rationale Against:
Any diver, from a new Ocean Diver to a First Class diver could have a buddy who is OOA and needs your octo.

Leaving aside the fact (as I'm sure we are all in full agreement) that divers at any level shouldn?t run out of air unless exceptionally unfortunate (odds that must be in the 1000's to 1) I personally prefer to teach the same system all the way through for the sake of consistency/muscle memory, only adding extra equipment for more extreme dives rather than changing it....although I guess I'm straying off the point a bit here.

For an experienced diver take any reg and it will be fine. For someone fairly new to diving, if you pull their reg out of their mouth at depth they might panic and that doubles your problems.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here, this is the single factor that seems to keep cropping up. If the reg is removed from the mouth and this were to cause a diver to panic rather than simply popping the regulator touching their chin into their mouth, (you don't even have to look for it)I don't think their donating the primary is their real problem, I would be more concerned with why they were so close to loosing mental control in the first place.

Taking their octo means the diver with air stays in full control,

Why would donating from the mouth mean the donor looses control?
The don't have to look for their octopus, (It is touching their chin)
They are ensuring the OOA diver gets a fully working reg

can help their buddy immediately,

Donating from the mouth is more immediate than looking for (or them looking for) a stowed reg. At the very least, it can't be slower.

and can more effectively deal with problems.

I really can't see how donating a separate octo is either more effective or immediate than donating the primary for the reasons given in my initial post.

There are lots of methods of making your octo more visible without the need to say "take mine".

Yes I agree and would not seek to teach anyone they cannot do it, however I believe that donating the primary has considerably more upsides than the traditional method. At the very, least, I would expect the BSAC to allow me to choose both how I dive and allow my students the same choice.

The 'panic because they are without gas' argument is purely hypothetical and it would be just as easy to invent one for the opposite.

"The octo had been in its holder so long, the diaphragm had perished so when they came to use it, it flooded. Both divers drowned in the ensuing panic"
Or
"The octo had come out of its holder and was not there when is buddy needed it. Both divers drowned in the ensuing panic on the silty bottom"
Or
"The octopus had worked perfectly in the buddy check but, having been clipped off on the front of the BC with a shop-bought octo holder, it had dragged in the sand. Eventually, the purge button bounced on a rock and stuck open and would not stop free flowing"
The last of these I actually witnessed and I frequently witness every single time I go in a quarry. A reg around the neck can?t do this.

The other consideration is the kit setup, and hoses in particular. To donate the primary it would be very restrictive if you were using a normal length hose, which means changing hoses for long ones.

Yes, I agree, so personally prefer to use a longer hose around my neck; I simply duck my head, however if I was holding someone?s BC as the manual states, I would be well close enough. I could also use the shorter hose around the neck and breath off the longer one?.so no change of kit there, just the addition of a bungee loop.

For club kit that would be expensive,

Yes, changing every set of club regs would be tedious (not expensive, tedious) but that is not what I was advocating, I wouldn?t seek to impose my views on anyone else, however I would like to give people the right to choose....and if they liked it, they could always bring along a bungee loop that fits over the mouthpiece of the reg (about ?2)

If you dive abroad and hire kit it won't be set up like that,

I agree, I'd do the above

For people without all of their own kit there is the issue of where they keep the hose with an unfamiliar setup each time...

No, see the above and I don't think people who object have been doing so for reasons of convenience or cost either

I can see the benefits in certain situations, but basic no-deco non-overhead non-technical diving isn't one of them.

Well here I think we may need to agree to disagree but I think it was worth debating to explore the issue. You have certainly made me think of issues I had not previously considered.

As for the BSAC ban on doing it, I do remember the thread, can't remember the exact reasons but the rules were clarified that "removing the octo from stowage" meant that stowage was NOT the mouth - stowage is not in use, and I?m sure everyone knows exactly what that is intended to mean and in saying "I stow mine in my mouth" you blatantly know that isn't what the rules mean.

If it was something the organisation intended to make a categorical rule change rather than 'we strongly recommend' it would be helpful if it was either stated in the manual or publicised in such a way that the information was readily available; I have been actively looking for it and can't find it!

I have one further question, I presume this ?rule change? only applies to what is taught and not what is practised by qualified divers in the branch?

If it is in fact the case, then I for one think it is a great shame and shows both narrow minded thinking and insufficient research.


David

Thanks Dave

Brian C

[iainmsmith]

Hi Iain,

Having just spent 20 minutes trying to locate the report you mention below, as well as the rule changes you reffer to.....I can't find anything! Could you (or anyone else)possibly point me in the right direction please!

Bizzarely, despite extensive searching, I can't find this document on the BSAC site either.

However, I found it on the UK.rec.scuba newsgroup, where it was posted by Keith Lawrence:

-----------------------------------------------------------
The BSAC's position on AAS is that as stated in our current Diver training materials - we do not teach donate/take of the primary DV. With queries that have been raised and some people known to be adding/replacing their own individual preferences to that training, is obviously a matter that needs serious consideration and discussion. To do this without consultation with other agencies would be foolhardy as diver training, whatever agency a diver trains through, they follow more or less the same skill procedures. When that process is completed a statement will be issued to our members that clarifies the position.

We cannot 'ban' divers from using a particular method if they so choose, we do not dictate what equipment configurations should be worn but, as a training and diving organisation we have to set out our training standards as well as recommendations regarding diving practise and expect that our
members adhere to those. Our prime concern is that of safety and safety considerations to underpin an adventurous sport covering a broad spectrum of diving interest.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I thought that there was a further statement which refined the above, but I can't find it. However, as I couldn't even find the original statement on the site, I'm not sure whether I simply imagined the clarification or whether it was posted elsewhere.

Keith may be able to help?

The UKRS discussion can be found at: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/59qpl" >http://tinyurl.com/59qpl</a>

Iain

[iainmsmith]

Possible Rationale Against:
Any diver, from a new Ocean Diver to a First Class diver could have a buddy who is OOA and needs your octo. For an experienced diver take any reg and it will be fine. For someone fairly new to diving, if you pull their reg out of their mouth at depth they might panic and that doubles your problems.

You mean you didn't rehearse OOA drills with your buddy? Assuming you didn't panic (you didn't, did you), then you'd go with the procedure that you discussed and implemented. (Remember that the great majority of BSAC divers have been trained in "asking" for an AAS, not "taking", despite the current DTP.) If you panicked, then all bets are off, whatever your training.

Taking their octo means the diver with air stays in full control, can help their buddy immediately, and can more effectively deal with problems.

A diver donating the primary can help faster (=&gt; more effectively) and remains in full control. If you don't believe me, try it with someone who has learned the technique.

There are lots of methods of making your octo more visible without the need to say "take mine".

And how many of them provide the same standardised reaction for an "OOA buddy", "dropped primary", "dislodged primary" and "panicked diver who has ripped the reg from the donor's mouth"? That part of a diver's attention which is on his buddy is generally focussed on his face - that's where our eye-to-eye contact takes place. There is therefore a high chance of an OOA diver going for the primary anyway.

The other consideration is the kit setup, and hoses inparticular. To donate the primary it would be very restrictive if you were using a normal length hose, which means changing hoses for long ones. For club kit that would be expensive

Not necessarily. Prior to the ex-NDO's statement, for three years, my Branch taught donating the primary as part of our core training. This was done by having the "primary" length hose on the backup and the "octopus" hose on the primary reg. You don't need to have a long hose to donate the primary.

&gt; if you dive abroad and hire kit it won't be set up like
&gt; that, for people without all of their own kit there is the
&gt; issue of where they keep the hose with an unfamiliar setup
&gt; each time...

You need to think of the solution, not just the problem: All our trainees were given a necklace to keep with their fins, masks and other personal kit. They were also shown how to make them. As discussed above, it takes no effort at all to take a conventional set of regulators and turn them into a set suitable for donating the primary.

I can see the benefits in certain situations, but basic no-deco non-overhead non-technical diving isn't one of them.

Have you ever tried it? The additional freedom of movement when using a long hose is considerably more comfortable. The speed of reaction and the standard response to a "lost primary" situation, whatever the reason for it, are also considerable benefits. The only times I've ever had to donate a reg for real have been non-technical, non-overhead. The reasons for this are, I suspect, the degree of redundancy and planning that goes into that sort of dive, vs the ease with which a rec dive tends to be conducted.

Iain

[Vic]

&gt; Bizzarely, despite extensive searching, I can't find this
&gt; document on the BSAC site either.

Bear in mind that the server went down recently; some documents went missing and haven't been resurrected yet.

Vic.

[Vic]

&gt;&gt; I can see the benefits in certain situations, but basic
&gt;&gt; no-deco non-overhead non-technical diving isn't one of them.
&gt;
&gt; Have you ever tried it? The additional freedom of movement
&gt; when using a long hose is considerably more comfortable.

Some years ago, I took my long-hose OC rig to Tenerife. Much mickey-taking ensued.

At the end of the week, all the staff at the dive centre wanted to know where they could get a long hose...

It really is a superior system; I do hope that BSAC will recant on its "not in our course" position mentioned above.

Vic.

[David Walker]

You mean you didn't rehearse OOA drills with your buddy? Assuming you didn't panic (you didn't, did you), then you'd go with the procedure that you discussed and implemented. (Remember that the great majority of BSAC divers have been trained in "asking" for an AAS, not "taking", despite the current DTP.) If you panicked, then all bets are off, whatever your training.

But unless it becomes standard practice, then a buddy may not have practiced it before, no. I've dived with lots of people, and don't believe many of the ODs and SDs would cope particularly well with having their reg ripped from their mouth. Now if my club started teaching that, and I was diving with these people who hadn't been taught that way, then that'll be a problem underwater!


A diver donating the primary can help faster (=&gt; more effectively) and remains in full control. If you don't believe me, try it with someone who has learned the technique.

I was referring to those who may get a bit panicky (even mild would be a problem), and if you've got your own reg still you've still got both hands free at all times to help them - even the short period of time between losing your reg and getting your other one in, you aren't in as much control as you could be.

And how many of them provide the same standardised reaction for an "OOA buddy", "dropped primary", "dislodged primary" and "panicked diver who has ripped the reg from the donor's mouth"? That part of a diver's attention which is on his buddy is generally focussed on his face - that's where our eye-to-eye contact takes place. There is therefore a high chance of an OOA diver going for the primary anyway.

Depends on the diver. Unless they were inexperienced and panicking then they'd go for the one they were told to take or were used to taking.

:=The other consideration is the kit setup, and hoses inparticular. To donate the primary it would be very restrictive if you were using a normal length hose, which means changing hoses for long ones. For club kit that would be expensive

Not necessarily. Prior to the ex-NDO's statement, for three years, my Branch taught donating the primary as part of our core training. This was done by having the "primary" length hose on the backup and the "octopus" hose on the primary reg. You don't need to have a long hose to donate the primary.

Having used someone's octo length reg coming from the right hand side (as in a traditional padi setup) it's not as comfortable and not as much room for moving as with the octo length hose on the left because of needing to twist the reg back on itself to get it the right way up (unless you're advocating everyone who uses this technique to buy Poseidon regs too? Including all the clubs that take up this technique?)

You need to think of the solution, not just the problem: All our trainees were given a necklace to keep with their fins, masks and other personal kit. They were also shown how to make them. As discussed above, it takes no effort at all to take a conventional set of regulators and turn them into a set suitable for donating the primary.

You both seem to have misunderstood that one. I was referring to the long hose - if you used one - which needs to go somewhere. On a traditional BCD there aren't a lot of options, except bungee to the tank. If you use the octo length hose then ok you don't have that problem (although from my experience breathing from a octo length hose on a single cylinder leaves a very large loop sticking out from your profile, so not much good in a wreck). And of course if you do use a standard octo length hose with a 'normal' reg then that in my opinion is a big compromise - it'd be better coming from your left as a standard octo to give them the extra length.

Have you ever tried it? The additional freedom of movement when using a long hose is considerably more comfortable. The

Unless you use a standard octo hose as you suggested, in which case you have *less* freedom than with a conventional single cylinder reg & octo setup. Just playing devil's advocate here, but the to solve hte problems i've suggested you have two separate techniques. With the long hose you get the benefits, but with a long hose you're adding considerable expense to club kit for the hose changes, for all members to get new hoses, etc. And with a conventional BCD the long hose has far fewer options of where to stow it for easy use. And of course, much of the advantages of being easy to see and take are lost unless everyone you ever dive with have all been taught that technique too.

David

[David Walker]

Now, I thought that there was a further statement which refined the above, but I can't find it. However, as I couldn't even find the original statement on the site, I'm not sure whether I simply imagined the clarification or whether it was posted elsewhere.

There definitely was one somewhere at some time... that was the "we'll get back to you" message, and there's a followup somewhere with the answer.

David

[TerryH]

Here is an altogether more controversial question :-) but one I would really appreciate some instructors feeding back on.



Take any percentage of students and in the first instance/early
days at least 50% will dislike taking the reg out doing OOA/AAS
etc. The irrational fear is that you must have a working reg in
your mouth at all times.

Of this group probably 10% will NEVER be happy with regs out.
Ok fine they probably wont be doing shutdown drills/ gas
management etc. and might end up with a single in the Red Sea.

So do the numbers.
How many unsuccessful OOA/AAS incidents are there per annum?
If roughly 10% of divers DO NOT like taking the reg out, what's the chance of this group freaking out during open water training
when you grab the primary?

So are the odds of HAVING an incident during training,
greater than doing the dive for real and messing up during a
reg switch?

BSAC have (IMO) got it right. Early days needs minalmilist kit


TerryH

[iainmsmith]

Take any percentage of students and in the first
instance/early days at least 50% will dislike taking the reg
out doing OOA/AAS etc. The irrational fear is that you must
have a working reg in your mouth at all times.

Of this group probably 10% will NEVER be happy with regs out.
Ok fine they probably wont be doing shutdown drills/ gas
management etc. and might end up with a single in the Red
Sea.

So do the numbers.
How many unsuccessful OOA/AAS incidents are there per annum?
If roughly 10% of divers DO NOT like taking the reg out,
what's the chance of this group freaking out during open
water training when you grab the primary?

So are the odds of HAVING an incident during training,
greater than doing the dive for real and messing up during a
reg switch?

I think your numbers are extremely pessimistic. Possibly the security of having an alternative air source right under the jaw increased the security of our trainees, but none of them had a significant issue by the end of the courses. However, under the previous syllabus, we did not teach unexpectedly grabbing the primary - OOA signals were still used and the primary was donated (not taken). We still use OOA signals during training, as the vast majority of BSAC-trained divers out there have been trained to use them and we would prefer our trainees to recognise the signal for what it is. This is a stepping stone to taking the reg from stowage without warning, as it allows both students to be completely comfortable with what is going on.

Having said that, if one is going to have an issue with a regulator being unexpectedly removed, is it better to experience this for the first time in the security of a training lesson or when your reg gets kicked out/grabbed with no warning at some point after qualification?

BSAC have (IMO) got it right. Early days needs minalmilist
kit

As I've pointed out elsewhere the only addition required to teach donating the primary compared with conventional basic kit is a length of bungee. Big deal.

Iain

[iainmsmith]

:=You mean you didn't rehearse OOA drills with your buddy? Assuming you didn't panic (you didn't, did you), then you'd go with the procedure that you discussed and implemented. (Remember that the great majority of BSAC divers have been trained in "asking" for an AAS, not "taking", despite the current DTP.) If you panicked, then all bets are off, whatever your training.

But unless it becomes standard practice, then a buddy may not have practiced it before, no. I've dived with lots of people, and don't believe many of the ODs and SDs would cope particularly well with having their reg ripped from their mouth. Now if my club started teaching that, and I was diving with these people who hadn't been taught that way, then that'll be a problem underwater!

So go back to the old system where we actually taught OOA signals, allowing the donor the chance to donate whatever it is that they plan to donate. OTOH, if the diver doesn't have the presence of mind to give an OOA signal, they probably haven't got the presence of mind to think about going for the AAS...at which point I'd rather have my own backup a head-dip away from my mouth.

Having said that I _did_ experiment with unexpectedly removing people's primaries (yes, at my own risk), including some of the less confident. The most I got was a confused look as if to say..."You're the instructor...you're not supposed to run out of air!"...before they realised it was a drill.

:=A diver donating the primary can help faster (=&gt; more effectively) and remains in full control. If you don't believe me, try it with someone who has learned the technique.

I was referring to those who may get a bit panicky (even mild would be a problem), and if you've got your own reg still you've still got both hands free at all times to help them - even the short period of time between losing your reg and getting your other one in, you aren't in as much control as you could be.

Why do you need both hands for the other diver? One hand for the diver/reg, one hand sweeping the backup into the mouth. You're looking for problems that aren't there.

:=And how many of them provide the same standardised reaction for an "OOA buddy", "dropped primary", "dislodged primary" and "panicked diver who has ripped the reg from the donor's mouth"? That part of a diver's attention which is on his buddy is generally focussed on his face - that's where our eye-to-eye contact takes place. There is therefore a high chance of an OOA diver going for the primary anyway.

Depends on the diver. Unless they were inexperienced and panicking then they'd go for the one they were told to take or were used to taking.

So lets plan and prepare for the worst case, not the best. Let's ensure that people's conditioned response ensures that they are capable of dealing with the inexperienced or panicking. Because if they can't, then they are going to be in a world of hurt. And it will be our fault, because we didn't prepare them to deal with it.

I have been in a training situation where a simulated OOA diver came up to me and grabbed me, signalling OOA and blocking access to my octopus. How long would I have had my own primary in my mouth had this been for real and what chance of getting to my own octopus once the primary had been taken? I've known octopi stuffed in pockets, trailing in the current, trapped behind tanks and octopi whose mouthpieces were left behind on the scumball when it was deployed. The reg I will donate is exactly where I think it is (my mouth), is instantly available to my buddy, whereever they come from and the reg that I will then breath from is instantly available to me and is exactly where I think it is, because it's tied in place.

:=Not necessarily. Prior to the ex-NDO's statement, for three years, my Branch taught donating the primary as part of our core training. This was done by having the "primary" length hose on the backup and the "octopus" hose on the primary reg. You don't need to have a long hose to donate the primary.

Having used someone's octo length reg coming from the right hand side (as in a traditional padi setup) it's not as comfortable and not as much room for moving as with the octo length hose on the left because of needing to twist the reg back on itself to get it the right way up (unless you're advocating everyone who uses this technique to buy Poseidon regs too? Including all the clubs that take up this technique?)

I agree, it's not as comfortable, but given how much room you don't get even with the left-sided octopus, it's not a great loss. No need to worry about Poseidons. We used a mixture of Apeks and Oceanic.

:=You need to think of the solution, not just the problem: All our trainees were given a necklace to keep with their fins, masks and other personal kit. They were also shown how to make them. As discussed above, it takes no effort at all to take a conventional set of regulators and turn them into a set suitable for donating the primary.

You both seem to have misunderstood that one. I was referring to the long hose - if you used one - which needs to go somewhere. On a traditional BCD there aren't a lot of options, except bungee to the tank. If you use the octo length hose then ok you don't have that problem (although from my experience breathing from a octo length hose on a single cylinder leaves a very large loop sticking out from your profile, so not much good in a wreck). And of course if you do use a standard octo length hose with a 'normal' reg then that in my opinion is a big compromise - it'd be better coming from your left as a standard octo to give them the extra length.

One option with an octopus hose is to put a loop of bungee/inner tubing round the tank and put a small tuck of hose in it. However, if you're in a small enough space where a loop sticking out to the side is a significant issue, then one ought to be thinking about how one would manage an OOA situation in such a tight environment with conventional short-hose regs.

Alternatively, run it under your right arm. Some may find it more comfortable if they put a 45degree swivel on the reg for this. If you want use a long hose, then you can do exactly what we do with backplates and harnesses in the absence of canister light - put a tuck under the waist band or the weightbelt.

:=Have you ever tried it? The additional freedom of movement when using a long hose is considerably more comfortable. The

Unless you use a standard octo hose as you suggested, in which case you have *less* freedom than with a conventional single cylinder reg & octo setup.

I see just as many right-sided octopi as I do left. One is no more "conventional" than the other. You do have less freedom of movement, yes. But you get a faster, more reliable response, a standard response to any "lost primary" situation, and a diver whose basic skill set allows him to deal with a panicked diver who removes the primary without warning, without any modification to his normal technique.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but the to solve hte problems i've suggested you have two separate techniques. With the long hose you get the benefits, but with a long hose you're adding considerable expense to club kit for the hose changes, for all members to get new hoses, etc.

Who said anything about all members being required to get new hoses? Hopefully many would choose to do so, having seen the benefits of it, but given that most people spend more on getting to the Dive Show than the cost of a long hose, on an individual basis, the "too expensive" argument is getting close to spurious. If a club wants to convert its kit, there is no requirement to do so at once - we took three years.

And with a conventional BCD the long hose has far fewer options of where to stow it for easy use.

I don't understand this concern. The long hose goes on the reg in the diver's mouth. Why do you need to stow it anywhere? If you don't want to breath it, then why not stuff it against your cylinder and clip it off like a conventional octopus (albeit losing you all the benefits of donating from the mouth).

And of course, much of the advantages of being easy to see and take are lost unless everyone you ever dive with have all been taught that technique too.

Why would they be lost? "Take the reg from my mouth" is pretty unequivocal. If they can't find anything else to take, they're certainly going to have noticed the nice bright yellow reg in my mouth.

Iain

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

-----------------------------------------------------------
The BSAC's position on AAS is that as stated in our current Diver training materials - we do not teach donate/take of the primary DV. With queries that have been raised and some people known to be adding/replacing their own individual preferences to that training, is obviously a matter that needs serious consideration and discussion. To do this without consultation with other agencies would be foolhardy as diver training, whatever agency a diver trains through, they follow more or less the same skill procedures. When that process is completed a statement will be issued to our members that clarifies the position.

We cannot 'ban' divers from using a particular method if they so choose, we do not dictate what equipment configurations should be worn but, as a training and diving organisation we have to set out our training standards as well as recommendations regarding diving practise and expect that our
members adhere to those. Our prime concern is that of safety and safety considerations to underpin an adventurous sport covering a broad spectrum of diving interest.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Keith may be able to help?

At present all I can say is READ WHAT IT SAYS. There is no "ban" or anything like that on long hoses, but we do insist that if you're teaching BSAC courses they you teach what is in the course! What you CANNOT do is decide to teach long hose donation instead of AAS take, that is changing the DTP which is beyond the remit of anybody but the NDO.

My understanding of the situationis as follows. Note that the normal rider of "I am not a members of the NDC" applies so the following is my personal understanding of the situation and could be wrong!

Many instructors (including me) add little snippets of additional information when we are teaching, these are only introduced once the core and required skills have been taught and masterred. Many clubs do this to train their divers in the style and techniques of diving that the club has adopted, but they CANNOT make such optional and additional elements a requirement of the course as that would also be changing the DTP and is not permissable.

So as I understand it - you CANNOT teach long hose donate instead of AAS take, you CANNOT make long hose donate a requirement of awarding BSAC diving grades. Demonstrate it on a "for information" basis if you like, but only after the formal DTP AAS take techniques ahve been taught and masterred.

I have flagged this up as an issue to the new Diver Training Group of NDC and to the new NDO and asked for clarification. I'm sure that somebody from that team will be along shortly to correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick!

Keith L

[tony dwyer]

I think your numbers are extremely pessimistic. Possibly the security of having an alternative air source right under the jaw increased the security of our trainees, but none of them had a significant issue by the end of the courses. However, under the previous syllabus, we did not teach unexpectedly grabbing the primary - OOA signals were still used and the primary was donated (not taken). We still use OOA signals during training, as the vast majority of BSAC-trained divers out there have been trained to use them and we would prefer our trainees to recognise the signal for what it is. This is a stepping stone to taking the reg from stowage without warning, as it allows both students to be completely comfortable with what is going on.

I believe Terry is correct.

I have had a trainee panic when he was doing a buddy breathing ascent (he was the donor!) during a Sports Diver Open Water Assessment, only about 2 mtrs from the surface (this was quite a while ago). It was a very scary few seconds. Not a situation I would like to repeat. I had to grab him and get him to the surface. Where, despite being perfectly safe as I had made him buoyant, he continued to thrash around for quite a while. His buddy was also a trainee going for Sports Diver and he was very upset by the incident, though he had calmly replaced his own reg and did not have a problem.
Had it happened on a dive without an Instructor in contact, I am certain that there would have been a fatality. After the event, the trainee that panicked remembered nothing of the incident. He had been a confident, young and fit person that had breezed Novice Diver. There had been no cause to suspect that he would freak out. There was also no warning that he was in trouble. One moment he was fine, the next he was a whirling dervish.
The incident made me re-evaluate my thinking. I would never take someones reg from their mouth without warning and their agreement. In poor viz ANYONE could flip. I know that one should practice, practice, practice and I do. BUT it is unwise to assume that everyone else will react the same way as I do or as I think I will.
I often dive with people trained by other agencies, some not so well trained as I would prefer. I am therefore very conservative in my diving and endeavour to be self sufficient at all times.

I teach 'Take the Octopus'. Even though I have my backup (not the Octo)near my mouth. I do not make the assumption that everyone will have similar kit configurations. Experience has shown me that this is very far from being the case.

The very idea of possibly triggering a panic in a diver at depth gives me the willies.

No one is immune, we are all potential panic victims. Training helps to prevent it, but even the best of us can go over the edge. If just the wrong set of conditions apply.

[iainmsmith]

:=Keith may be able to help?

At present all I can say is READ WHAT IT SAYS. There is no "ban" or anything like that on long hoses, but we do insist that if you're teaching BSAC courses they you teach what is in the course! What you CANNOT do is decide to teach long hose donation instead of AAS take, that is changing the DTP which is beyond the remit of anybody but the NDO.

Sorry, Keith - I was not disputing the text of the statement, but saying that you might know where it (or any subsequent statement might be found on the website.

So as I understand it - you CANNOT teach long hose donate instead of AAS take, you CANNOT make long hose donate a requirement of awarding BSAC diving grades. Demonstrate it on a "for information" basis if you like, but only after the formal DTP AAS take techniques ahve been taught and masterred.

This is my understanding also. I _thought_ that there had been a clarification which stated that the technique could not be taught as part of the DTP and (IIRC, specifically at entry-level as opposed to not at all, which you will remember is how a number of us felt the above statement read, as you will doubtless remember from the rather heated UKRS discussion!) but I cannot find evidence of such. It may be that I am recalling personal correspondance.

To clarify: My reason for posting the above statement was not to reopen the debate as to what can and cannot be taught as part of the DTP, but to provide Brian with the text that he requested, with the proviso that there might have been a later tweak to it that I cannot find.

I'm happy to discuss my position on whether we _should_ be allowed to (as elsewhere in the thread), but we are in agreement on the fact that primary donate may not be included as part of the OD and perhaps in other pars of the DTP. (Although if this does apply to the entire DTP, it raises the issue of whether, as instructors, we are actually allowed to assess, for example, DL candidates who choose a primary/backup configuration...hence it would be useful to know for certain if there had been a subsequent clarification, because I honestly cannot remember)

Regards,

Iain

[TerryH]

I think your numbers are extremely pessimistic. Possibly the security of having an alternative air source right under the jaw increased the security of our trainees, but none of them had a significant issue by the end of the courses. However, under the previous syllabus, we did not teach unexpectedly grabbing the primary - OOA signals were still used and the primary was donated (not taken). We still use OOA signals during training, as the vast majority of BSAC-trained divers out there have been trained to use them and we would prefer our trainees to recognise the signal for what it is. This is a stepping stone to taking the reg from stowage without warning, as it allows both students to be completely comfortable with what is going on.


Pessamistic? No I'm using 1 in 10 may have a problem. That
seems a pretty fair ratio to me. Now multiply that, not by the
number of certs, but the number of those in training. It is
entirely likely that a fair number of these 1 in 10's never
make it to become divers.

Think about it.

We all as divers and instructors end up with a system that
works well for us. Kit configerations will be changed to suit
the dive and the years of hard graft/diving have taught what
works. It's only natural that we want to pass on that knowledge
to our students/friends. But .......

They havnt made the mistakes, tried the regs, BC's that dont
fit/work properly, done dives where they were under/overweighted. In fact learned from there mistakes.

Nobody is saying that donate primary isnt a good way to donate.
Just not uintil the basics have been mastered.
The only argument against this is that it is supposedly better
to teach the one method from day one.
Ok take that to it's logical conclusion and we should be
teaching students on wings/twins + stages on mix from day one!

We teach land mammals to go under water. To do that they need
a cylinder and reg. As a safety feature they have a spare which
they can hand off to there diving mate. Simple and it works.

Why on earth would I want to complicate matters by handing over
my primary?

TerryH

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Sorry, Keith - I was not disputing the text of the statement, but saying that you might know where it (or any subsequent statement might be found on the website.

There hasn't been to the best of my knowledge Iain, but then we have had a change of NDO and the complete restructuring of NDC in the meantime! I'm sure it's on a list of things-to-do somewhere, but knowing the workload of NDC I am not entirely surprised that it hasn't reached the top yet. I have fagged it up again to Sean (NDC Diver Training Group) and also to Clare, if it's in that group then I am confident that it will be addressed.

Keith L

[iainmsmith]

Pessamistic? No I'm using 1 in 10 may have a problem. That
seems a pretty fair ratio to me. Now multiply that, not by
the number of certs, but the number of those in training. It
is entirely likely that a fair number of these 1 in 10's
never make it to become divers.

You must have a MUCH higher drop-out rate on your courses than we do, if your experiences support your position.

We all as divers and instructors end up with a system that
works well for us. Kit configerations will be changed to suit
the dive and the years of hard graft/diving have taught what
works. It's only natural that we want to pass on that
knowledge to our students/friends. But .......

They havnt made the mistakes, tried the regs, BC's that dont
fit/work properly, done dives where they were
under/overweighted. In fact learned from there mistakes.

Terry, in my line of work (surgery), if one insisted on making one's own mistakes and insisted that one's juniors had to make their own mistakes, then one would be up in front of the General Medical Council, facing a hearing for serious professional misconduct. One would probably also be heading for criminal court, charged with manslaughter. Yes, we have the experience, we've made the mistakes. We're the teachers, so lets teach our students how NOT to make them!

Nobody is saying that donate primary isnt a good way to
donate. Just not uintil the basics have been mastered.

Would you agree that one of the basics of diving is the ability to cope for a few seconds without a reg in your mouth? If so, why is everyone so flipping scared of it?

The only argument against this is that it is supposedly
better to teach the one method from day one.

It's ONE of the arguments. You will have noted my comments elsewhere regarding a standardisation of response to any "lost primary" situation and (in our experience of three classes where we DID teach from day one) increased water confidence, because the student never gets to hear instructors scaring them about not being in control because they haven't got a reg in their mouth until they've already discovered that there isn't a problem.

Ok take that to it's logical conclusion and we should be
teaching students on wings/twins + stages on mix from day
one!

Now you're being silly. Twins, trimix and stages are not beneficial for all dives. I believe that this is _not_ the case for donating the primary. As for wings, though...guess what our entire intake this year are learning in.

We teach land mammals to go under water. To do that they need
a cylinder and reg. As a safety feature they have a spare
which they can hand off to there diving mate. Simple and it
works.

Why on earth would I want to complicate matters by handing
over my primary?

If you haven't worked out the rational behind anyone donating the primary (as the above suggests) then you're in no position to be discussing whether we ought to be teaching it from day one. If you have worked it out (as your previous comment that no-one says it's not a good way) then you've answered your own question.

Iain

[TerryH]

If you haven't worked out the rational behind anyone donating the primary (as the above suggests) then you're in no position to be discussing whether we ought to be teaching it from day one. If you have worked it out (as your previous comment that no-one says it's not a good way) then you've answered your own question.


I'd thought I had awnsered it but hey if you want to make a
wrong assumption.

Donate primary is a good system. Many of us use it and I have
no qualms with any DIVER adopting it with the usual "must
practice" caveats.

On the other hand as TO it's my job to organise (and teach)
on average 36 newbies each year. IMO donate primary is NOT
a good idea in basic training. I've set out my reasons, you
disagree that's your right, but please dont tell me that
after quite a few years diving/teaching and organising in both
BSAC & PADI pro enviroments, that I cant be objective enough
to have a reasoned opnion that it's to much to soon.

Waht if it is true that donate primary is actually better than
grab Octo? Would there be a higher success rate in incident
reports or even some horror stories with grab octo.

I'd argue that with the limited no of OOA/AAS incidents PA, it
would be pretty difficult to prove either way.

So we are back to a personal opinion. Trouble is that no matter
what way you say that your trainees are good. The fact remains
that the reg will be out of BOTH newbies mouths at the same
time during that stressful stage.

That IMO is a step to far.

TerryH

[Mike Rowley]

Keith et al

The current situation as I understand it is still as Lizzie Bird stated, ie that primary donate (that is donating the regulator one has in ones mouth to an out of gas diver) may not be taught on BSAC entry level courses and should not be taught as the primary form of AAS on any BSAC courses. The teaching of coping with the possible eventuality of a panicking diver snatching ones primary regulator is allowed as an additional technique. Until and indeed if the NDO decides to change things that is the current situation as far as I am aware.

I cannot speak for Sean and I have no knowledge of his thinking on this issue, I am sure he can speak for himself and his group far more eloquently than I can. As part of Jeff Reed's Technical group my remit on NDC is in a related area to Sean's but distincly different. However I can set out my thinking on this issue. I do stress that this should not be taken as the difinitive position of NDC or the NDO, it is purely my thinking.

Primary donate breaks the first rule of rescue in that it places the rescuer at potential risk in addition to the casualty. Various arguments can be advanced as to the level of that risk but by virtue of the rescuer having to remove his/her regulator to hand it off there is an indisputable risk.
It was partially to avoid the rescuer having to remove his/her regulator that the BSAC moved to AAS from buddy sharing. (Note I said partly). Incident analysis has shown that removing the regulator from ones mouth underwater carries risk. That I'm afraid is a fact.

When faced with a personal emergency divers (indeed people) tend to react in a way that they have been conditioned by training and education. Most (Note the word "most" not "all") mainstream training agencies teach AAS as a standard technique, not primary donate. The potential for disaster of divers being trained for primary donate grabbing the regulator from the mouth of a diver who has not been trained to expect this is obvious. Either all agencies need to teach this technique as standard or non. To have a mix and match is not good.

Primary donate does not work for all kit configurations. As a rebreather diver I would really not appreciate a panicking diver reverting to training and grabbing my mouthpiece. It is absolutely no use saying the difference is obvious. In the dark or poor vis and when a diver is badly stressed these things happen. People revert to conditioning in extreme stress.

It would seem to me, to have a system that works in all eventualities and for all kit if possible has to be the preferred option. Therefore I would have to say that in my view the dissadvantages of primary donate clearly outweigh any perceived advantages.

There are of course more issues here than primary donate. The advantages of a long hose are not in dispute. Indeed many instructors have been using long hoses on their AAS for years.

The method of stowage is not seriously in dispute as far as I am aware. The practice of "Hog wrapping" has some obvious advantages and some equally obvious dissadvantages. No system is going to be perfect and it may depend on your kit and how you configure it as to whether you adopt this technique. The salient thing is to have easy access and to be able to differentiate which reg is which. It is not a system I would choose to use with my kit but I accept that for some it has advantages. It is a matter of personal choice.

Mike
Course Development Leader
NDC Technical Group

[matts]

If you haven't worked out the rational behind anyone donating the primary (as the above suggests) then you're in no position to be discussing whether we ought to be teaching it from day one. If you have worked it out (as your previous comment that no-one says it's not a good way) then you've answered your own question.

Iain I know we have discussed this before but it might be useful to someone if I state my position again.

There are a number of reasons why I am less than convinced of teaching primary donation from day one.

1. Possibly the most compelling is that it is not yet a universal method. The vast majority of divers are taught to use an octo. In a similar vein I don't particularly like the new 'no signal' OOA procedure, however I can't ignore the mass of PADI divers that have been taught that the OOA must help themselves.

2. From the rescuer's point of view donating an octo provides the least risk so I think it should remain the response we initially teach and the response that everyone gets taught.

3. Panic is a distinct possibility. Like Tony Dwyer I had a scary moment which convinces me that your assessment is a little optimistic. A lady I was helping to train failed to purge a reg during an AAS drill. She went for her backup, which was stowed in a neck tether, but it was upside down when she tried to use it. She grabbed my main and failed to purge that, grabbed my secondary and failed to purge that. All the time she ignored her own main. We had completed a reg retrieve drill immediately prior to the AAS drill, but it did not occur to her to use the drill when she needed it. It took about a minute for her to calm down enough to allow me to reach her main and purge it into her mouth.

So what is the lesson? Well this lady had managed to convince an instructor that she was happy without a reg in her mouth. i certainly had no concerns with her reg retrieve drill. However when she unexpectedly found herself without a reg she went to pieces.

With time and patience even very nervous divers can become competent. I do not subscribe to the idea that nervous divers should be immediately ejected from the Sport - which might be the result of teaching a twitchy diver primary donation from day one.

Unfortunately the reality of fast track courses and bulk teaching means that not everyone is afforded the attention they deserve when it comes to the fundamental skills*. While that remains the case I think everyone should know at least one low risk, low stress method of assisting an OOA.

* When an instructors introduces reg retrieval with the phrase 'In the unlikely event of having your mouthpiece dislodged...' I suspect they mean 'I haven't got time to make sure you really are confident with this drill'

4. I think your desire to teach primary OOA may be affecting your objectivity. Your reasoning is possibly flawless, but it does not change the very flawed world we have to teach in.

As you know I normally dive rigged for primary donation. I put some thought into how my teaching kit could be rigged similarly. I have side valve regs, with the octo clipped onto the right shoulder - a hand span from where it would be on a tether.

To go on a little more. Given the increasing numbers of people rigging for primary donation I think BSAC should be looking to teach the technique formally. I would like to see it at least demonstrated on the Advanced Nitrox course - where divers have the potential for regulators to be unsafe. Leaving it to until ERD is too late.

In fact if the regularity of the 'What twinset' questions that appear on the forums is anything to go by BSAC could do with a twinset SDC. At the moment there are lots of divers left to find the information for themselves. Unfortunately I suspect that many divers are rigged for primary donation without ever having had their reg ripped out.

[matts]

I personally prefer to teach the same system all the way through for the sake of consistency/muscle memory, only adding extra equipment for more extreme dives rather than changing it....although I guess I'm straying off the point a bit here.

I go along with that but still manage to teach within BSACs rules.

...I don't think their donating the primary is their real problem, I would be more concerned with why they were so close to loosing mental control in the first place.

Absolutely. You need to get them over the lack of confidence. But what method of air sharing are they going to use whilst the process is taking place?

The don't have to look for their octopus, (It is touching their chin)

As you say running out of air should never happen. Similarly picking up a tethered backup should be simple. People do run out of air and I suspect that a flustered diver could fumble their tethered backup.

They are ensuring the OOA diver gets a fully working reg

That however is not the 1st priority. The 1st priority is for the rescuer to avoid adding to the immediate problem, which removing their air supply would appear to do.

Donating from the mouth is more immediate than looking for (or them looking for) a stowed reg. At the very least, it can't be slower.

When teaching I stow my octo a few inches from where I normally carry a tethered backup - for all the reasons I ususally carry a tethered backup. You do not have to throw away all the advantages of primary donation when teaching octo donation.

I really can't see how donating a separate octo is either more effective or immediate than donating the primary for the reasons given in my initial post.

The protocol I am familiar with from techie training is that the OOA helps themselves to the primary (rather forcefully). Both divers are assumed to be over any confidence problems, otherwise they would not be on the techie course. The specific kit config is assessed for suitability as part of the course. The main advantage is that the primary regulator is known to be safe. With recreational divers you can not assume anything other than both regulators are safe. Primary donation has the potential to be dangerous and offers few benefits(possibly none), that can not be realised from careful configuration of your octo.

Yes I agree and would not seek to teach anyone they cannot do it, however I believe that donating the primary has considerably more upsides than the traditional method. At the very, least, I would expect the BSAC to allow me to choose both how I dive and allow my students the same choice.

The BSAC expect you teach a method of assisting an OOA which requires the rescuer takes no additional risks. Unfortunately some of your trainees will make no further effort to practise rescue skills outside the course. I believe these people should not be taught primary donation as it will probably make things worse.

Some of your students will have the right attitude and attention to detail. Outside a BSAC course you can show them an alternative method without problems, except possibly the status of your insurance. In fact I have been known to do an exercise where two divers share a single regulator, during an otherwise boring practise session in a shallow lake.

The 'panic because they are without gas' argument is purely hypothetical and it would be just as easy to invent one for the opposite.

At least two people here can tell you that it is not at all hypothetical.

"The octo had been in its holder so long, the diaphragm had perished so when they came to use it, it flooded. Both divers drowned in the ensuing panic"

Primary donation would make no difference in this scenario.

"The octo had come out of its holder and was not there when is buddy needed it. Both divers drowned in the ensuing panic on the silty bottom"

So teach people how to stow there reg and how to notice that it is missing.

"The octopus had worked perfectly in the buddy check but, having been clipped off on the front of the BC with a shop-bought octo holder, it had dragged in the sand.

The last of these I actually witnessed and I frequently witness every single time I go in a quarry. A reg around the neck can?t do this.

Rather than witnessing, pick the damn thing up and hand it back to the diver. Similary during AAS drills, do not conclude the drill until the octo is back in it's holder. During buddy checks make sure the octo is replaced before you accept the check. Frankly, ram it down your trainees throats that kit must be stowed securely.

Yes, I agree, so personally prefer to use a longer hose around my neck; I simply duck my head, however if I was holding someone?s BC as the manual states, I would be well close enough.

The manual emphasises the rescuer controling the situation. I teach that the right hand takes secure grip of the OOAs BC while the right hand offers (or thrusts) the octo. I think it is important that the rescuer leaves no doubt in the OOAs mind as to what is going to happen next. In a techie situation both divers are presumed to be helping themselves, which is a little different.

If it is in fact the case, then I for one think it is a great shame and shows both narrow minded thinking and insufficient research.

I tend to think that the people advocating primary donation from day one are being narrow minded. BSAC allow primary donation but only after divers have had a chance to acquire the basic confidence that primary donation requires. I think BSAC should provide a formal framework for teaching primary donation. YMMV.

[johnkendall]

The manual emphasises the rescuer controling the situation. I teach that the right hand takes secure grip of the OOAs BC while the right hand offers (or thrusts) the octo. I think it is important that the rescuer leaves no doubt in the OOAs mind as to what is going to happen next. In a techie situation both divers are presumed to be helping themselves, which is a little different.

I wasn't going to get into this one (I've had the same arguments many many times) but I feel I need to comment on this last bit.

You SHOULDN'T be teaching Giving the octopus. You NEED to teach that the receiver takes a reg. That is what is stated in the manual. Having tryed to find "standard" rigged octopus regs in low vis (as per most UK dives) and failed most times, I feel that discounting Primary donate is short-sighted.

With that in mind, fancy re-thinking your "leaves no doubt" bit.

John

[gareth]

John

You are correct that the manual now emphasises that the reciever takes the Octopus.

I have finally settled on teaching both - a large proportion of existing divers were taught to 'give' the octopus. I carefully explain to students that there are two ways this skill is/has been taught.

I also emphasis that if you are paying attention to your buddy you may well anticipate the problem (especially at Dive Leader / Instructor level) - remember assistance is better than rescue. In the senario I use, you observe that your buddy is low on air/is experiencing problems with his/her second stage (freeflow), so you interced & pass him/her your octopus & prepare to ascend.

I also emphasis that the rescuer should take control -& be seen to take control of the situation. Pointing out that this is very reassuring for the reciever if the rescuer appears (heart beating frantically, with many silent curses)to be fully in control, it has the effect of reassuring the reciever & calming them down.

Any way thats my two penath worth

Gareth

[TerryH]

You are correct that the manual now emphasises that the reciever takes the Octopus.

I have finally settled on teaching both - a large proportion of existing divers were taught to 'give' the octopus. I carefully explain to students that there are two ways this skill is/has been taught.


Yep that's exactly how we do it. Logic says that in a jam a
diver will just make a grab, so I can understand why it's go
for it. But ........

If you are aware that your buddy is OOA and you are "closing
the gap" no matter how close, then wouldnt you be grabbing and
persenting your octo ready as you swim together. Ok this may
depend on viz and how close you are, but presenting the octo
as per the old syllabus is still IMO neccessary.

So we do both grab and present octo.



I also emphasis that the rescuer should take control -& be seen to take control of the situation. Pointing out that this is very reassuring for the reciever if the rescuer appears (heart beating frantically, with many silent curses)to be fully in control, it has the effect of reassuring the reciever & calming them down.:=

Disagree with this bit though and the mindset that goes with it.
An AAS is NOT a rescue. It's two divers who have had a bad day
and are going home early. We train for just such an occasion
so when it happens we can sort it out and get back on the boat
for that cup of tea.

So we teach that both donor and recipent in an OOA AAS are BOTH
working together for a common aim. After all as it says this
is an assist, NOT a rescue. But ........

The donor MUST be aware that the recipient may not help as part
of a team and may need to take control either at the start or
even during the lift. That is VERY different and then it does
become a rescue.

TerryH

[TerryH]

I think you have hit the nail on the head here, this is the single factor that seems to keep cropping up. If the reg is removed from the mouth and this were to cause a diver to panic rather than simply popping the regulator touching their chin into their mouth, (you don't even have to look for it)I don't think their donating the primary is their real problem, I would be more concerned with why they were so close to loosing mental control in the first place.


In my time I've seen more than a few divers freak out.

1. Mask clearing (Dive Leader Course)
2. Tightening up a weight belt (PADI Rescue)
3. Cylinder slipping out (PADI DM)
4. Inabilty to remember how to ascend (yes I know) (Nitrox course)
5. Vertigo (BSAC Advanced)
6. Freeflow (Sport Diver)
7. Cramp (DL)
8. BC "not filling fast enough" (PADI DM)

And my personal favorite "I'm scared of fish" (apparently he was ok as long as they didnt get to close)(Sport Diver)

These were all DIVERS. That's right not new students, but DIVERS. Some had 100's of dives logged, but still got an
irrational fear on there "bad day".

Now tell me that a newbie wont mess up like these did. Tell
me that no matter what training you do, an irrational fear will
creep in that says my reg is not there and I have seconds to
get my octo.

Tell me why it has anything to do with mental control and how
you are going to identify/belay such fears in half a dozen
pool sessions and 5 dives!

TerryH

[David Walker]

If you are aware that your buddy is OOA and you are "closing
the gap" no matter how close, then wouldnt you be grabbing and
persenting your octo ready as you swim together. Ok this may
depend on viz and how close you are, but presenting the octo
as per the old syllabus is still IMO neccessary.

Absolutely. The biggest problem in training is getting people not to get their own octo when they know their buddy is OOA. Obviously we want them to do that in a real situation, and tell them that, the 'take it yourself' idea is good practice because it could happen, but it is very artificial when teaching it and apart from blindfolding them all you can say is 'don't give it to them'... which is very unnatural sat watching someone fiddling with your kit while just watching and holding your arms out of the way.

Sorry, not a direct reply to you Terry, but the argument about not being able to find a conventional octo is just misguided. Just as you can change your kit setup to have your alternative under your chin, you can move your normal octo around. A standard octo doesn't mean dragging in the dirt - many do, but that isn't necessary. The exact same system can work just as well with the octo in a lot of different places. One of the best i've seen recently was a PADI instructor who keeps it tucked up into loop around the shoulder strap - the octo is always to hand, and only about 15cm from your face or a necklaced alternative and so no excuse that it can't be found or get dragged through the silt. Comparing a badly setup conventional setup to an ideal setup for donating the primary is hardly a fair comparison, which seems to be the basis for many of the advantages of the primary donate for entry level / recreational diving.

David

[brian c]

From watching this thread develop I have to say, being open minded is an easy thing to accuse others of not being but seems to be a hard concept to actually practise!

When challenged we seem to all to often ?dig in and defend?

I am sure that when devil gas was introduced (Nitrox) and met with a barrier of opposition, those opposing did not feel that they were being narrow minded, yet we look back now and are fairly unanimous that this was the case. I?d guess it was the same with ABLJ?s to BCD?s?

The original post I made actually stated that I did NOT think forcing a student to donate their primary was a good idea, (so I don?t think that makes me narrow minded) I suggested that they be shown both methods and then allowed to choose which they felt was the most logical/most comfortable with. I have my own opinion but don?t seek to force it on others; they have a brain of their own. I do not force them to choose certain DV?s BC?s cylinder sizes, fining styles?..etc, etc. I advise, I demonstrate, I offer a roll model and I let them choose from the outset.

I purposefully did not mention long-hoses, wings?etc. as I did not want this question to be taken off track. I wanted to look SPECIFICALLY at the issue of donating the primary DV.

From BSAC?s point of view, I think ?donating from the mouth puts the rescuer at increased risk? is only ?a fact? if you choose to look at it in total isolation which is, frankly, bad risk management.

To genuinely asses risk then you must also look at the consequences and possible risks associated with what you ARE advocating, NOT just choosing to concentrate on one aspect of what you are opposing. If you do this then it suddenly does not look so clear cut (actually I think it does but in the opposite direction)

EG
The risk of donating diver panicking and adding to the problem (Which, examining this thread seems to be the sole and tenuous argument for outlawing the teaching of the primary method)

Should be balanced against:

The risk of an octopus becoming unhooked and not being where it is supposed to be when needed
The risk of not being able to find the octopus in dark/silty water (so presumably, then fighting over the one in the donors mouth?)
The risk of octopuses being in numerous different places on each person?s kit (so not exactly a ?standard? approach; slightly different on everyone?s kit)
The risk of a panicked diver (the one without gas is most likely to panic) and taking the only reg they can see at that instant; the one in your mouth anyway.

If you do not do this, then you stand the risk of looking decidedly like someone who has decided the answer and are then looking for rationales to support that predetermined stance.

When this single risk is measured against the benefits.
1, Regardless of whether the OOA diver grabs the reg or is passed it, the back up can be accessed virtually without hands in less than 2 seconds
2, the back-up is 100% sure to be where you left it; touching your chin
3, the back-up CAN?T become dislodged and drag in the silt
4, in the dark, (silt out, light failure, whatever) both divers would know exactly where their emergency regulators where. (This cannot be said with 100% certainty with conventional method)
I think that the position is inherently ?higher risk? is untenable.


The answer to me would seem to be clear however. How about letting the student choose what ever method of AAS use they feel is most logical or they are most comfortable with having had the pros/cons of both shown to them?

As long as they choose one and practise what is the problem..?.?

What is wrong with letting them make an informed choice?

Why must our club impose yet another layer of needless legislation?

If you want to say there is risk involved with the donor being deprived of air for 2 seconds, then you MUST balance this against the risks involved with the method you are advocating PROPERLY or be prepared to face accusations of ?lack of due diligence? and ?narrow minded thinking?


Brian

[David Walker]

Should be balanced against:

The risk of an octopus becoming unhooked and not being where it is supposed to be when needed

Bad kit setup - same as if your setup 'defines' the alternative is around your nexk and it come loose / falls out / gets pulled out / not bothered to put it round your neck. Kit can be setup badly for any method, you can't compare a good primary-donate setup to a bad alternative-donate setup, just doesn't balance.

The risk of not being able to find the octopus in dark/silty water (so presumably, then fighting over the one in the donors mouth?)

So put it somewhere different. I've seen numerous people with it in different places, including through the shoulder strap as I mentioned elsewhere which is a matter of cm away from the position of the alternative when it's around the neck, and the same from the reg in your mouth.

The risk of octopuses being in numerous different places on each person?s kit (so not exactly a ?standard? approach; slightly different on everyone?s kit)

Is that a risk? And why is primary-donate suddenly the new standard? Why not make a new standard to be that the octo is always in the same place? You're advocating changing standards, so why make that the standard when any standard would do? Yes everyone's mouth is in the same place, but unless you get everyone in the world to be completely comfortable with that method then it is no better, and probably worse than recommending a standard place for the octo.

The risk of a panicked diver (the one without gas is most likely to panic) and taking the only reg they can see at that instant; the one in your mouth anyway.

A possibility, but then if a diver is well trained then that shouldn't be a problem. Most of the advocated of primary-donate seem think that any diver who is OOA will be panicking and so will suddenly rip the reg from your mouth, but at the same time think that the same person will act completely rationally when their own reg is ripped from their mouth... So we take this one diver, and if they lose their air 'naturally' then they panic, but if it is ripped from their mouth they will never ever panic and add to the situation developing?

I'm not against the idea for some diving, but I still just can't see the logic in the argument for teaching it to entry-level divers. The benefits are lost on me, and another point not mentioned above is that no one has to my mind satisfactority described how the kit would be setup which is cheap, easy, and available on hire / club kit everywhere... The main benefits come from a long hose, which the accepted standard tends to be Hog wrapping, which needs something to wrap it round and I can't see how that would work on ac conventional BCD. So to get the ideal primary donate setup everyone needs a wing and their own regs with long hoses, and will never dive on hire kit or club kit without reverting back the the 'usual' take the octo method... in which case why not use that for all recreational diving, so that wherever they dive and whoever they dive with they will know the practice. I would expect it to be very very very difficult to find someone who uses primary-donate to not have also learnt and tried taking the octo at some point...

David

[matts]

:=The manual emphasises the rescuer controlling the situation. I teach that the right hand takes secure grip of the OOAs BC while the right hand offers (or thrusts) the octo. I think it is important that the rescuer leaves no doubt in the OOAs mind as to what is going to happen next.
...

I wasn't going to get into this one (I've had the same arguments many many times) but I feel I need to comment on this last bit.

I had the argument on here when take the octo was introduced. I dislike it immensely. In these days of multiple gases and hard tethered backups there are logistical problems with a diver helping themselves to a regulator. At a fundamental level I regard it as planning to fail.

A well trained diver taught to signal will do exactly that. OOA divers may well grab regs from their buddies mouths, but you have to ask exactly how well trained are these people that manage to run OOA in the first place? Equipment failure is less frequent than failing to monitor contents or taking action when it gets low.

You SHOULDN'T be teaching Giving the octopus. You NEED to teach that the receiver takes a reg.That is what is stated in the manual.

That is not how I understand it. By all means provide a page reference, I have yet to completely digest the new instructor manual.

AIUI the BSAC way is currently that the first response is for the OOA to signal such. If the rescuer does not respond by offering the reg, the OOA then helps themselves. The preferred method has to be that both OOA and rescuer are clear as to what is going on. However BSAC can not ignore that PADI divers are taught to allow the OOA to help themselves - a liability issue founded in PADIs American origins. In the UK there are 'Good Samaritan' presidents which allow us to assist without having to worry quite so much about the lawyers.

Having tryed to find "standard" rigged octopus regs in low vis (as per most UK dives) and failed most times, I feel that discounting Primary donate is short-sighted.

There is no standard. Teach people an effective method of stowing an octo which you are personally happy with...and without being so pedantic as to discount octos altogether. My pool kit has an octo clipped onto the right shoulder, a few inches from where my tethered backup would be. BTW I did not nick it from PADI, I adopted it after talking it through with my techie trained BSAC mates years ago. My OW set has a soft tethered backup, it can be removed from the tether with a little effort.

With that in mind, fancy re-thinking your "leaves no doubt" bit.

I am not going to re-think it because it has a very clear purpose. Firstly it obviously helps and reassure the OOA. The secondary, but possibly greater benefit is that it reduces distress in the rescuer.

Stress is basically the physical and psychological effects of change. By teaching the rescuer to take a positive and definite action you are teaching the rescuer to channel stress reactions positively (known as eustress). In chemical terms the rescuer uses the adrenalin which enters their bloodstream to good effect (fight/flight) rather than letting it overwhelm them (panic).

John, I have carefully considered your posts on the subject (possibly a compliment ;~). You can teach primary donation after the course finishes. With a little though I am sure you can find a way to teach the principles you believe in within the framework that BSAC allow. A small compromise is all it takes.

[johnkendall]

John, I have carefully considered your posts on the subject (possibly a compliment ;~). You can teach primary donation after the course finishes. With a little though I am sure you can find a way to teach the principles you believe in within the framework that BSAC allow. A small compromise is all it takes.

I thank you for your consideration, It's always a nice change in this particular topic (which has had many heated arguments over the years).
I have already come up with suitable compromises that allow me to teach the way I want, within the BSAC restrictions (And this time it does not involve "stowing" my octo in my mouth). The various discussions over the years about this have caused me to have to think very very carefully about how we do things, and have enabled me to come up with a very good way of teaching this, that is easily adapted to primary donate once students have mastered "take the Octo". However, I'm not going to discribe it here, as there are some who are so deeply against primary donate that they will cause me headaches.

John

[TerryH]

Should be balanced against:

The risk of an octopus becoming unhooked and not being where it is supposed to be when needed
The risk of not being able to find the octopus in dark/silty water (so presumably, then fighting over the one in the donors mouth?)
The risk of octopuses being in numerous different places on each person?s kit (so not exactly a ?standard? approach; slightly different on everyone?s kit)
The risk of a panicked diver (the one without gas is most likely to panic) and taking the only reg they can see at that instant; the one in your mouth anyway.


All seems a flawed argument to me.

If we go for primary donate, it's generally accepted that we
need to teach and practice the technique. So why isnt the same
effort used to stow away the octo in a place where it wont
have muck on it and in a visable/accessable position where
it can be found?

Ok so let's cut to it's simplist form.

Risk 1: Panicked situation, cant find/use octo.
Risk 2: Panicked situation, both divers are without regs at
the same time.

Risk 1: Percentage of divers exposed to this risk?
Let's be generous and say that 25% may be suseptable.

Risk 2: Percentage of divers exposed to this risk?
100%.

Simple maths and a simple conclusion.

TerryH

[Brian C]

OK I think we have got to that impass point again so I would just like to finish (for me anyway)by skiping to the last part of my previous post.

The answer to me would seem to be clear however. How about letting the student choose what ever method of AAS use they feel is most logical or they are most comfortable with having had the pros/cons of both shown to them?

As long as they choose one and practise what is the problem..?.?

What is wrong with letting them make an informed choice?

Why must our club (BSAC)impose yet another layer of needless legislation?

I think it the very least it is clear that a solid argument can be shown in support of either method, so why can we not do the above and everyone is happy?

Thanks for the contributions, it was iluminating.

[iainmsmith]

OK I think we have got to that impass point again so I would just like to finish (for me anyway)by skiping to the last part of my previous post.

:=The answer to me would seem to be clear however. How about letting the student choose what ever method of AAS use they feel is most logical or they are most comfortable with having had the pros/cons of both shown to them?

:=As long as they choose one and practise what is the problem..?.?

:=What is wrong with letting them make an informed choice?

:=Why must our club (BSAC)impose yet another layer of needless legislation?

I think it the very least it is clear that a solid argument can be shown in support of either method, so why can we not do the above and everyone is happy?

Depending on how one reads the wording of LB's statement. one can. The student must master "conventional AAS" drills before they can be shown primary/backup. What we cannot do, as instructors, is to teach what a number of us (and I suspect that this includes you) believe to be best practice from day one.

I understand people's objections about this, but having taught three consecutive years of trainees to donate the primary before it was explicitly outlawed at entry-level (while also making them aware of octopus configurations) I feel that there is more concern to these, than actual problem. They, obviously, would disagree.

[TerryH]

:=OK I think we have got to that impass point again so I would just like to finish (for me anyway)by skiping to the last part of my previous post.
:=
:=:=The answer to me would seem to be clear however. How about letting the student choose what ever method of AAS use they feel is most logical or they are most comfortable with having had the pros/cons of both shown to them?
:=
:=:=As long as they choose one and practise what is the problem..?.?
:=
:=:=What is wrong with letting them make an informed choice?
:=
:=:=Why must our club (BSAC)impose yet another layer of needless legislation?
:=
:=I think it the very least it is clear that a solid argument can be shown in support of either method, so why can we not do the above and everyone is happy?

Depending on how one reads the wording of LB's statement. one can. The student must master "conventional AAS" drills before they can be shown primary/backup. What we cannot do, as instructors, is to teach what a number of us (and I suspect that this includes you) believe to be best practice from day one.

I understand people's objections about this, but having taught three consecutive years of trainees to donate the primary before it was explicitly outlawed at entry-level (while also making them aware of octopus configurations) I feel that there is more concern to these, than actual problem. They, obviously, would disagree.

Yes and "they" also have years of experience and plenty of
anecdotal evdence to support there point of view.

When we teach PADI we follow the syllabus. Same for TDI.
So what's so different about BSAC?

I bet we can all come up with something in a course we would
change or adapt to suit our own club and circumstance, but
that's not the course is it?

Nothing is stopping anybody teaching anything they want AFTER
the course standards have been met, so where is the problem.

When in Rome.

TerryH

[Mike Rowley]

From watching this thread develop I have to say, being open minded is an easy thing to accuse others of not being but seems to be a hard concept to actually practise!

When challenged we seem to all to often ?dig in and defend?

In my experience when people begin talking about being open minded they are usually referring to someone other than themselves who happens not to share their views.



I am sure that when devil gas was introduced (Nitrox) and met with a barrier of opposition, those opposing did not feel that they were being narrow minded, yet we look back now and are fairly unanimous that this was the case. I?d guess it was the same with ABLJ?s to BCD?s?

And computers, and dry suits etc etc. Some of the people that seem to be damned for narrow mindedness were actually in the forefront of not just welcoming but promoting most or all of these. Some have also progressed to rebreathers and mixed gas. Hardly narrow minded I would suggest.


From BSAC?s point of view, I think ?donating from the mouth puts the rescuer at increased risk? is only ?a fact? if you choose to look at it in total isolation which is, frankly, bad risk management.

Actually this was born out from incident report statistics. That is one of the main reasons for the transition from buddy breathing to AAS. I think that is called good risk analysis.


The risk of donating diver panicking and adding to the problem (Which, examining this thread seems to be the sole and tenuous argument for outlawing the teaching of the primary method)

It is the sole argument that you choose to identify. I note that you do not deal with the point that this technique is not compatible with all equipment configurations and is potentially very dangerous for rebreather divers.


The answer to me would seem to be clear however. How about letting the student choose what ever method of AAS use they feel is most logical or they are most comfortable with having had the pros/cons of both shown to them?

As long as they choose one and practise what is the problem..?.?


This is a skill that needs to be universal, it is not a personal skill that one can make a decision based on the risk or convenience to oneself. One cannot choose who one wishes to give gas to. When it happens it may well happen with someone you have not trained, dived with previously, are currently buddied with or even know. There is a need to have a technique or set of techniques that are generally well understood, accepted and if possible work for all kit configurations. It is a recipe for dissaster to have people teaching different techniques based on personal preferences when the skills required need to be instinctive and automatic for both the rescuer and casualty.

If primary donate/take is to be adopted it needs to be adopted by all of the training agencies not just one or two minority agencies and individual instructors who try to insert it into mainstream agencies teaching.

At the technical diving level the issue becomes somewhat secondary for as someone pointed out earlier, a technical diver should be able to cope with the removal of a regulator whithout too much distress. However, it is one thing to say this sitting in front of a keyboard but quite another when faced with someone at 70 m grabbing it without warning when you are just about to take a breath. However, at this level the issue moves much more towards personal redundancy gas and equipment, bailout provision and self sufficiency.

Frankly, I am not against having the debate. Personally, I am far from convinced that primary donate/take should be adopted as a universal technique.

However, whether it is or not it needs to be agreed, one way or another across all of the training agencies such that all divers understand and are prepared for what may happen. Currently that is not the case and as far as I am aware there is little impetus to do so globally. There may well be but I am unaware of it.

Mike

[matts]

I am sure that when devil gas was introduced (Nitrox) and met with a barrier of opposition, those opposing did not feel that they were being narrow minded, yet we look back now and are fairly unanimous that this was the case. I?d guess it was the same with ABLJ?s to BCD?s?

Yes I had plenty of opposition when I chose to train with IANTD. I believe the situation was very different. At the time the NDC had an outright ban on Nitrox. There was even a rumour that an NDC member once said 'Imagine what our lot would do with that' A ban on that basis is purely arrogant as it presumes that an NDC member is better than an ordinary member ever could be. I will dig my heels in and defend the principle that any BSAC diver may become every bit as good as any NDC member.

Primary donation is not absolutely prohibited. It is deemed inappropriate during basic training. Mandatory decompression and diving past 20m are also inappropriate at this stage.

The original post I made actually stated that I did NOT think forcing a student to donate their primary was a good idea, (so I don?t think that makes me narrow minded)

What I see as narrow minded is the inability to reach a compromise. At least two of use have managed to find a way to teach what we believe within the BSAC framework.

I suggested that they be shown both methods and then allowed to choose which they felt was the most logical/most comfortable with.

Is an OD in a position to make that choice? Some may be. I suspect that some are not. Some would choose not to learn mask clearing if we gave them the choice.

To genuinely asses risk then you must also look at the consequences and possible risks associated with what you ARE advocating, NOT just choosing to concentrate on one aspect of what you are opposing. If you do this then it suddenly does not look so clear cut (actually I think it does but in the opposite direction)

The best definition of technical diving I have heard goes like this; 'Technical diving is the systematic identification, removal, mitigation and final acceptance of risk.'
So I believe that risks must initially be considered in isolation. Teaching primary donation from day one fails to remove or mitigate the risk of panic in a trainee with no prior experience. The risk can be avoided if the trainee donates an octopus, or allows it to be taken.

EG
The risk of donating diver panicking and adding to the problem (Which, examining this thread seems to be the sole and tenuous argument for outlawing the teaching of the primary method)

There is nothing tenuous about the risk of panic when we first introduce people to the sport. 'I want to conquer my fear of water' is a fairly common reason to undertake diver training.

Should be balanced against:

The risk of an octopus becoming unhooked and not being where it is supposed to be when needed
The risk of not being able to find the octopus in dark/silty water
The risk of octopuses being in numerous different places on each person?s kit

These are all teaching opportunities which do not preclude an octo.

The risk of a panicked diver (the one without gas is most likely to panic) and taking the only reg they can see at that instant; the one in your mouth anyway.

Possibly not. An OOA who takes positive action they believe will improve their situation is dealing with the stress being OOA induces.

If you do not do this, then you stand the risk of looking decidedly like someone who has decided the answer and are then looking for rationales to support that predetermined stance.

You have not addressed the points I and others have raised. You have merely restated your position in greater detail.

When this single risk is measured against the benefits.
1, Regardless of whether the OOA diver grabs the reg or is passed it, the back up can be accessed virtually without hands in less than 2 seconds
2, the back-up is 100% sure to be where you left it; touching your chin
3, the back-up CAN?T become dislodged and drag in the silt
4, in the dark, (silt out, light failure, whatever) both divers would know exactly where their emergency regulators where. (This cannot be said with 100% certainty with conventional method)

The greatest problems arise underwater when things do not go the way we intended them to. There is so much certainty in your statement I tend to discount it. BTW I have seen primary donations go wrong, it is not as sure fire as you make out.

What is wrong with letting them make an informed choice?

Until they have some experience of the challenges of open water they can not make an informed choice. What they would end up doing is perhaps making a choice based on your perception.

Why must our club impose yet another layer of needless legislation?

You call it legislation, I call it progression!

If you want to say there is risk involved with the donor being deprived of air for 2 seconds, then you MUST balance this against the risks involved with the method you are advocating PROPERLY or be prepared to face accusations of ?lack of due diligence? and ?narrow minded thinking?

An inexperienced would-be rescuer does not HAVE to risk removing their regulator to assist an OOA. All things being equal their is little benefit in primary donation when all the regulators are connected to breathable gas.

BTW Brian there is a certain DIRness about your argument. If you aspire to DIR I think you should declare it as it is pertinent to the debate.

[matts]

At the technical diving level the issue becomes somewhat secondary for as someone pointed out earlier, a technical diver should be able to cope with the removal of a regulator whithout too much distress.

Yes, and there are experience based pre-requisites for entry into technical diver training schemes.

However, it is one thing to say this sitting in front of a keyboard but quite another when faced with someone at 70 m grabbing it without warning when you are just about to take a breath.

In fact the techie training courses I have completed are not so dissimilar to BSACs methods. The need for primary donation is identified (the presence of unsafe deco gas). The skill is then introduced in shallow water (6m) and progressed into deeper water on subsequent courses. I have to say that the drill is quite realistic. The last time I was assessed (adv tmx) required a 10m swim at 48m without breathing (reg in), approaching the donor from behind.

You made the point about rebreathers and BSAC have an awareness course for those wishing to dive with RB divers. There are increasing numbers of BSAC divers adopting a primary donation configuration but we currently have no guidance on teaching. I am a little concerned that BSAC are allowing divers to adopt a popular technique without providing a training mechanism. I would also welcome the opportunity to practise my own skills more regularly. Do you have any thoughts on the subject?

However, at this level the issue moves much more towards personal redundancy gas and equipment, bailout provision and self sufficiency.

If nothing else the techie courses have focused my mind on the importance of teaching divers not to ever run out of gas and to stay in contact with their buddies should it happen anyway.




Frankly, I am not against having the debate. Personally, I am far from convinced that primary donate/take should be adopted as a universal technique.

However, whether it is or not it needs to be agreed, one way or another across all of the training agencies such that all divers understand and are prepared for what may happen. Currently that is not the case and as far as I am aware there is little impetus to do so globally. There may well be but I am unaware of it.

Mike

[Mike Rowley]

Matt

You made the point about rebreathers and BSAC have an awareness course for those wishing to dive with RB divers. There are increasing numbers of BSAC divers adopting a primary donation configuration but we currently have no guidance on teaching. I am a little concerned that BSAC are allowing divers to adopt a popular technique without providing a training mechanism. I would also welcome the opportunity to practise my own skills more regularly. Do you have any thoughts on the subject?

My view is simply that we should not adopt primary donation for the reasons I have outlined. I have serious doubts about adopting an emergency technique that does not work at all levels and with all kit configurations. I would much prefer to have a universal technique that allows a conditioned response that works in all cases and one that all divers would be familliar with.

I have to say I am not convinced that primary donate is that popular merely on the basis on what I see on the internet. I dont see too much evidence of it elsewhere. I am not aware of any evidence (not anecdotal)to support assertions of its popularity.

That said I agree that we should teach people to cope with having their primary regulator grabbed by a panicking diver, in so far as we can do this safely. Given that some instructors are teaching people do do this as a conditioned first response then clearly we have to address the problem that people may find themselves on the wrong end of someone trained in this way. I am not so familiar with the air diver training sylabus these days but I thought this is catered for within it.

Again, I would stress that this is my personal view and should not be taken as the view of BSAC.

Mike

[iainmsmith]

Yes and "they" also have years of experience and plenty of
anecdotal evdence to support there point of view.

OK - I was going to try to avoid doing this, but let's have a look at the anecdotes discussed:

Unless I have completely misunderstood one case, we have an example of a diver who forgot to purge a reg (basic skills failure), had her equipment set up incorrectly (failure of basic skills and failure of buddy check), didn't give an OOA signal (failure of basic skills/beginnings of panic), took her buddies primary (DESPITE basic training), failed to purge that, grabbed the buddy's secondary and failed to purge it.

Now, if I went for two different regs, neither of which appeared to work, I'd probably be getting rather stressed myself. But note what happened when panic set in. She went straight for the buddy's primary. Now, imagine this buddy had been a similarly inexperienced diver who had no experience of having their reg suddenly removed. Now you're in _real_ trouble...and THAT is the situation that most divers are in.

On the other hand, if you TEACH donating the primary and teach "AAS in, then recover primary" as part of the reg recovery drill (something which, BTW, our students are far, far better at remembering to do than am I, because they've never known anything different) then there's an increased chance that there will be a happy outcome for both divers.

The second example was that of an SD trainee who panicked while buddy-breathing, some way into the assessment. (I forget whether it was 15m or 6m BB ascents in the old SD scheme). What has to be remembered is that BB ascents were _extremely_ stressful, especially with the inexperience of an SD trainee and the pressure of doing as an assessment. Trainees tended to hyperventilate when BB'ing - I know of at least two who had early signs of hypocarbia (too little CO2 in the blood) - and that deep hurried breathing will _make_ a diver feel stressed, even if metally they are trying to relax (for information, there is good evidence that emotions are driven to a large part by signals from the body, _not_ the other way round).

I can see the comparison being made, but I find it very difficult to accept that one can reasonably compare the stress of an assessed Assisted Ascent with the simplicity of handing off the primary reg and popping a backup in.

When we teach PADI we follow the syllabus. Same for TDI.
So what's so different about BSAC?

Who is discussing anything about whether the syllabus is being followed? The thread has been about whether something can be taught and whether it should be taught as part of the entry level course (implicit in the latter, is that if it should, a change to syllabus would be required).

However, it may interest to you know that there is at least one PADI school in the UK who do teach donating the primary on a long hose as part of their OW course. While I have no connectiong with them, I am lead to believe that this has been run past PADI to confirm that it is acceptable. There are no prizes for guessing what GUE will teach in terms of OOA drills when they finally launch their OW course (rumour has it in the first half of next year).

One should also consider that an increasing number of divers are adopting a primary/backup configuration (in my Branch, for example, it's almost universal). I believe that trainees should, as part of their formal training, be made familiar with this configuration, how to use it and what to expect. As I've pointed out elsewhere in the thread, this configuration provides for a standardised response to ANY unexpected "primary out" situation (which no-one on the "anti" side seems willing to acknowledge the benefits of). Anyone remember the emphasis in the DTP of "repetetion, repetition, repetition"?

Nothing is stopping anybody teaching anything they want AFTER
the course standards have been met, so where is the problem.

Last time I looked, we had all agreed on this...

When in Rome.

And you'll doubtless remember what happened to Rome.

Iain

[iainmsmith]

My view is simply that we should not adopt primary donation for the reasons I have outlined. I have serious doubts about adopting an emergency technique that does not work at all levels and with all kit configurations.

Mike,

It sounds like you're ruling out primary donation in ALL situations. Have I misunderstood you?

I would much prefer to have a universal technique that allows a conditioned response that works in all cases and one that all divers would be familliar with.

Is there such a technique? Conventional use of an octopus relies on the octopus a) existing, b) being where it is supposed to be, c) being accessed easily by both divers, and d) not losing the mouthpiece when it's deployed.

I've certainly been involved in situations where b), c) and d) did not apply and while lack of an octopus is a rare problem in the UK, I recently noted a foreign diving operation where some individuals were put in the water without a second DV and some of those who had them had them neatly secured away somewhere inside a pocket. I do not know the experience of all of these divers, but I suspect that what I would regard as an improperly set-up octopus is more common worldwide than most realise - certainly, on all foreign diving trips where the boat has not been exclusively filled with UK-trained divers, I have noticed more than one person with such a setup.

I have to say I am not convinced that primary donate is that popular merely on the basis on what I see on the internet. I dont see too much evidence of it elsewhere. I am not aware of any evidence (not anecdotal)to support assertions of its popularity.

Admittedly, I don't think anyone has done any sort of scientifically robust survey of configurations used by recreational divers, but if you've been to Stoney, Gildy or Portland (my normal stomping grounds) repeatedly over recent years, it would be hard not to notice the ever-increasing numbers.

As far as rebreathers go, I do _not_ have a definite answer. I have not been in the position of diving with a rebreather diver, so it's not something I've had to worry about. However, I know that GUE _do_ have a protocol for it, but I can't tell you what it is. It almost certainly does not involve the mouthpiece being taken. However, if one thinks about the competence of diver that does their RB courses, I'm not sure it's something that is particularly relevant.

What, on the other hand, would you do if suddenly presented with a panicking diver who _did_ remove the RB mouthpiece as in Matt's example?

What I personally would like to see is a return to giving an AAS signal (I'm reasonably sure that a large number of BSAC instructors are still using the AAS signal as part of their training, as per the syllabus, if not in the final assessments). This conditions divers to indicate the nature of their problem (in non-panicked situations) and provides the donor with the opportunity to hand off whatever they like from wherever they like. That, to me, would be a good conditioned response to train into people. In the situation of a panicked diver, I don't think it matters what you have taught them - a high proportion of them are still going to go straight for the primary.

That said I agree that we should teach people to cope with having their primary regulator grabbed by a panicking diver, in so far as we can do this safely.

Agreed.

Given that some instructors are teaching people do do this as a conditioned first response then clearly we have to address the problem that people may find themselves on the wrong end of someone trained in this way.

If that refers to me and my fellow Branch instructors, let me be absolutely clear: For three years, we did teach donating the primary as part of our CD/OD course. After the formal statement from the LB, we were unable to continue doing so and now teach it as an additional technique after the traditional method has been mastered.

However, as an increasing number of divers _are_ adopting this configuration (and therefore practicing conventional AAS skills less and less frequently), I agree completely with your desire to ensure that all trainees _can_ deal with such a situation.

Iain

[tony dwyer]

I can see the comparison being made, but I find it very difficult to accept that one can reasonably compare the stress of an assessed Assisted Ascent with the simplicity of handing off the primary reg and popping a backup in.

My point is simple. The diver that panicked was engaged in an exercise that he had practiced and that he 'expected'. He was not surprised by another diver suddenly ripping his air supply away. In addition he knew that the other two divers present had lots of air and that one was an instructor. A much safer situation than one occuring at depth where at least one diver has no air at all and the other may (probably) be getting a bit low. I reckon that's a much more stressful situation than a simple training exercise being conducted in warmish shallow water (from 6 mtrs) in good viz.

[TerryH]

Unless I have completely misunderstood one case, we have an example of a diver who forgot to purge a reg (basic skills failure), had her equipment set up incorrectly (failure of basic skills and failure of buddy check), didn't give an OOA signal (failure of basic skills/beginnings of panic), took her buddies primary (DESPITE basic training), failed to purge that, grabbed the buddy's secondary and failed to purge it.


Well yes you have completely misunderstood the evidence.
Why on earth do you think that so many are anti-grab primary?
(At least in basic courses).

Might it just be because they all have personal experience of
problems associated with regs being out! Might be a a basic
OOA drill or something as simple as reg recovery, but it's an
absolute FACT, that just as some have problems with mask
celaring and never really like it. Same have problems with
having a reg out of there mouths.

Now in time these fears will be squashed and yes they will soon
be wipping of the mask and doing reg switcing like billio, but
NOT NOW!

And you'll doubtless remember what happened to Rome.


Yep, they conquered half the known world (including us) and
were No1 for at least 2 centuries!

TerryH

[TerryH]

If that refers to me and my fellow Branch instructors, let me be absolutely clear: For three years, we did teach donating the primary as part of our CD/OD course. After the formal statement from the LB, we were unable to continue doing so and now teach it as an additional technique after the traditional method has been mastered.

However, as an increasing number of divers _are_ adopting this configuration (and therefore practicing conventional AAS skills less and less frequently), I agree completely with your desire to ensure that all trainees _can_ deal with such a situation.


Well done Iain. Along with teaching grab octo and ask for octo,
we now have to practice grab primary!

I teach our lot how to use PADI RDP & wheel, just in case.
Seems I now have to run through grab primary or rather what to
do if someone grabs your primary, again just in case.

TerryH

[Mike Rowley]

It sounds like you're ruling out primary donation in ALL situations. Have I misunderstood you?

I am saying that, I am not convinced that primary donate is an appropriate technique for teaching as a conditioned response. So no, I don't think you have misunderstood me.

Conventional use of an octopus relies on the octopus a) existing, b) being where it is supposed to be, c) being accessed easily by both divers, and d) not losing the mouthpiece when it's deployed.

Agreed, and it is the result of good teaching of a universally agreed technique. Your last point applies equally to primary donate as they do to AAS. Your first point relies on the would be rescuer being willing to allow the reg to be pulled from his/her mouth. We are in danger of straying into comparing the worst and best depending on our individual views here.


As far as rebreathers go, I do _not_ have a definite answer. I have not been in the position of diving with a rebreather diver, so it's not something I've had to worry about.

Rebreathers are a fact now and are becoming more widespread. Their use is bound to increase in the future. You may even find yourself moving to one. They and the implications of diving with them have to be considered when formulating policy, particularly when a conditioned response may have dangerous consequences when applied to them.


However, if one thinks about the competence of diver that does their RB courses, I'm not sure it's something that is particularly relevant.

The BSAC Inspiration Rebreather Course (which is being launched at DOC on Saturday) is open to Sports Divers with Adv Nitrox certification. I think you will find that TDI and IANTD have similar entry level.

What, on the other hand, would you do if suddenly presented with a panicking diver who _did_ remove the RB mouthpiece as in Matt's example?

The possibility is that the panicking diver would not be able to make good use of the mouthpiece. They would not be used to a rebreather mouthpiece, it would not be positioned for them to easily use, they would have to be very close to the rebreather diver for them to access it so that adds to the difficulty. If they managed to get the mouthpiece it would have water in it and unless they had been trained to clear a rebreather mouthpiece they would, at best experience difficulty and at worst get a plug of water to breathe. Finally the rebreather breathing loop could be flooded. This may cause a small loss of buoyancy to the rebreather diver. If the flood renders the rebreather unuseable by the time the rebreather diver retrieved it then it is of no use to either diver. This would not be a major problem for the rebreather diver since by now he/she will have transferred to their OC bailout. However, that does beg the question of what does the casualty do for a gas supply now?

I wuld argue that it is far better for divers to be conditioned to go for a clearly displayed AAS, then the above is much less likely to arise.

What I personally would like to see is a return to giving an AAS signal (I'm reasonably sure that a large number of BSAC instructors are still using the AAS signal as part of their training, as per the syllabus, if not in the final assessments). This conditions divers to indicate the nature of their problem (in non-panicked situations) and provides the donor with the opportunity to hand off whatever they like from wherever they like. That, to me, would be a good conditioned response to train into people.

Agreed.

In the situation of a panicked diver, I don't think it matters what you have taught them - a high proportion of them are still going to go straight for the primary.

I find that much less easy to accept. My experience tends to suggest conditioning/training can play a very big part in initial and instinctive responses. That is one reason why all diver training has a high element of skill repetition.
.

:=Given that some instructors are teaching people do do this as a conditioned first response then clearly we have to address the problem that people may find themselves on the wrong end of someone trained in this way.

If that refers to me and my fellow Branch instructors,

Not specifically Iain and it wasn't a dig so don't take it personally.

Mike

[iainmsmith]

:=
:=Unless I have completely misunderstood one case, we have an example of a diver who forgot to purge a reg (basic skills failure), had her equipment set up incorrectly (failure of basic skills and failure of buddy check), didn't give an OOA signal (failure of basic skills/beginnings of panic), took her buddies primary (DESPITE basic training), failed to purge that, grabbed the buddy's secondary and failed to purge it.
:=

Well yes you have completely misunderstood the evidence.

I don't think so - someone forgetting to press a purge button is someone forgetting to press a purge button, irrespective of configuration. That it sounds as though her kit was improperly set up complicated the issue. It's a situation that could have arisen (regardless of configuration) on any dive if a reg was kicked out with a fin, caught on wreckage, etc. It _might_ have had a different outcome if the student's conditioned response had been to put a (properly arranged!) backup in and press the purge button.

Why on earth do you think that so many are anti-grab primary?
(At least in basic courses).

Might it just be because they all have personal experience of
problems associated with regs being out! Might be a a basic
OOA drill or something as simple as reg recovery, but it's an
absolute FACT, that just as some have problems with mask
celaring and never really like it. Same have problems with
having a reg out of there mouths.

Now in time these fears will be squashed and yes they will
soon be wipping of the mask and doing reg switcing like
billio, but NOT NOW!

So if the students can't cope donating a primary, why assume they are capable of dealing with any unexpected "reg-out" situation? And if we can't be certain that they _can_ deal with it, what are we doing certifying them as divers? Being able to deal with your main DV coming out is a basic skill. The more often they do it, the more comfortable they will be and the better they will cope when it happens for real.

:= And you'll doubtless remember what happened to Rome.
:=
Yep, they conquered half the known world (including us) and
were No1 for at least 2 centuries!

Oy! Less of the "us", if you don't mind. :-)

Rome, as I recall, had a rather sticky end, although my classics are not good enough to state with certainty that it was because they failed to adapt to other ways of thinking...

Iain
(Born significantly further north than the Antonine wall!)

[iainmsmith]

:=
:=If that refers to me and my fellow Branch instructors, let me be absolutely clear: For three years, we did teach donating the primary as part of our CD/OD course. After the formal statement from the LB, we were unable to continue doing so and now teach it as an additional technique after the traditional method has been mastered.
:=
:=However, as an increasing number of divers _are_ adopting this configuration (and therefore practicing conventional AAS skills less and less frequently), I agree completely with your desire to ensure that all trainees _can_ deal with such a situation.
:=

Well done Iain. Along with teaching grab octo and ask for
octo, we now have to practice grab primary!

Unless I'm misreading the intensely sarcastic tone of the above, yes, that's _exactly_ what I mean. If you don't want the students to be grabbing eachothers primary's then make it something only the instructor does and tell them not to practise it without an instructor (I'm sure you can cook up a scary enough reason to avoid practising it)

I teach our lot how to use PADI RDP & wheel, just in case.
Seems I now have to run through grab primary or rather what
to do if someone grabs your primary, again just in case.

That would seem to have rather more relevance to increasingly common practice in UK diving than the PADI RDP and wheel, so why not?

Iain

[Philip Smith]

:=From BSAC?s point of view, I think ?donating from the mouth puts the rescuer at increased risk? is only ?a fact? if you choose to look at it in total isolation which is, frankly, bad risk management.

Actually this was born out from incident report statistics. That is one of the main reasons for the transition from buddy breathing to AAS. I think that is called good risk analysis.

If I understand this correctly, you are saying that there is evidence that donating from the mouth puts the rescuer at increased risk because the incident statistics show that buddy breathing (sharing the donor's primary DV) is more risky than donating an alternative air source. There are two points about this. Firstly, there is a world of difference between two divers sharing a single DV and primary donate/use tethered backup. No matter how much you disapprove of the latter technique, it cannot be seriously argued that the risk is equivalent to that of buddy breathing. Secondly, although I (like most, I imagine) judge that buddy breathing is more risky than AAS use, I am not convinced that the incident statistics of recent years actually substantiate that judgement. I particularly doubt that the incident stats show that teaching BB as a secondary technique to AAS use (i.e. the scheme prior to the BB ban) resulted in a conditioned response of primary donate in most cases. If an analysis with this conclusion has been published, I would be interested to be referred to it. The stats available online show that during a period when BB was still taught the most common first response to an OOA situation was the buddy offering their AAS.

I am of the opinion that providing an OOA diver with air _is_ a type of rescue and that the rescuer should not put themselves at undue risk. In the past, I have argued against primary donate on the basis that if the tethered backup does not work for whatever reason, there will be two stressed divers and the 'rescuer' may have to try to initiate buddy breathing of his primary (the receiver would not be expecting to have to relinquish it), or breathe off his BC inflator. On the other hand, the arguments for a necklaced backup and a single response to buddy OOA, dropped/snatched primary, failed primary, etc. are strong.

In relation to entry level courses, the main difficulty seems to arise because BSAC have moved away from receiver-signals/donor-offers-a-DV to receiver-signals/receiver-grabs-a-DV. It is understandably seen as undesirable at an early stage to teach trainees to grab their buddy's primary DV from their mouth, but grabbing at an octo stowed elsewhere is considered acceptable. If the receiver is able to signal, I see no reason why the donor cannot give them whichever valve they wished from whatever location they choose to keep it (retainer, scumball, bungy, mouth). Once that was mastered, the training scheme could move onto training divers for the situation where a panicked diver grabbed their octo, then later their primary DV.

Phil S

[TerryH]

:=I teach our lot how to use PADI RDP & wheel, just in case.
:=Seems I now have to run through grab primary or rather what
:=to do if someone grabs your primary, again just in case.

That would seem to have rather more relevance to increasingly common practice in UK diving than the PADI RDP and wheel, so why not?


Absolute ^&**)()()

Whats a definition of "common practice"?
40% grab primary/long hose etc, 50%?
I'd hazard a guess and say that you'd struggle to get to 10%
of UK divers on that.

So at what point would we need to train for grab primary?
Well it's 100% certain that UK divers will at some time
encounter a PADI diver, hence the RDP.
Less than 10% (probably a lot less) will encounter a long hose
diver as a buddy.

There is IMO only one real argument in favor of grabbing the
primary, the right mix for the depth.

TerryH

[iainmsmith]

:=
:=:=I teach our lot how to use PADI RDP & wheel, just in case.
:=:=Seems I now have to run through grab primary or rather what
:=:=to do if someone grabs your primary, again just in case.
:=
:=That would seem to have rather more relevance to increasingly common practice in UK diving than the PADI RDP and wheel, so why not?
:=

Whats a definition of "common practice"?
40% grab primary/long hose etc, 50%?
I'd hazard a guess and say that you'd struggle to get to 10%
of UK divers on that.

So at what point would we need to train for grab primary?
Well it's 100% certain that UK divers will at some time
encounter a PADI diver, hence the RDP. Less than 10% (probably a lot less) will encounter a long
hose diver as a buddy.

Indeed, probably a poor comparison on my part, though I've never yet had to use RDP despite diving with a number of PADI-trained divers...primarily because they've been quite happy to follow their computers. I suspect that a significant majority of divers on these fora either use or know someone who uses a primary/backup configuration. It may be extrapolating too far to draw the conclusion that this is representative of BSAC Branches as a whole - it would be an interesting statistic.

OTOH, I would argue that every dive exposes a diver to the risk of an unexpectedly dislodged/grabbed primary.

There is IMO only one real argument in favor of grabbing the
primary, the right mix for the depth.

My turn to say, "Absolute ^&**)()()"?
I'm surprised that you don't regard speed and reliability of response, a _practised_ response to a panicked diver and a standard technique for all OC lost primary situations to be "real arguments in favour".

Iain

[David Walker]

I suspect that a significant majority of divers on these fora either use or know someone who uses a primary/backup configuration. It may be extrapolating too far to draw the conclusion that this is representative of BSAC Branches as a whole - it would be an interesting statistic.

Hmmm... well I probably know around 60 divers well enough to know their kit config - or probably around 25 who have progressed beyond Ocean / Sports Diver and have their own kit to play around with, etc. Of those, I don't know a single one who has ever mentioned anything about donating the primary, and certainly not setup with long hoses. This is from two completely separate branches, doing completely different types of diving. I'm sure you could probably find another club where more than half do use the donate the primary - most likely clubs with one or two key instructors who make sure that absolutely everyone is told the 'best' way to do things.

David

[TerryH]

My turn to say, "Absolute ^&**)()()"?
I'm surprised that you don't regard speed and reliability of response, a _practised_ response to a panicked diver and a standard technique for all OC lost primary situations to be "real arguments in favour".


Why should I, because it's utter &*(*((*&(

An octo thats stowed in a visable and known position is as
accessable as the one in somebodies mouth. I've yet to see
a clip or bit of velcro as resistant to taking a reg as a
mouth and set of teeth that doesnt know the regs comming out!!!

Reliabilty of response is entirely down to the individual and
training. We all accept that BOTH methods require this and
when making a comparison with a trained diver, should be
equally as effective.

What's more standard than the technique adopted by 90%
(probably more) of the worlds divers!!!!!!

Panicked diver??????
My buddy has a problem. He grabs my Octo and even if I wasnt
expecting it, we get a grip (literally) and I carry on
breathing as normal. After all nothing has changed for me.
I had a reg in my mouth, I still have a reg in my mouth.

My buddy has a problem. He grabs my primary just as I was
about to take a breath and I'm switching to my 2nd.
Trouble is that the same spurious argument about a working reg
in a panic now kicks in and I have a 50/50 chance that this reg
wont work (cant have it both ways).

Now we really are in a state. He is just recovering from a
potential panic and wont give up my (working) primary no
matter what. I'm struggling as I was OOA when he took it.
My 2nd/octo isnt working and my only option is to buddy breath
which even if I had trained how to do it, is gonna be tricky
when he refuses to give me the reg back!!!!!

And this is a good scenario for a newly trained green
diver !!!!!!!

TerryH

[Dave]

Much though it's a rarity I again find myself agreeing with TerryH. Teaching people to operate in the way that nearly all other divers operate has got to be the best way at an entry level. I have yet to see anyone using long hoses down here in downsideupland.

Also, consider, it is basically an impossibility to take the regulator from the mouth of some divers; it is not an easy task to remove an Aga Divator from my face whilst taking the normally stored AAS is pretty easy

There can be arguments for different approaches, but imo, the safest , most sensible training method at this level is to teach the divers to work in the most common method

Dave

[matts]

Matt

:=You made the point about rebreathers and BSAC have an awareness course for those wishing to dive with RB divers. There are increasing numbers of BSAC divers adopting a primary donation configuration but we currently have no guidance on teaching. I am a little concerned that BSAC are allowing divers to adopt a popular technique without providing a training mechanism. I would also welcome the opportunity to practise my own skills more regularly. Do you have any thoughts on the subject?

My view is simply that we should not adopt primary donation for the reasons I have outlined.

I don't know what your experience of ERD diving is Mike, but I can assure you there are very good reasons why the Technical agencies teach primary donation. Frankly we (ERD divers) are not stupid, in most cases quite the opposite.

It is not a matter of BSAC 'approval'. The lesson from Nitrox, Trimix and CCR is possibly that BSAC can not dictate what divers choose to do. You can argue that primary donation is fundamentally dangerous if you like, but it is unlikely to change the minds of those who have chosen to adopt it. In fact such debates only ever damage BSAC by driving out those that disagree.

I would say the debate at this point borders on the nature of BSAC. Does it exist to prohibit or guide? I firmly believe the latter.

I have serious doubts about adopting an emergency technique that does not work at all levels and with all kit configurations.

That Nirvana ceased to exist when divers started carrying a 2nd regulator. We can not turn back the clock, we can only adapt to the present.

I would much prefer to have a universal technique that allows a conditioned response that works in all cases and one that all divers would be familliar with.

Yes it would be nice but I would like to win the lottery and that is just as likely. Sorry for the flipancy, but you are telling us what you personally want when the question I asked is, how do we deal with what is in front of us?

I have to say I am not convinced that primary donate is that popular merely on the basis on what I see on the internet.

I have been ERD diving 7 years. I recently stood down as chair of one of BSACs largest and oldest South Coast branches. My proffessional life borders on the dive industry. If anything I would say that CCRs are over represented on the Internet.

I dont see too much evidence of it elsewhere. I am not aware of any evidence (not anecdotal)to support assertions of its popularity.

CCR users make up less than 2% of my branch membership. 4% are trimix trained. Over 30% dive twinsets regularly and most are rigged for primary donation. Of that 30% less than half have been formally ERD trained - i.e. trained to use the kit config they have chosen. I call that a gap in training.

Our branch usually reflects the general situation on the South Coast. Diving the 25m to 50m range from Littlehampton to Portland, I might see a couple CCRs a couple singles and the rest of the boat is filled with twinsets, the majority using a long hose and tethered backup.

That said I agree that we should teach people to cope with having their primary regulator grabbed by a panicking diver, in so far as we can do this safely.

We are not actually agreeing. I am talking about teaching a technique which is a valid procedure for divers carrying multiple gases. No one is panicking.

Given that some instructors are teaching people do do this as a conditioned first response

BSAC are somewhat unusual in teaching Advanced Nitrox (Hi FO2 decompression) without teaching primary donate.

then clearly we have to address the problem that people may find themselves on the wrong end of someone trained in this way.

The problem I am seeking to address is that of divers rigged for a procedure they have never practised or seen demonstrated.

Again, I would stress that this is my personal view and should not be taken as the view of BSAC.

It is always interesting to hear thank you Mike.

[Philip Smith]

Of that 30% less than half have been formally ERD trained - i.e. trained to use the kit config they have chosen. I call that a gap in training.

Is it a gap? Perhaps they are self-trained or informally trained by fellow branch members. Providing the DO is satisfied they can use their kit safely, do we really need a certificate for everything?

Phil S

[Mike Rowley]

Hi Matt

I don't know what your experience of ERD diving is Mike, but I can assure you there are very good reasons why the Technical agencies teach primary donation.

Deep air diving to a max of 68m since about 1978/9. IANTD ADV Nitrox Diver 1995,IANTD Nitrox Instr 1995, TDI Trimix diver 1997, BSAC ERD Instr No 018.

I would hope you might concede I might just have a little understanding about why various techniques are taught. I would also like to think I have sufficient experience to take an informed view whilst not denying others their right to hold a different view. I am well aware why some (not all) technical instructors choose to teach primary donation. Frankly, the main convincing reason for this, in my view is that it should be a known safe gas for the casualty. However, even technical divers don't carry a travel gas and a redundant travel gas or similar for decompression gas. The accent for technical divers must move towards self sufficiency of bailout options within their gas plan. I would envisage BSAC trimix courses reflecting this.


It is not a matter of BSAC 'approval'. The lesson from Nitrox, Trimix and CCR is possibly that BSAC can not dictate what divers choose to do. You can argue that primary donation is fundamentally dangerous if you like, but it is unlikely to change the minds of those who have chosen to adopt it. In fact such debates only ever damage BSAC by driving out those that disagree.

I don't think I mentioned BSAC approval anywhere Matt. I have been careful to stress that these are my views and not necessarily those of BSAC. However, I do believe that BSAC is entitled to lay down what it believes are guidlines for safe diving. As an organisation it is not only responsible for training its members but also for their diving when that diving is carried out within the organisation. Most other commercial based training agencies only have responsibility for the training. I hope you would agree that this is a big difference in liability.

BSAC has moved forward on a number of issues in recent times including allowing trimix to 70m and rebreathers within branch diving. There is more to come. We in the NDC Technical Group are very accutely aware that BSAC has been loosing many of its more experienced and adventurous divers simply because there was not a natural home for them within the organisation, we hope to change that perception with the support of the NDO who is a technical diver and instructor herself. However, I can't see the issue of whether or not primary donate/take is adopted by BSAC is of such major importance that it would cause someone to leave. If it is then the importance of BSAC to their diving is somewhat tenuous I would suggest.

=

Sorry for the flipancy, but you are telling us what you personally want when the question I asked is, how do we deal with what is in front of us?

I think I did answer your question. I do believe that we have to train people to cope with someone wrenching their primary reg from their mouth. The fact that some divers have been taught this means that we have to. I do not think we should teach primary donate/take as an accepted technique unless it becomes the international standard. In which case we may be forced to but I don't see any evidence that it will do.


I have been ERD diving 7 years. I recently stood down as chair of one of BSACs largest and oldest South Coast branches. My proffessional life borders on the dive industry. If anything I would say that CCRs are over represented on the Internet.

I see about 300 - 400 different divers during the course of a season (I run a SW charter boat). I am seeing a steady increase in rebreathers year on year.I have even seen some groups where rebreathers have made up 80% of the group's divers although this is rare. Future developments in CCRs will probably mean that basic CE marked manual CCRs will become available to us at a price that begins to be competetive with twinset etc. These units will probably be modular and capable of upgrading to full electronic control. The masive gas efficiency of CCRs particularly when considering trimix will dictate their increasing popularity. I don't know the exact figures but something in the region of 8000 Inspirations have been sold and most of these will be in the UK. I think that constitutes more than 2% of the active divers in the UK. Rebreathers will become a (note; I'm not saying the) mainstream choice for divers in the future. Any policy choices BSAC makes in its guidance and training must take account of them.

Of that 30% less than half have been formally ERD trained - i.e. trained to use the kit config they have chosen. I call that a gap in training.

I can agree with you there. The remit of the Technical Group on NDC is to develop a full BSAC technical training programme for its members for both OC and rebreathers. I foresee that at some point in the not too distance future we will regard nitrox as the gas of choice to a maximum of 40m and trimix the gas of choice from there on. As rebreathers become increasingly popular air will only be a gas one uses to dilute the oxygen. Now theres a thought, I can chuck away my compressor and get a booster!

Mike

[matts]

Sorry Iain I missed your earlier post. You have made several assumptions about the incident which I would like to clear up.

Unless I have completely misunderstood one case, we have an example of a diver who forgot to purge a reg (basic skills failure)

The problem stems from the diver's unfamilliarity with a side valve regulator design. I warned her about the wet breath and had her operate the purge with the reg in her mouth on dry land. Underwater she failed to properly purge the reg and panicked when she got a gob full of cold water.

, had her equipment set up incorrectly (failure of basic skills and failure of buddy check),

Stringing an octo under the chin is quite common. I don't like it personally but there you go. Again I pointed out that the reg was upside down for her use, she assured me that she knew how to breathe from it and demonstrated such during our briefing.

didn't give an OOA signal (failure of basic skills/beginnings of panic)

Actually she did signal OOA...a couple times.

, took her buddies primary (DESPITE basic training)

The only thing I can see that she forgot to do was recover her main reg. She was holding her main in her hand when she first tried to use my octo but dropped it when she got the mouthful of water. There was a lot of arm flailing going on and I could not get to her main without risking a punch in the face.

She took the reg out of my mouth AFTER her training failed to resolve the problem.

, failed to purge that, grabbed the buddy's secondary and failed to purge it.

My primary and secondary were of similar design.

:=Well yes you have completely misunderstood the evidence

I don't think so - someone forgetting to press a purge button is someone forgetting to press a purge button, irrespective of configuration.

The purge button was pressed, but not hard enough or long enough to completely clear the reg.

My original account was never intended for a PM.
You have jumped to a conclusion based on half the evidence.

It's a situation that could have arisen (regardless of configuration) on any dive if a reg was kicked out with a fin, caught on wreckage, etc.

Absolutely.

It _might_ have had a different outcome if the student's conditioned response had been to put a (properly arranged!) backup in and press the purge button.

I tend to think that any unexpected event would have caused her to panic at that time.

So if the students can't cope donating a primary, why assume they are capable of dealing with any unexpected "reg-out" situation?

Having a reg out was not a problem we had completed reg retrieval immediately prior. If there had been any indication of a confidence problem I would not have progressed onto the AAS drill.

And if we can't be certain that they _can_ deal with it, what are we doing certifying them as divers?

We are complying with the wishes of the BSAC. I would personally like everyone to do at least one mask clear with their eyes open. I can not force anyone to do so. This particular diver had demonstrated all the skills she had been shown without a problem up to this point.

Being able to deal with your main DV coming out is a basic skill. The more often they do it, the more comfortable they will be and the better they will cope when it happens for real.

Could not agree more.

Personally during pool training I focus heavily on mask and reg clearing. A diver MUST be able to do these things for themselves. I was not involved in this ladies pool training.

[matts]

I would hope you might concede I might just have a little understanding about why various techniques are taught.

Clearly. I admit that I may have misunderstood your earlier reply to Iain
IS "It sounds like you're ruling out primary donation in ALL situations. Have I misunderstood you?"
MR "...So no, I don't think you have misunderstood me."

Frankly, the main convincing reason for this, in my view is that it should be a known safe gas for the casualty.

We appear to agree on the reason and legitimacy of primary donate.

I don't think I mentioned BSAC approval anywhere Matt.

Granted. I may have briefly 'gone off on one.'

I have been careful to stress that these are my views and not necessarily those of BSAC. However, I do believe that BSAC is entitled to lay down what it believes are guidlines for safe diving.

Agreed.

As an organisation it is not only responsible for training its members but also for their diving when that diving is carried out within the organisation. Most other commercial based training agencies only have responsibility for the training. I hope you would agree that this is a big difference in liability.

Yes I follow that. What I am saying is that we have a bunch of our divers doing something and I would like to see formal guidance on the how and why. At the moment the internet is providing much of the guidance and I do not regard that as a particularly healthy thing. I fully admit to holding the possibly idealistic view that BSAC should be able to accommodate and guide 99% of divers - which would include primary donating mixed gas divers. Of course I do not have to deal with the liability issues on a daily basis. Are we heading for a situation where fear of litigation prevents us from helping divers avoid incidents in the first place?

...We in the NDC Technical Group are very accutely aware that BSAC has been loosing many of its more experienced and adventurous divers simply because there was not a natural home for them within the organisation, we hope to change that perception with the support of the NDO who is a technical diver and instructor herself.

Great news. I can not adequately express my relief that this is now being addressed.

However, I can't see the issue of whether or not primary donate/take is adopted by BSAC is of such major importance that it would cause someone to leave. If it is then the importance of BSAC to their diving is somewhat tenuous I would suggest.

What can I tell you Mike. BSAC became irrelevant to my diving some years ago. 'My diving' means the dives that motivate me -the dives I spend significant proportions of my income to be able to make. Helping out with training is rewarding but I would not miss it particularly. I could do without paying 43 quid a year for a magazine I do not read, and insurance which does not cover me.

Why am I still here you might ask, I have asked it of myself often enough. Possibly because the branch is not a random collection of people. It is a collection of my friends who have looked to me for guidance both in terms of diving and operating the branch. It has been proposed that we probably would have folded had I not agreed to take the chair, sort the finances and get us out diving again. So while I have no real issue with leaving BSAC I am less inclined to abandon my friends. I did find it awkward trying to organise and marshal dives knowing full well I was outside guidelines.

I do not think we should teach primary donate/take as an accepted technique unless it becomes the international standard. In which case we may be forced to but I don't see any evidence that it will do.

I find this a little at odds with your statement earlier about the casualty taking a known safe gas. If primary donate is a legitimate technique, surely we should teach it? I can agree that it should not be taught at entry level, but to ignore it at all levels seems a little blinkered.

I see about 300 - 400 different divers during the course of a season (I run a SW charter boat). I am seeing a steady increase in rebreathers year on year.

I completely agree that CCR use is increasing. I was questioning your assessment of the numbers carrying long hoses, and tethered regulators. I am a little astounded that you have not noticed what is very obvious on the part of the coast I dive. It reminds me of my ITC when a Northern based NI shouted me down for suggesting that a DSMB could be deployed from depth. It was already common practise on the South Coast and I had no idea I was suggesting anything contentious. The rest is history.

Anyhow back to the point. There are significant numbers of divers using long hoses and tethered backups. Some of them are BSAC divers.

Rebreathers will become a (note; I'm not saying the) mainstream choice for divers in the future. Any policy choices BSAC makes in its guidance and training must take account of them.

I have struggled with the CCR question for years. There is a simplicity to OC which I do find compelling. During the Summer my kit lives rigged in the back of the van and rarely dries out. A set of 12s and a 7ltr stage is enough to keep me on the bottom through slack water down to 50m for all but the very best tides. I currently do not do enough Trimix diving to warrant the annual service costs of a CCR. I am not ruling a CCR out, the Sport Kiss looks interesting although (AIUI) the CE mark will only be for use up to 50m...and if I had 2.5K sitting around I would likely spend it on an airfare.

Of that 30% less than half have been formally ERD trained - i.e. trained to use the kit config they have chosen. I call that a gap in training.

I can agree with you there. The remit of the Technical Group on NDC is to develop a full BSAC technical training programme for its members for both OC and rebreathers.

If the OC courses neglect primary donation they are in danger of being laughed down.

I foresee that at some point in the not too distance future we will regard nitrox as the gas of choice to a maximum of 40m

Nitrox would be my gas of choice down to 40m, unfortunately I can't afford to fill my twinset with it too often. Annual O2 servicing costs are bad enough. I have pretty much standardised on Air + 80%.

and trimix the gas of choice from there on.

Ahh OK I am going to need that CCR aren't I.

As rebreathers become increasingly popular air will only be a gas one uses to dilute the oxygen. Now theres a thought, I can chuck away my compressor and get a booster!

I was already looking at how the branch might finance a molecular sieve. Grants seem to be few and far between at the moment.

Anyhow I get the point. I better reserve my space alongside the twin hose and ABLJ set ;-)

[iainmsmith]

:=My turn to say, "Absolute ^&**)()()"?
:=I'm surprised that you don't regard speed and reliability of response, a _practised_ response to a panicked diver and a standard technique for all OC lost primary situations to be "real arguments in favour".
:=

Why should I, because it's utter &*(*((*&(

An octo thats stowed in a visable and known position is as
accessable as the one in somebodies mouth.

If the forum would allow me to post my response to that, it would be an eight-letter word, beginning with "bull".

The position of one's mouth is intuitive. Anyone who is fit-to-dive is sufficiently anatomically normal to have a mouth in pretty much the same place. As opposed to trying to remember which of one's buddies carries what AAS in which position.

I've yet to see a clip or bit of velcro as resistant to
taking a reg as a mouth and set of teeth that doesnt know
the regs comming out!!!

And I've yet to see a clip or bit of velcro that will hold a working AAS as reliably as a mouth and set of teeth.

Reliabilty of response is entirely down to the individual and
training. We all accept that BOTH methods require this and
when making a comparison with a trained diver, should be
equally as effective.

No - I've _never_ accepted that donating an octopus will be as effective as donating a primary, and probably never will. It is slower, less reliable and less suitable for all types of OC diving.

What's more standard than the technique adopted by 90%
(probably more) of the worlds divers!!!!!!

The majority is not always right.

Panicked diver??????
My buddy has a problem. He grabs my Octo and even if I wasnt
expecting it, we get a grip (literally) and I carry on
breathing as normal. After all nothing has changed for me.
I had a reg in my mouth, I still have a reg in my mouth.

My buddy has a problem. He grabs my primary just as I was
about to take a breath and I'm switching to my 2nd.
Trouble is that the same spurious argument about a working
reg in a panic now kicks in and I have a 50/50 chance that
this reg wont work (cant have it both ways).

Who said anything about 50/50? Other than you?

Now we really are in a state. He is just recovering from a
potential panic and wont give up my (working) primary no
matter what. I'm struggling as I was OOA when he took it.
My 2nd/octo isnt working and my only option is to buddy
breath which even if I had trained how to do it, is gonna be
tricky when he refuses to give me the reg back!!!!!

So do you think you're going to have more chance of getting the reg back there when the first-donated reg has worked (and the donor and recipient have trained for primary-donate) or when the first reg grabbed (the octopus, as in your first scenario) fails...according to your 50/50 chance? You can't use a 50/50 chance of a backup failing without considering a comparable chance of an octopus failing (which is more likely to happen), even if your arbitrary statistics resemble a pile of horse manure.

And this is a good scenario for a newly trained green
diver !!!!!!!

Given that we no longer teach buddy breathing, if you have three out of four regs fail, you are in the deepest possible trouble imaginable, regardless. Then again, an assessment of the likelyhood of such a failure suggests that this is rather unlikely.

Iain

[Philip Smith]

I do not think we should teach primary donate/take as an accepted technique unless it becomes the international standard.

I find this very sad. Whether or not you agree with primary donate, an attitude that our training must always conform with "international standards" prevents BSAC from providing leadership in diving safety and we will always be following the large US training agencies. I believe we should decide what is best for BSAC divers diving with each other in the conditions they dive in, borrowing from elsewhere as appropriate. We should also point out any compatibility issues with other agencies. For example, for many years we have used a different (in my opinion, better) out of air signal than other agencies. We also teach home-grown rescue techniques and we are told that BSAC manuals are popular around the world. If the techniques are good, others will copy them.

Phil S

[TerryH]

The position of one's mouth is intuitive. Anyone who is fit-to-dive is sufficiently anatomically normal to have a mouth in pretty much the same place. As opposed to trying to remember which of one's buddies carries what AAS in which position.


Right. So might as well forget where the computer is, DSMB,
knife, SPG, torch, etc. After all I cant remember where they
are, nor can I look on my buddies chest area and find the
bright yellow octo attached just below his ..... that's right
mouth!


And I've yet to see a clip or bit of velcro that will hold a working AAS as reliably as a mouth and set of teeth.


Err if I wanted to grab the primary, isnt this a bad idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can change a clip or velcro. I cant prise open a mouth if he
doesnt want to give me the reg!!!!!


No - I've _never_ accepted that donating an octopus will be as effective as donating a primary, and probably never will. It is slower, less reliable and less suitable for all types of OC diving.


Who said anything about being as effective. Is a single
cylinder as effective as a twin? Is a standard BC as effective
as a wing? Is a pony as effective as a stage? A DSMB as a
DSMBi? The list goes on .....

I've got nothing wrong with donate primary or those that want
to to teach it to diver grades. I have a BIG problem with
literally stuffing it down the throat of newbies who cant
remember what day it is, let alone what reg should be in there
mouth!

:=What's more standard than the technique adopted by 90%
:=(probably more) of the worlds divers!!!!!!

The majority is not always right.


Absolutely, but this time they are.

:=Panicked diver??????
:=My buddy has a problem. He grabs my Octo and even if I wasnt
:=expecting it, we get a grip (literally) and I carry on
:=breathing as normal. After all nothing has changed for me.
:=I had a reg in my mouth, I still have a reg in my mouth.
:=
:=My buddy has a problem. He grabs my primary just as I was
:=about to take a breath and I'm switching to my 2nd.
:=Trouble is that the same spurious argument about a working
:=reg in a panic now kicks in and I have a 50/50 chance that
:=this reg wont work (cant have it both ways).

Who said anything about 50/50? Other than you?


Was actually refering to the spurious argument that the
primary is working and an octo wont. Same regs, serviced at the
same time, same water temp and same use. So how come the octo
wont work and the necklaced octo/3rd miraculously will?

:=Now we really are in a state. He is just recovering from a
:=potential panic and wont give up my (working) primary no
:=matter what. I'm struggling as I was OOA when he took it.
:=My 2nd/octo isnt working and my only option is to buddy
:=breath which even if I had trained how to do it, is gonna be
:=tricky when he refuses to give me the reg back!!!!!

So do you think you're going to have more chance of getting the reg back there when the first-donated reg has worked (and the donor and recipient have trained for primary-donate) or when the first reg grabbed (the octopus, as in your first scenario) fails...according to your 50/50 chance? You can't use a 50/50 chance of a backup failing without considering a comparable chance of an octopus failing (which is more likely to happen), even if your arbitrary statistics resemble a pile of horse manure.


Well my arbiatary stats actually worked in your favor.

How about some more arbitary stats .....

What's the chance of an octo failing and an untrained diver
going for the primary & freaking out vs a trained buddy pair
going for the primary/donate primary and dispite that training
freaking out?

The bottom line here still hasnt changed. We owe it to our
students to teach them the most basic and simple method to
acheive that common aim of getting them wet safely.

There IS a place for donate primary and although I dont use
it myself will happily dive with those that do. I have the
luxury of getting through all those early years where I
hyperventilated, put the reg on backwards, lost my weightbelt,
rocketed to the surface from 18m and that was all on my OW
course!!!!

Perhaps because I was such a muppet, I am closer to
understanding that what seems best for diving in general
is NOT what's best for a newbie diver who in aquatic terms
cant even spell his name. That's why I am so anti donate
primary until the basics have been completed and mastered.

TerryH

[iainmsmith]

Matt,

Thank you for clarifying. I apologise for drawing any inappropriate conclusions. However, as you have now pointed out:

The problem stems from the diver's unfamilliarity with a side valve regulator design. I warned her about the wet breath and had her operate the purge with the reg in her mouth on dry land. Underwater she failed to properly purge the reg and panicked when she got a gob full of cold water.

Is it reasonable to draw any sensible conclusions about normal diving practice from an occasion in which unfamiliar equipment contributed to a (near?) incident. Surely that's why we hammer it in to people that the first place that any new equipment should be used is in the pool/shallow water until they are completely familiar with it?

:=, had her equipment set up incorrectly (failure of basic skills and failure of buddy check),

Stringing an octo under the chin is quite common. I don't like it personally but there you go.

By "stringing an octo under the chin", do you mean a necklaced backup? To my mind, there's quite a difference.

:=, took her buddies primary (DESPITE basic training)

The only thing I can see that she forgot to do was recover her main reg.

I thought you said that the problem arose when she "failed to purge a reg during an AAS drill."

She was holding her main in her hand when she first tried to use my octo but dropped it when she got the mouthful of water. There was a lot of arm flailing going on and I could not get to her main without risking a punch in the face.

All of which seems to me to be an argument in favour of her having had a backup regulator configured in such a way that it was a) instantly accessible and b) oriented so that she could breath from it without having to think about it.

She took the reg out of my mouth AFTER her training failed to resolve the problem.

But that's not what you suggested - you said that she took your primary, discarded it and _then_ went for your other reg, ie she tried her AAS first (as a side issue, why do we teach entry-level divers to consider the AAS as their alternative? If the primary's stopped giving gas, the other reg is quite likely to be of minimal use, where as the AAS attached to one's buddy's equipment (whether primary or octopus) is more likely to deliver gas) then went for your primary instead of your octopus...just as some of us have been suggesting a panicking diver is likely to do.

Have I misunderstood the order of events suggested by your orignal post?

Iain

[iainmsmith]

:=
:=Stop being an idiot. :=

End of discussion.


Terry,

Please accept my apologies.

Tired, had had a couple to drink, ought to know better than to post.

I've deleted my post and will respond more appropriately this evening.

Iain

[gareth]

I hesitate to become involved in this debate on the basis that I don't have a flame proof suit, & most of my observations are based on my personal mistakes, unlike some I'm not perfect!

I dive with a large variaty of divers, both in my branch, other branches & non-bsac divers. Mainly because I enjoy some of the more 'challenging dives' & therefore 'diver must travel'.

1/ I would be displeased if the reg in my mouth was removed unexpectedly, deep, in the dark in side a wreck (the worst case senario).
I still dive both independent twin 10's & manifloded twin 12's. Not having a regulator in my mouth is not a 'source of stress', I do regulator switches during most of my dives. Even so the stress of unexpectedly having the regulator removed I could well do without.

2/ Why is it nessacery to take the reg from another divers mouth? - suposedly because this is a known safe gas to breath.
When I did my Nitrox, ERD & Trimix coarses. There was no doubt that all travel & deco gases where, turned OFF, the regulators identified if they were in a position that would confuse (obstructed mouthpieces), & tidy - strapped on to the appropriate cylinder.
The only regulator on the chest of the diver was the AAS. All the other regulators are strapped to the stages.

3/ We should be encouraging redundancy - Pony's, Twinsets.
If you have a redundent air supply why do you need to take the AAS from your buddies mouth?
You should switch to YOUR AAS. then indicate that you want to get the hell out of there. Your buddy should have more than sufficent time to assist you if you require a further air supply.

On the two occassions I got into serious trouble at depth, I new damnd well what was happening - the regulator breathing resistance goes up BEFORE the air stops!

Occasion1
Warm blue water, good vis, depth 50-55m, bottom gas -air, strong currents on descent & ascent, rediving a wreck dived over 2 previous days this dive to take photos, Borrowed Manifolded twins (I only used independents at this time).

As I returned to the shot, I felt the reg' tighten (low on air). I immediately thought that the isolator was closed - checked - it was open, double checked the contents gauge 1 cylinder full 1 cylinder approaching empty. I was unable to retreve my other reg (It had been tucked back under my arm to avoid the current purging the regulator - a problem on the first days diving).
I still had time to swim to my buddy, tap him on the shoulder, remove his long hose AAS. Indicate up & ascend the shot, switching to my travel & deco when appropriate.
The incident should never have happened. The problem with the manifold is that the valve had jammed closed & snapped the mechanism. This should have been spotted by ME during the dive when checking my gas. A mixture of complacency (I had done the same dive twice previously & new I would only use 50% of my gas), narcosis (55m on air even in the tropics is not to be recommended), task loading (using a camera wih narcosis at depth on air-Eeeee). Moving the AAS out of the current I had made it unreachable when carrying stages, cameras etc (don't change kit config prior to deep dives!!).

Occasion 2
Warm blue water, good vis, depth 45m, bottom gas -air, strong currents on descent & ascent, Isolated 12's. Required to ascend up shot. Wreck in two halfs seperated by 20m.

Having crawled through a wreck I switched back from one cylinder at 100bar, to the other at 150bar, immediately started to breath water. Switched back to 100bar cylinder. Indicated to buddy immediate return to other half of wreck where shot was. Attempted to switch to 150 bar, breathing water, back to 100bar cylinder. On swim back missed wreck (damn not my day) Air very low (swimming in strong current + stress). Indicated ascent to buddy - buddy indicated NO - return to shot, I indicated OUT OF AIR UP!!, buddy very quickly pulled long hose AAS free, which I declined I still had gas, He deployed DSMB & we ascended. I switched to his AAS at 25m on first runtime stop - comparing the runtime & mixed gas computer, the computer allowed me to ascend to a safe PPO2 for the deco gas. I indicateed this to my buddy & coasted up the SMB line to the deco depth & decompressed.
The problem was grit behind the diaphram (I suspected this on the bottom (the reg was stored under my chin!!!)If I had been on a manifold I would have been able to retreive the other 150bar of gas!

In both of these cases I NEW I was introuble, I was able to indicate to my buddy what the trouble was & recieve gas from my buddy with the minimum of stress. I MADE MISTAKES, I was also unluck, But I do not see a need to remove a regulator from my buddies mouth at any time. The AAS is obvious, it is not one of the deco regs. I also initially went for MY alternative gas supply.

If we need to teach anything it is that all divers should carry their OWN redundent air supply, & know how to use it - this gives them & their buddy TIME.

OK I'll stand in a bucket of water whilst you through flaming knives at me.

Gareth

[matts]

Is it reasonable to draw any sensible conclusions about normal diving practise from an occasion in which unfamiliar equipment contributed to a (near?) incident.

I only wished to illustrate that inexperienced divers particularly, can panic in response to a minor unexpected event.

Surely that's why we hammer it in to people that the first place that any new equipment should be used is in the pool/shallow water until they are completely familiar with it?

I am not certain about the logistics of demanding a pool session simply because a buddy is using a reg that has not been seen before. This little episode happened in 6m fairly late in training. Surfacing was an option but I was concerned she might forget to breathe out.

By "stringing an octo under the chin", do you mean a necklaced backup? To my mind, there's quite a difference.

IIRC a TX40 over the right shoulder on an octo length hose and held in a neck tether. The reg is oriented for a facing diver or a diver swimming side by side to the left. The owner needs to put an S in the hose to breathe it.

I thought you said that the problem arose when she "failed to purge a reg during an AAS drill."

This was some years ago but I can recall it pretty well.
She signalled OOA drill. I handed my octo, hand on the hose. She removes her main and puts my octo in her mouth, operates the purge and breathes in. She then simultaneously spits the octo out, drops her main and knocks my arm out the way. She tries to use her octo, spits that out, signals OOA and takes my main. I fit my octo and attempt to get to her main but she again knocks my arm out the way. She spits out my main and takes my octo again, I retrieve my main. By this time I was counting the seconds in my head. I maintained eye contact and after about 5 seconds she calmed down enough for me to push her main in her mouth and purge it for her.

In the debrief she remembered up to the point that she got a slug of cold water and then looking at me stareing at her, but not much in between.

All of which seems to me to be an argument in favour of her having had a backup regulator configured in such a way that it was a) instantly accessible and b) oriented so that she could breath from it without having to think about it.

I think you could come up with all sorts of contradictory arguments.
+ I should not be allowed to use a side valve.
+ Everyone should use a side valve.
+ An OOA diver instinctively goes for the reg in the mouth.
+ An OOA diver systematically works through the visible regulators.
+ Etc.
What I take from it is simply the possibility of panic the first time something unexpected happens.

:=She took the reg out of my mouth AFTER her training failed to resolve the problem.

ie she tried her AAS first (as a side issue, why do we teach entry-level divers to consider the AAS as their alternative?

I would think that any reg connected to a breathable source is a possible alternative. What happens to be the best choice at the time would depend on the circumstance.

Have I misunderstood the order of events suggested by your orignal post?

I have now provided the details as best I remember them.

[Mike Rowley]

Matt

Let me clarify things. I accept that the fact that the primary reg is likely to have a safe, breathable gas is an advantage. However, I do not agree that this advantage outweighs the dissadvantages. I have heard or seen nothing on these forums or elsewhere that has convinced me otherwise. I also believe there are ways of ensuring that an AAS is a safe breatheable gas and that the reg is readily accessable to a casualty. In my opinion the latter is the safer and better option.


I am a little astounded that you have not noticed what is very obvious on the part of the coast I dive.

I'm about 40M west of Portland. Does that make me or you parochial? Shall we call that quits?

It reminds me of my ITC when a Northern based NI shouted me down for suggesting that a DSMB could be deployed from depth.

Hmm! You should not make the assumption that NIs neccessearily have diving experience in breadth and depth. NIs are required to be accomplished instructors and instructor trainers, they are required to possess good dive marshalling and management skills but only in the air diving range and are only required to achieve what is by modern standards a relatively modest level of diving experience. Some are accomplished and experienced technical divers, others have different interests within diving.

There are significant numbers of divers using long hoses and tethered backups.


I didn't mention long hoses or tethered regs. Indeed in an earlier post I stated I completely agree with them. Just because someone has a long hose and a tethered reg does not mean they practice primary donate/take.


If the OC courses neglect primary donation they are in danger of being laughed down.

I think we will have to agree to differ there. My view of technical diving is that the accent needs to be on self sufficiency and gas planning to allow for personal backup options for the diver. AAS techniques are taught adequately at entry level and do not need to be taught on trimix courses.


Nitrox would be my gas of choice down to 40m, unfortunately I can't afford to fill my twinset with it too often. Annual O2 servicing costs are bad enough. I have pretty much standardised on Air + 80%.

Now, if you had a CCR this wouldn't be an issue. Ok, I know, I'm becoming boring.


Anyhow I get the point. I better reserve my space alongside the twin hose and ABLJ set ;-)

Still got my Merlin Mk V1 trwin hose, not the ABLJ though. Think they will make an exception in my case?

Mike

[matts]

I dive with a large variaty of divers, both in my branch, other branches & non-bsac divers. Mainly because I enjoy some of the more 'challenging dives' & therefore 'diver must travel'.

Similarly.

1/ I would be displeased if the reg in my mouth was removed unexpectedly, deep, in the dark in side a wreck (the worst case senario).

Your decision. Personally I have practised primary donation fairly extensively, including deep, dark, in an overhead. I am comfortable with the technique.

Even so the stress of unexpectedly having the regulator removed I could well do without.

I found it similar to mask clearing. The first time I tried it was stressy as hell, by the fiftieth time it was routine.

2/ Why is it nessacery to take the reg from another divers mouth?

If you happen to be diving with someone using a hard tethered, short hosed backup and you are out of gas you will need to take the reg from their mouth. This scenario should never happen...just like the events you recount should never have happened.

3/ We should be encouraging redundancy

I agree.

OK I'll stand in a bucket of water whilst you through flaming knives at me.

Well it will not be me throwing them. I am not going to start arguing over what trained and qualified divers should and should not do. IMVHO it is largely a pointless exercise. What I am saying is that whatever decision has been made the techniques needs to be practised. Whatever your personal choice BSAC divers are rigging for primary donate. Do we help them or ignore them?

[Mike Rowley]

Whether or not you agree with primary donate, an attitude that our training must always conform with "international standards" prevents BSAC from providing leadership in diving safety and we will always be following the large US training agencies.

In most issues I would agree. However, as I stated in an earlier post, when considering lifesaving and rescue skills that need a conditioned response, both from the rescuer and the casualty it is far better to have an internationaly agreed standard if at all possible. That way everyone knows what is required and what to expect regardless of who they are diving with or where.

I believe we should decide what is best for BSAC divers diving with each other in the conditions they dive in, borrowing from elsewhere as appropriate.

I believe that by and large that is what we do. The fact that you disagree with one element of BSAC guidance does not necessrily mean it should be changed.

If you feel that you would like to put your thoughts on the issue why not email the NDC Group leader in charge of Diving Group. His name is Sean Gribben and you will find his contact details on the NDC page of the website.

Mike

[gareth]

Hi Matt

The throwing flaming knives was not specific to you - just some peoples reactions to post they don't agree with.

Your point
:: Whatever your personal choice BSAC divers are rigging for primary donate. Do we help them or ignore them?

Is very relevent. We certainly shouldn't ignore them. They should be included in the debate - they may provide the answer!

What I tried to say in a rather rambling way is, even if you have a tethered short hose around your neck & the long hose in your mouth. I should have suffient time with my redundancy to allow you to hand me the reg whilst you switch to the alternate, rather than me just grab it. (I was effectively in the same position on independent twins).

But the primary question you pose is, do we (divers, diving orgainisations)want to teach as a prefered technique to take a regulator from another divers mouth instinctively?

If you had asked me 10 years ago with the trend moving towards mix gas diving, then I would have possibly agreed that as a technique it should be taught as one of the options.

However, technology has started to overtake us again. As Mike pointed out, rebreathers are beginning to have an impact.

If you use a Rebreather, the last thing you want is someone to instinctively reach for your mouth piece.

What we need to consider is how do we want divers to react to an out of air situation in 5 or 10 years time? How do we tailor the training techniques now for the future? Will what we teach, suit the equipment & diving techniques in use?

All I am interested in as that when the **** hits the fan the techniques used does not compromise my, or my buddies safety & we get out in one piece!

I would respectively suggest that ideally you bailout to your redundent AAS, advise your buddy & he/she can prepare an alternative AAS if required.
If you are not diving a redundent system, your reaction should be to go for the AAS not in the divers mouth.
(A lot of rebreather divers now carry there bailout reg on a tether under their chin, complete with long hose!)

There is no easy solution. Prehaps we need to return to the source - look at how the elite technical divers are diving now.
Develop techniques that are compatable with the equipment & techniques they are now useing?

OK I've been absolutley no help at all, I've not been able to present a simple argument that leaves you no option but to
--- 'do it my way' ---

I just have an opinion - that you shouldn't take the reg from the divers mouth.

Safe diving

Gareth

[matts]

Let me clarify things.

Thank you.

I accept that the fact that the primary reg is likely to have a safe, breathable gas is an advantage.
...
I also believe there are ways of ensuring that an AAS is a safe breatheable gas and that the reg is readily accessable to a casualty. In my opinion the latter is the safer and better option.

I am not attempting to change your opinion.

It reminds me of my ITC when a Northern based NI shouted me down for suggesting that a DSMB could be deployed from depth.

Hmm! You should not make the assumption that NIs neccessearily have diving experience in breadth and depth.

Don't know and again I am not going to question it. I suspect that deploying from depth had not perculated North at that time. My trimix instructor was also a Northerner and later supported the view.

I hope you can appreciate that as a first introduction to the National BSAC, it was not a pleasant experience. I described what was a very common practise on my part of the coast and found myself being attacked. I am not suggesting that you are attacking me but again geography appears to be a factor in our disagreement.

There are significant numbers of divers using long hoses and tethered backups.

Just because someone has a long hose and a tethered reg does not mean they practice primary donate/take.

Sorry. Let me rephrase that - there are significant numbers diving the Central South Coast, in the 25m+ range, breathing the long hose with a tethered backup...no doubt some of them have not practised primary donate/take.

:=If the OC courses neglect primary donation they are in danger of being laughed down.

I think we will have to agree to differ there.

Fair enough.

My view of technical diving is that the accent needs to be on self sufficiency and gas planning to allow for personal backup options for the diver.

I am not disputing that. My view is that if someone chooses to do something they should be trained and practised.

AAS techniques are taught adequately at entry level and do not need to be taught on trimix courses.

We will have to agree to differ.

:=Nitrox would be my gas of choice down to 40m, unfortunately I can't afford to fill my twinset with it too often. Annual O2 servicing costs are bad enough. I have pretty much standardised on Air + 80%.

Now, if you had a CCR this wouldn't be an issue. Ok, I know, I'm becoming boring.

I could get the idea trying to convert people is a requriement of CCR training ;-)

:=Anyhow I get the point. I better reserve my space alongside the twin hose and ABLJ set ;-)

Still got my Merlin Mk V1 trwin hose, not the ABLJ though. Think they will make an exception in my case?

Only if you agree to donate from the mouth!

Thanks Mike.

[Mike Rowley]

I hope you can appreciate that as a first introduction to the National BSAC, it was not a pleasant experience.

Sounds like it.

I described what was a very common practise on my part of the coast and found myself being attacked.

Well, if its any consolation here's one NI who has always preferred deploying from the bottom unless the depth precludes it. I much prefer to get back to the shotline as a first preference but thats a personal choice.

but again geography appears to be a factor in our disagreement.

Not sure about that Matt. I originate from the midlands but have lived in South Devon for the last 16 years.

Only if you agree to donate from the mouth!

No can do Matt. Just as the Masons don't let aetheists in DIR flames GI heretics at the stake!

Cheers

Mike

[matts]

I much prefer to get back to the shotline as a first preference but thats a personal choice.

Like most things it depends on what is approriate for the situation. With the short slacks and unpredictable visibiliity of the Solent, where I cut my teeth, bottom deployment has some compelling advantages. I have also been involved in a number of surveys under the shipping channels and in such conditions DSMBs are not an option.

but again geography appears to be a factor in our disagreement.

Not sure about that Matt. I originate from the midlands but have lived in South Devon for the last 16 years.

Similary. I moved from Coventry to South Devon for a year and then made a home in Hampshire 15 years ago.

:=Only if you agree to donate from the mouth!

No can do Matt. Just as the Masons don't let aetheists in DIR flames GI heretics at the stake!

LOL. My quip referred to the twin hose ablj set who buddy breathe (donating from the mouth). I am definately not and have no apsirations towards DIR - we can burn together.

Nice to have met you yesterday at DOC.

Regards
MattS

[Mike Rowley]

LOL. My quip referred to the twin hose ablj set who buddy breathe (donating from the mouth).

Hi Matt

I distincly remember taking part in what we called an assisted ascent drill in Dosthill quarry about 1977/8. I was using a twin hose reg and the plan was to do a buddy breathing ascent from 20m. My buddy was a little higher in the water column than me so the twin hose gave him quite a strong positive pressure. The net result is that he arrived at the surface with a stomach full of expanding air. We all thought he had a burst lung and were about to send someone to call an ambulance when the problem was resolved with a very lout and long belch!

Now I'm back on a twin hose again. As the yanks say, what goes around comes around.

Good to meet you at DOC yesterday, its always good to put a face to a name.

Best regards

Mike

[Philip Smith]

The fact that you disagree with one element of BSAC guidance does not necessrily mean it should be changed.

Does that really need to be said? In any case, I am not sure which element of BSAC guidance you think I have disagreed with. I have not suggested that any particular element should be changed. In the message you replied to, I made a general point that techniques should not be excluded from consideration only on the basis that they are not a current international standard. In another message, I pointed out some arguments for octopus donate and for primary donate that hadn't been aired up to that point. Personally, I have tried both techniques and am undecided about which is better for BSAC.

Philip Smith

[terry allen]

:=Sorry, Keith - I was not disputing the text of the statement, but saying that you might know where it (or any subsequent statement might be found on the website.

There hasn't been to the best of my knowledge Iain, but then we have had a change of NDO and the complete restructuring of NDC in the meantime! I'm sure it's on a list of things-to-do somewhere, but knowing the workload of NDC I am not entirely surprised that it hasn't reached the top yet. I have fagged it up again to Sean (NDC Diver Training Group) and also to Clare, if it's in that group then I am confident that it will be addressed.

Keith L

Keith
We have been discussing this recently. When do you expect a finding.
Thanks
Terry