New ITS

[allan j bretherton]

Hi Everyone,

Since resigning as Vice-Chairman back in May I?ve kept a fairly low profile (sour grapes and all that) but did we really get it right with the new instructor-training scheme?
Prior to the launch of the new scheme in 2002 we had a fairly straightforward system, i.e. ITC -> CIE -> OWIC -> experience -> AIC -> AIE; this was progressive and gave the student the opportunity for training and assessment at each stage. Although the new system is very good have we thrown the baby out with the bathwater?
On the IFC that replaces the ITC the students get between 2 and 21/2 hours in the pool as well as watching a video of a typical lesson then that it. We no longer examine in the pool and the next time we see the students for practical skills is the OWIC.
The majority of our members do not progress beyond sports diver, as a matter of fact, out of 34,500 members in year 2000 5,400 were club divers, 9,200 sports divers and 10,500 under training, i.e. 72% of our membership at sports diver or below. The vast majority of the practical training for 72% of our members is undertaken in the swimming pool and we no longer assess our instructors in this environment.
Are we really being fair to both our trainee divers and student instructors?

Food for thought!


Cheers?????Allan

[Andy Wade]

Hi Everyone,

Since resigning as Vice-Chairman back in May I?ve kept a fairly low profile (sour grapes and all that) but did we really get it right with the new instructor-training scheme?
Prior to the launch of the new scheme in 2002 we had a fairly straightforward system, i.e. ITC -> CIE -> OWIC -> experience -> AIC -> AIE; this was progressive and gave the student the opportunity for training and assessment at each stage. Although the new system is very good have we thrown the baby out with the bathwater?
On the IFC that replaces the ITC the students get between 2 and 21/2 hours in the pool as well as watching a video of a typical lesson then that it. We no longer examine in the pool and the next time we see the students for practical skills is the OWIC.
The majority of our members do not progress beyond sports diver, as a matter of fact, out of 34,500 members in year 2000 5,400 were club divers, 9,200 sports divers and 10,500 under training, i.e. 72% of our membership at sports diver or below. The vast majority of the practical training for 72% of our members is undertaken in the swimming pool and we no longer assess our instructors in this environment.
Are we really being fair to both our trainee divers and student instructors?

Food for thought!


Hello Allan,

Personally I didn't think that the old system was broken.
And I don't understand why we no longer assess pool instruction. It seems a bit cock-eyed to me.



.

[Khaled Alwassia]

Dear Allan,
I have completed the IFC in Oct 2004 and the OWIC, TIE and PIE in November, so i still know what is done during the courses and exams.
All courses where challenging, a lot of credit must be given to the NI conducting the courses, but your comments IMVHO are beside the point.
The "new" system makes it clear that a participant of the IFC can only "ASSIST" in training. Meaning that someone else MUST be on site (often in the water) and incharge of the training session; Pool, classroom or otherwise.
If there is a more higher qulified instructor overseeing the assistent instructor, why do you want a pool examination at this stage?

Once the Assistent Instructor feels ready he/she can then go for the next steps, i.e. OWIC after which he/she is still overseen by a senior instructor when doing any training.
Only after completing and passing the TIE and / or the PIE the instructor in question is allowed to conduct the respective training by him/herself.
As that includes all practical training, pool instruction evaluation is covered by passing the PIE.

In case my understanding of the present situation is questionabel please let me know.

Regards

Khaled Alwassia

[Vic]

> The "new" system makes it clear that a participant of the IFC
> can only "ASSIST" in training.

That was exactly the same under the old scheme.

> Meaning that someone else MUST be on site (often in the water)

> If there is a more higher qulified instructor overseeing the
> assistent instructor, why do you want a pool examination at
> this stage?

Someone else being on site - even in the water - does not mean that the ACI is under direct, hands-on control from a more experienced instructor; IOW, there is the opportunity for an ACI to conduct instruction without being directly observed by an NQI.

Given that situation, I reckon it would be better for the ACI to have been assessed on his ability to perform that task.

Vic.

[johnkendall]

> The "new" system makes it clear that a participant of the IFC
> can only "ASSIST" in training.

That was exactly the same under the old scheme.

> Meaning that someone else MUST be on site (often in the water)

> If there is a more higher qulified instructor overseeing the
> assistent instructor, why do you want a pool examination at
> this stage?

Someone else being on site - even in the water - does not mean that the ACI is under direct, hands-on control from a more experienced instructor; IOW, there is the opportunity for an ACI to conduct instruction without being directly observed by an NQI.

Given that situation, I reckon it would be better for the ACI to have been assessed on his ability to perform that task.

I somewhat agree with you on this, but my question would be "when do we assess them". My gut instinct would be for the IFC to become an assessed course, where students get a pass/fail/provisional based on their performance on the course. IMHO It wouldn't be a good Idea to have another seperate exam, as getting on ITS events are hard at the best of times, and putting another hoop in peoples way will make it harder to become an instructor.

Interesting to see where this thread goes.

John

[terryh]

Hi Everyone,

Since resigning as Vice-Chairman back in May I?ve kept a fairly low profile (sour grapes and all that) but did we really get it right with the new instructor-training scheme?
Prior to the launch of the new scheme in 2002 we had a fairly straightforward system, i.e. ITC -> CIE -> OWIC -> experience -> AIC -> AIE; this was progressive and gave the student the opportunity for training and assessment at each stage. Although the new system is very good have we thrown the baby out with the bathwater?
On the IFC that replaces the ITC the students get between 2 and 21/2 hours in the pool as well as watching a video of a typical lesson then that it. We no longer examine in the pool and the next time we see the students for practical skills is the OWIC.
The majority of our members do not progress beyond sports diver, as a matter of fact, out of 34,500 members in year 2000 5,400 were club divers, 9,200 sports divers and 10,500 under training, i.e. 72% of our membership at sports diver or below. The vast majority of the practical training for 72% of our members is undertaken in the swimming pool and we no longer assess our instructors in this environment.
Are we really being fair to both our trainee divers and student instructors?

Food for thought!


Cheers?????Allan

IMO BSAC got it wrong when they dumped Club Instructor.
I could never understand how a pool asessed Instructor, could
do a OWIC + 12 hours (often initialed by friends with other
agendas) and come out as an OWI with minimal OW teaching
experince.
On my OWIC we had students that couldnt teach AV/CPR etc!!!!!

So here IMO is what should have happend.
*Keep club and retain it as a Pool Instructor only.
*Then you do 12 hours, but as a assitant under direct
supervsion of an NQI.
*Now change the OWIC into an open water
exam.

ITC -> CIE -> Experience -> OWE -> AIC -> AIE;

You end up with exactly the same no of courses and in water
time, but the progession is better and it's all defined with a
final check of OW skill in the OWE. This weeds out all those
individuals that really shoudnt be there.

TerryH

[jens hucke]

Part 1

Edited, for I stand corrected!


Part 2

As a side line, I think that the membership/qualification ratio for the last year or two might be missleading, as I know that in our area, several branches struggle to get past pool training for lack of instructors able to supervise/do OW sessions. The old DLs that did ITC in order to carry on training as before, now have to do the OWIC and OWIE. Unless there is a NQI to go along, they can't teach in Open water, so they have had the rug pulled from under their feet twice within 5 years. Result: more trainees for longer, or leaving before getting qualified. So while your figure of 72% training being in the pool is probably correct, this is by default for lack of OWIs and AIs working (available) at branch level, and not because it is something that we are (or should be) aiming for. With BSAC membership figures falling, do we fail to attract potential new divers, or fail to retain them because we can't train them in open water due to lack of "qualified" instructors?

kind regards
Jens

[Adrian Kelland]

Jens

The TI (Theory Instructor) and PI (Practical Instructor) do exists. Each can teach their respective skills without supervision.

I agree than getting sea work done is harder.

What I would like to see is a regional coach being allowed to assess OWI candidates in smaller groups, ie club without the full blown OWE days.

Adrian - TI ;-)

[janos]

All very interesting. I went through the instructor scheme last year, and it worked for me very well in it's current form. Lack of formal pool training wasn't a problem as there was always an OWI+ with me in the water for the first few pool sessions.

One thing I would say is that it's nice attending the IFC and OWIC as courses and not exams. It's quite stressful as you don't know what to expect, and not having to worry about whether you pass or fail is reassuring. It seems that everytime anyone posts "What should I expect on my IFC?" either here or on one of the other boards, the general advice normally includes the phrase "relax - it's a course not an exam."

Laters,
Janos

[dano]

Hello I think if you are a Padi/SAA ect OWI do the IFC but dont log the 12 hours then you will get more OWI within the branches and then you can get more ocean divers ect through I found it hard to find a teaching club with NQI's and a lot of clubs dont do training any more.



All very interesting. I went through the instructor scheme last year, and it worked for me very well in it's current form. Lack of formal pool training wasn't a problem as there was always an OWI+ with me in the water for the first few pool sessions.

One thing I would say is that it's nice attending the IFC and OWIC as courses and not exams. It's quite stressful as you don't know what to expect, and not having to worry about whether you pass or fail is reassuring. It seems that everytime anyone posts "What should I expect on my IFC?" either here or on one of the other boards, the general advice normally includes the phrase "relax - it's a course not an exam."

Laters,
Janos

[jens hucke]

I think I understand your proposal, but you are turning NQIs into OWI instructor mentors and coaches. Actually that might not be a bad idea....! just depends very much on who the mentor NQI would be?( total rewrite of the ITS...again!)LOL

regards
jens

[jens hucke]

Thanks for the clarfication.

The PI needs to do the OWIC and OWE exam I think, so can't be compared to the old CI for pool-only work.
So when I refered to PI ( Pool Instructor) and you PI (Practical Instructor), we are talking about 2 different things.

I agree with you that it would be great to have more flexibility in organising Instructor events /exams , but as these rely on too few people to be carried out, I think that logistically they need to get done en masse. Don't forget that not all coaches are on the ITS, and hence might not be able to carry out an OWI examniation.

regards
jens

[iainmsmith]

On my OWIC we had students that couldnt teach AV/CPR etc!!!!!

[Personal Hobbyhorse]

These would be the same type of individual who, under the new DTP, are teaching resuscitation and oxygen administration on the basis that they themselves have (once) learned it and "know how to teach", therefore are competent to teach?

[end Personal Hobbyhorse]

Iain

[Robin Eccles]

LMFAO

Firstly, I dont agree this is the right forum Alan, for shame, but when we arn't at the top BSAC Bashing is so fashionable? isnt it?

But whilst I don't agree with you (nothing changes) I will defend your right to have an opinion, pity you didnt seem to have one when asked.
And whist we are about it why dont we bring back the "A" test, and get rid of BC's and wings.....yeah bring back the ABLJ, and whatever happened to the emergency cylinder. We could reinstate second and third class divers , get back the B-C-D-E-F tests. Those 88 Tables and dive computers, ehhh when I were a lad you had to do it all on paper, lets bring back the RNPL tables, safe as houses those ( unless you wanted to do more than one dive a day, then the maths sorted the men from the boys)
And dont forget in the good ole days we only had two instructor grades and no courses so that would make it simple, wouldnt it, and while we are about it lets get all our trainees to do a years snorkelling before we even let them try an aqualung on......after all our pool instructors will need all the practice they can get.

We have both resigned Alan, time to let the people responsible for the club now take it into the future without old farts like us sticking spikes in their wheels, unless this is an attempt to get the popular vote behind you?.......Good Luck



robin




=Hi Everyone,

Since resigning as Vice-Chairman back in May I?ve kept a fairly low profile (sour grapes and all that) but did we really get it right with the new instructor-training scheme?
Prior to the launch of the new scheme in 2002 we had a fairly straightforward system, i.e. ITC -> CIE -> OWIC -> experience -> AIC -> AIE; this was progressive and gave the student the opportunity for training and assessment at each stage. Although the new system is very good have we thrown the baby out with the bathwater?
On the IFC that replaces the ITC the students get between 2 and 21/2 hours in the pool as well as watching a video of a typical lesson then that it. We no longer examine in the pool and the next time we see the students for practical skills is the OWIC.
The majority of our members do not progress beyond sports diver, as a matter of fact, out of 34,500 members in year 2000 5,400 were club divers, 9,200 sports divers and 10,500 under training, i.e. 72% of our membership at sports diver or below. The vast majority of the practical training for 72% of our members is undertaken in the swimming pool and we no longer assess our instructors in this environment.
Are we really being fair to both our trainee divers and student instructors?

Food for thought!


Cheers?????Allan

[allan j bretherton]

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Gentlemen. If you want to have a personal mud slinging competition then you are NOT going to be conducting it on these forums. The same rules apply to all - I would have no hesitation in moderating the President of the club if I had to.

Keith L

[allan j bretherton]

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Fair comment Keith, apologies from my side - this has actually detracted from a sensible discussion

No problem Allan, I also thought that it was a sensible discussion and I want to keep it that way.

Keith L

[Robin Eccles]

1. I wasn't talking about 3 years ago on council I was talking about resigning from BOE and Circuit this year.

2. Ive looked back at all the feedback from members we received during the review (didnt take me long) and there isnt a single one from you despite feedback being encouraged at 3 doc's.

3.A Bosses Workshop isnt the place to discuss a review of the ITS its there to teach new NI's how to Boss ITS events. (Have you been on one yet?)

4. Sniping at our volunteers (or their work) on forum is wholly destructive and demotivating, you know that. Your a National Instructor on Circuit you have the contact details for every active NI in the BSAC and if you had anything constuctive to say (would have to be better than "lets do it the way we used to") your peers would welcome your comments. If you wern't mischief making, why didnt you pick up the phone?

[matts]

Firstly, I dont agree this is the right forum

So where would you suggest?

[rant snipped]

We have both resigned Alan, time to let the people responsible for the club now take it into the future without old farts like us sticking spikes in their wheels

I was always under the impression that EVERY member was responsible for the club.

By raising this subject, Allan has stimulated feedback for the decision makers to consider. Personally as a branch officer I am always highly interested in the opinion's of our 'old farts' - although I prefer the term 'established members'. In a sport which the majority leave within 3 years, such experience is invaluable as a reference. I may not always agree but I always listen.

In the case of this discussion it has been very interesting to hear from other branch officers facing the same problems as I do. I thank Allan for raising it. However I don't see much point in your ranting, which would possibly have been better carried out on e-mail.

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Enough Robin. This is a forum to discuss BSAC issues amongst all, which includes NI's should they wish to contribute. It is not a place to air personal grievances. Please contribute to the discussion on a basis of fact and opinion, I do not expect any more "shoot the messenger" type responses.

I hope that I have now made myself very clear about this.

Keith Lawrence
Forum Moderator

[Mike Rowley]

2. Ive looked back at all the feedback from members we received during the review (didnt take me long) and there isnt a single one from you despite feedback being encouraged at 3 doc's.

wholly distructive and demotivating, you know that. Your a National Instructor on Circuit you have the contact details for every active NI in the BSAC and if you had anything constuctive to say (would have to be better than "lets do it the way we used to") your peers would welcome your comments. If you wern't mischief making, why didnt you pick up the phone?

Robin

We go back a very long way and I think you know I would hesitate and think long and hard before having a public disagreement with you. However, I think you have allowed yourself to over react to Alan's post, possibly due to past personal animosity, it is no secret that you and Alan are not soul mates!

Your lengthy review of past BSAC standards was both unecessary and largely irrelevant. It constituted a rant rather than rational debate and as such was unworthy of you and I find that dissapointing to say the least.

The Instructor training scheme has been tinkered with over recent years on a piece meal basis. I am aware that NDC is currently looking at this issue but the ITS should have been considered holistcaly in the past rather than the tinkering that has taken place.

You refer to feeding back and question whether this is the correct forum to discuss this issue. You may recall that I and others have criticised what has been done to the ITS for some time now, both verbally and in writing. My comments have been made in what you might consider the correct circles, ie; to the people who have been directly involved in the process. Those comments have fallen on deaf ears and have largely been ignored to the point where you and others haven't even bothered to answer the points put to you.

Given this background, where would you suggest is an appropriate forum for the membership to debate of this issue if the Instructor Forum of the BSAC website is not?

Mike

[jens hucke]

...nearly fair comment. The fact that these points were picked up on the OWIC, show how effective and important the Quality Control via the ITS run courses and exam, is.

I think TerryH's idea of senior instructors mentoring new OWI is a good one. However, there is so much to be gained from the instructor courses like the OWIC that any mentoring should be in addition too, not instead of a formal OWIC.
regards
jens

[Robin Eccles]

:=2. Ive looked back at all the feedback from members we received during the review (didnt take me long) and there isnt a single one from you despite feedback being encouraged at 3 doc's.
:=
wholly distructive and demotivating, you know that. Your a National Instructor on Circuit you have the contact details for every active NI in the BSAC and if you had anything constuctive to say (would have to be better than "lets do it the way we used to") your peers would welcome your comments. If you wern't mischief making, why didnt you pick up the phone?

Robin
Hi Mike

We go back a very long way and I think you know I would hesitate and think long and hard before having a public disagreement with you. However, I think you have allowed yourself to over react to Alan's post, possibly due to past personal animosity, it is no secret that you and Alan are not soul mates!
Possible is suppose :-)
Your lengthy review of past BSAC standards was both unecessary and largely irrelevant. It constituted a rant rather than rational debate and as such was unworthy of you and I find that dissapointing to say the least.

I made it a point not to answer alans question (really dont believe this is the place for it) but rather to suggest that for as long as I remember there have been those who said that everything we have ever changed was better before we changed it, this in my opinion is just another example.
I looked back on all the emails about the subject from my 6 or so years on BOE and found non from alan, I do remember you voicing your opinion to several of us during the review and we listened, in the end we felt what Maggie did was the best way of fitting the review to the perameters set at the time. I still hold that belief.
The Instructor training scheme has been tinkered with over recent years on a piece meal basis. I am aware that NDC is currently looking at this issue but the ITS should have been considered holistcaly in the past rather than the tinkering that has taken place.
That was what was done.. it was our best shot sorry you dont like it.
You refer to feeding back and question whether this is the correct forum to discuss this issue. You may recall that I and others have criticised what has been done to the ITS for some time now, both verbally and in writing. My comments have been made in what you might consider the correct circles, ie; to the people who have been directly involved in the process. Those comments have fallen on deaf ears and have largely been ignored to the point where you and others haven't even bothered to answer the points put to you.
Not deaf ears Mike. never deaf ears, I agree with most things you say (we are very much alike:-) ) but not this. I have talked to you often about this and you know I disagree with you but I dont ever remember you writing to me about it, If I missed something I apologise.
Given this background, where would you suggest is an appropriate forum for the membership to debate of this issue if the Instructor Forum of the BSAC website is not?
I would like to think that we could have had annual meetings of NI's along the lines of the Bosses Workshop....workshop to get all the feedback from all National....not that I think that only NI's have an imput but they are the most experienced group we have got, and we are less likely to intimidate each other. :-)

My intention as you know was to run a series of events like that, the fedback we got for that one course was imense. alas it was never to be.

But from past experience of forums in the past I know how utterly destructive they can be when peoples work is ripped apart. you yourself have defended me in the past. I never posted on here again after that and I dont recall mr lawrence jumping in to defend me on that occasion.....different strokes is it kieth?

Maybe I'm too close to the people involved but to sum up 6 years of their work and say it was better before dosnt seem too positive or constructive to me and whilst they need all feedback you are (or were) in the minority on this.

As you said Mike, You and I go back a long way and we have, I aint going to fall out with you over a one issue disagreement, I dont even know why I had a dig at alan, im not even a member of the BSAC anymore, probably one last dig for old times sake before I crawl back under my rock.

here's mud in your eye

robin
Mike

[iainmsmith]

...nearly fair comment. The fact that these points were picked up on the OWIC, show how effective and important the Quality Control via the ITS run courses and exam, is.

Ahem...yes, indeed. Having not been involved in the new ITS as either a student or instructor, can someone tell me whether the teaching of oxygen administration and/or BLS are examined, or does the practical exam concentrate on "in-water" teaching?

Thanks

Iain

[John Williams]

Whilst I can sympathise with Robin that Alan chooses a very strange way to begin his post - by actually mentioning the sour grapes!

Alan does have a point.

AIUI the last review of the ITS:
Lawyers were involved and stated that the first "uncontrolled" place that instructors instructed was not the pool (the conditions were very controlled here and the TO, a qualified NQI, could easily monitor quality of instruction - preferably from in the pool watching several lessons - but at the very least from the side of the pool)

In Open water conditions are not as easily controlled. Tides, wave action, visibility, all the extra kit, cold, no physical containment keeping all lessons in a single location etc made for an environment where more incidents were likely to occu - and did occur.

In an increasingly legislative society I beleive that the advice was that assessment should take place in the environment where most risk of someone making a claim was at!

At the time an EXTRA assessment was proposed - so that we had

ITC/IFC ~> CIE ~> Experience ~> OWE ~> etc

However this did not fit with "Progression" - how do you examine something you've not taught?

It also added a stage - potentially making it more costly in terms of both time and money.

So the OWIC was introduced giving even more stages, and more cost.

ITC/IFC ~> CIE ~> OWIC ~> OWE ~> etc

However - what do you examine at OWE apart from practical skills?
The Theory and classroom skills could be done wherever/whenever in the process - couldn't they?

Did we not just agree (above) that incidents were rare in the pool and that lessons could/should be closely monitored by the TO in that environment. So examining instructors before we let them loose in OW (rather than in the supervised/controlled confines of the pool)seems sensible - and meets the lawyers recommendations!

Before this debate began we also changed our entry level diving qualification to Ocean Diver - which includes OW work - so it makes sense that the entry level instructor should be qualified to teach at least the entry level diving course (otherwise they need someone else to qualify a beginner in anything!)

So we are now in a situation where the lawyers are demanding that assessment takes place where the risk first becomes apparent - which coincides with the entry level diving qualification.

So now we need:

ITC/IFC ~> further training ~> entry level assessment

the initial assessment needs to be in the three areas covered by the CIE (Theory, practical and classroom teaching) - but the lawyers say the Practical needs to be in OW.

You make it fit better than it does at the moment!

My criticism of the current system comes AFTER OWI.

I will harp back to the good old days here.

SDCs used to be run by AIs and staffed by CIs.
It was a system that worked in practice - but not by design.

AIs had never been trained to lead a team of instructors and to maintain standards within that team - they just picked it up as they went along (which does not fit with our aim mto be "progressive".

OWIs can, of course, do the same - but, by definition they lack some training and experience.

Since the old AIC involved "teaching in Shallow Open Water" - a sunject now comprehensively taught and examined at OWI level there was a gap in the AIC programme.

IMVHO that gap should have been filled with training aimed at managing a team of instructors to acheive training objectives. This would aid the TO/DO of every branch when devising a training programme using their ADIs and NQIs as well as when devising a diving programm eusing Marshalls and Deputy Marshals

It would also provide an opportunity to teach AIs about monitoring instructor performance and giving constructive feedback to those instructors (who would then get better at giving feedback to trainees - something we don't do particularly well at present).

If this were examined at AIE you end up with the perfect person to lead SDCs where instructor development is planned.
I don't beleive that when OWIs were allowed to Boss SDCs it was meant to include the approval of others to do the same - that just came by default.

Years ago you had to gain SDC approval from the Regional Coach -who took the recommendation of the Area Coaches if they could not assess competence directly!

By all means let approved OWIs teach on courses, and even Boss them - with a team of approved (or developing Instructors) - but leave the final approval of SDC Instructors to those trained and assessed in that skill via AI.

This also gives OWIs an incentive to move forward to AI - and one that is likely to be encouraged/supported by branches.

By including this skill in the AI training you also provide a much more appropriate introduction to the ITS - a scheme dedicated to instructor development and assessment - than AI currently offers.

NI then becomes much more relevant to teaching potential AIs to manage other instructors more effectively, and to develop those skills via the ITS management role they now fill so well.

Alan is right that the whole of the ITS does not hang together very well at all - though I'd argue that the early stages do so quite effectively and it is the higher grades that need most work.

Robin is also right to point us all into a constructive debate that leave sour grapes firmly behind and looks for reasoned arguements for a review. Preferably one that leaves us with grades that fit together to meet the needs of today's (and tomorrow's) BSAC.

We started the current review process with OWI, we are moving forward with reviewing AI and have left NI for the future.

Perhaps we should consider
1) that the current review is not yet complete
2) making recommendations that encompass the whole scheme rather than tinkering with it peicemeal.

John

[Sean Gribben]

John,
Perhaps yuo should be feeding back to Duncan Locke (AI Chief Instructor), Mike Thomas(AI Chief Examiner) and Phil Clifton (ITS Group Leader on the NDC). They will be more than willing to look at your suggests.

Sean

[gareth]

John

I did my AI in Gozo in 2003.

One of the importent aspects of the Coarse/Exam was the orgainisation & managing of a team of instructors (& students (or naughty NI's)).

You need to be able to work in a team to achieve the objectives. If you are unable to work in the team, orgainise & manage the group you will fail one of the core requirements.

Another section of the AI coarse/exam is the ability to observe, assess instruction & provide the appropriate corrective instruction for another instructor (the level we worked with was upto & including OWI).

I know when I did my event this was part of the new AI coarse. The Instructor/Examiner team carried out very through reviews during the event, the team where still fine tuning the new coarse.
There may have been some changes since, but the new coarse/exam has at least gone some way to include the issues you discribe.

As you state, one of the problems still appears that OWI's can now do far more than they used to with regard to the SDC's, & other areas of the diver training syllabus, removing the need for AI's, thus reducing the need for most instructors to progress to AI.

Gareth

[Andy Nye]

What amases me is that

A diver with less than 200 dives , can be a dive leader & OWI.

I have seen and heard a few ramble on on my boat about the grades they have ,,,, then i sit watching someone else show them how to put thier kit together or pulling them down a shotline with a 56 pound wieght on it off the wreck , as they forgot to dump air from suit and jacket ...


I think that it should go back to the old way ... ITC > CI > OWI.

[John Williams]

John,
Perhaps yuo should be feeding back to Duncan Locke (AI Chief Instructor), Mike Thomas(AI Chief Examiner) and Phil Clifton (ITS Group Leader on the NDC). They will be more than willing to look at your suggests.

Sean

Sean,

My suggestions have been fed into the reviews - whoever was leading them at the time. I ALWAYS contribute to the BSAC when asked to (if it is at all possible for me to do so). You've been on the receiving end of some of my suggestions in the past.

Here I'm with Alan...I never even got a response to say "thanks for your input". If contributing to the "correct" forums has not worked nefore then I'm less inclined to do so again.

I have my suggestions mapped out in a file somewhere - if I'm asked for it I'll be willing to try again.

Same deal goes for my suggestions for the Coaching Scheme - which have been consistently left unacknowledged.

I don't want my suggestions actioning - a review is MUCH more than one persons ideals. However - a simple note to say "Thanks for your input" would encourage us volunteers to contribute and think that our input was not being filed as SPAM.

John

[allan j bretherton]

Hi Guys,

There appears to be some concern over my choice of media to raise this issue. I did initially ask that this be raised as a discussion topic at the next bosses workshop planned for March ?05. This is the response I received

Quote

Thanks for your note on the Instructor Training Scheme (ITS) that Clare passed on to me to answer (as the Instructor Training Group Team Leader).

To address your points it is important to remember that the 'new scheme' has now been in place for 3 years. The Instructor Foundation Course (IFC), the Theory Instructor Exam (TIE) and Practical Instructor Exam (PIE) all work well and are popular events.

The reason why they were introduced in the first place was due to popular demand from potential instructors to have the Club Instructor Exam split up. Doing 3 elements in one day was challenging for all candidates and daunting for others. A great deal of work was done to make a workable alternative with workgroups and membership contributing to the changes.

Although BSAC divers will be in greater numbers at Ocean Diver and Sports Diver level I believe we should be encourage divers to aspire to the higher grades which will require good quality teaching from OWI's and above.

The reason for the OWI element in the IFC is because we know branches ask their instructors to teach in open water. We need to teach our first grade of practical instructors to be cable of doing this effectively.

By separating the classroom and practical elements of the OWI we have not pulled the ladder up rather have inserted more progressive steps as requested by the candidates. In my opinion to re-introduce a pool instructor exam would add to the workload of all the ITS staff and act as disincentive to progression to OWI.

Based on the reasons above we do not intend to revert to the old training scheme and I hope we can use the Bosses Workshop to look forward rather than re-visit sound decisions that are now an integral part of our training scheme.
Unquote

I rest my case???..Allan


Whilst I can sympathise with Robin that Alan chooses a very strange way to begin his post - by actually mentioning the sour grapes!

Alan does have a point.

AIUI the last review of the ITS:
Lawyers were involved and stated that the first "uncontrolled" place that instructors instructed was not the pool (the conditions were very controlled here and the TO, a qualified NQI, could easily monitor quality of instruction - preferably from in the pool watching several lessons - but at the very least from the side of the pool)

In Open water conditions are not as easily controlled. Tides, wave action, visibility, all the extra kit, cold, no physical containment keeping all lessons in a single location etc made for an environment where more incidents were likely to occu - and did occur.

In an increasingly legislative society I beleive that the advice was that assessment should take place in the environment where most risk of someone making a claim was at!

At the time an EXTRA assessment was proposed - so that we had

ITC/IFC ~> CIE ~> Experience ~> OWE ~> etc

However this did not fit with "Progression" - how do you examine something you've not taught?

It also added a stage - potentially making it more costly in terms of both time and money.

So the OWIC was introduced giving even more stages, and more cost.

ITC/IFC ~> CIE ~> OWIC ~> OWE ~> etc

However - what do you examine at OWE apart from practical skills?
The Theory and classroom skills could be done wherever/whenever in the process - couldn't they?

Did we not just agree (above) that incidents were rare in the pool and that lessons could/should be closely monitored by the TO in that environment. So examining instructors before we let them loose in OW (rather than in the supervised/controlled confines of the pool)seems sensible - and meets the lawyers recommendations!

Before this debate began we also changed our entry level diving qualification to Ocean Diver - which includes OW work - so it makes sense that the entry level instructor should be qualified to teach at least the entry level diving course (otherwise they need someone else to qualify a beginner in anything!)

So we are now in a situation where the lawyers are demanding that assessment takes place where the risk first becomes apparent - which coincides with the entry level diving qualification.

So now we need:

ITC/IFC ~> further training ~> entry level assessment

the initial assessment needs to be in the three areas covered by the CIE (Theory, practical and classroom teaching) - but the lawyers say the Practical needs to be in OW.

You make it fit better than it does at the moment!

My criticism of the current system comes AFTER OWI.

I will harp back to the good old days here.

SDCs used to be run by AIs and staffed by CIs.
It was a system that worked in practice - but not by design.

AIs had never been trained to lead a team of instructors and to maintain standards within that team - they just picked it up as they went along (which does not fit with our aim mto be "progressive".

OWIs can, of course, do the same - but, by definition they lack some training and experience.

Since the old AIC involved "teaching in Shallow Open Water" - a sunject now comprehensively taught and examined at OWI level there was a gap in the AIC programme.

IMVHO that gap should have been filled with training aimed at managing a team of instructors to acheive training objectives. This would aid the TO/DO of every branch when devising a training programme using their ADIs and NQIs as well as when devising a diving programm eusing Marshalls and Deputy Marshals

It would also provide an opportunity to teach AIs about monitoring instructor performance and giving constructive feedback to those instructors (who would then get better at giving feedback to trainees - something we don't do particularly well at present).

If this were examined at AIE you end up with the perfect person to lead SDCs where instructor development is planned.
I don't beleive that when OWIs were allowed to Boss SDCs it was meant to include the approval of others to do the same - that just came by default.

Years ago you had to gain SDC approval from the Regional Coach -who took the recommendation of the Area Coaches if they could not assess competence directly!

By all means let approved OWIs teach on courses, and even Boss them - with a team of approved (or developing Instructors) - but leave the final approval of SDC Instructors to those trained and assessed in that skill via AI.

This also gives OWIs an incentive to move forward to AI - and one that is likely to be encouraged/supported by branches.

By including this skill in the AI training you also provide a much more appropriate introduction to the ITS - a scheme dedicated to instructor development and assessment - than AI currently offers.

NI then becomes much more relevant to teaching potential AIs to manage other instructors more effectively, and to develop those skills via the ITS management role they now fill so well.

Alan is right that the whole of the ITS does not hang together very well at all - though I'd argue that the early stages do so quite effectively and it is the higher grades that need most work.

Robin is also right to point us all into a constructive debate that leave sour grapes firmly behind and looks for reasoned arguements for a review. Preferably one that leaves us with grades that fit together to meet the needs of today's (and tomorrow's) BSAC.

We started the current review process with OWI, we are moving forward with reviewing AI and have left NI for the future.

Perhaps we should consider
1) that the current review is not yet complete
2) making recommendations that encompass the whole scheme rather than tinkering with it peicemeal.

John

[John Williams]

I rest my case???..Allan


Really?

Sounds like you rest their case.

The response given to you highlights the reasoning behind their decision - and cites popular support for it.

You have, as yet, failed to give your reasons and cite your support.

AIUI the Bosses Workshop was put in place to make sure that all NIs were "singing from the same hymn sheet".

The forum for discussing change therefore is NOT at these events.

These events are for discussing conformity and overcoming inconsistencies ...not for creating disharmony and creating inconsistenceies.

Robin asked if you had attended one of these events yet Allan.
Have you?

Without having attended one - how can you criticise it, or claim to know what it's all about?

Whilst I'm not an NI I HAVE attended one - when I acted as Local Organiser.

I was asked to contribute and to give perspective as a Staff Instructor reacting to the disharmony and inconsistency exhibited by different Bosses - which is a major cause of discontnt and confusion amongst the AIs who staff ITS events.

Please come up with reasoned arguments and contribute to a sound debate rather than continuing with the "Sour Grapes" you started out with.

You clearly have a great deal of experience, knowledge, committment etc to draw upon...let's hear some of it set out here.


John

[allan j bretherton]

John,
Please refer to my initial posting, i.e.
Quote
On the IFC that replaces the ITC the students get between 2 and 21/2 hours in the pool as well as watching a video of a typical lesson then that?s it. We no longer examine in the pool and the next time we see the students for practical skills is the OWIC.
The majority of our members do not progress beyond sports diver, as a matter of fact, out of 34,500 members in year 2000 5,400 were club divers, 9,200 sports divers and 10,500 under training, i.e. 72% of our membership at sports diver or below. The vast majority of the practical training for 72% of our members is undertaken in the swimming pool and we no longer assess our instructors in this environment.
Unquote
The point is open discussion which we are not getting. I?d also remind you of an extract from your posting, i.e.
Quote
My suggestions have been fed into the reviews - whoever was leading them at the time. I ALWAYS contribute to the BSAC when asked to (if it is at all possible for me to do so). You've been on the receiving end of some of my suggestions in the past.
Here I'm with Alan...I never even got a response to say "thanks for your input". If contributing to the "correct" forums has not worked before then I'm less inclined to do so again.
Unquote
So John, which hymn sheet are you singing from today?

Allan


:=
:=I rest my case???..Allan
:=

Really?

Sounds like you rest their case.

The response given to you highlights the reasoning behind their decision - and cites popular support for it.

You have, as yet, failed to give your reasons and cite your support.

AIUI the Bosses Workshop was put in place to make sure that all NIs were "singing from the same hymn sheet".

The forum for discussing change therefore is NOT at these events.

These events are for discussing conformity and overcoming inconsistencies ...not for creating disharmony and creating inconsistenceies.

Robin asked if you had attended one of these events yet Allan.
Have you?

Without having attended one - how can you criticise it, or claim to know what it's all about?

Whilst I'm not an NI I HAVE attended one - when I acted as Local Organiser.

I was asked to contribute and to give perspective as a Staff Instructor reacting to the disharmony and inconsistency exhibited by different Bosses - which is a major cause of discontnt and confusion amongst the AIs who staff ITS events.

Please come up with reasoned arguments and contribute to a sound debate rather than continuing with the "Sour Grapes" you started out with.

You clearly have a great deal of experience, knowledge, committment etc to draw upon...let's hear some of it set out here.


John

[matts]

Quote
On the IFC that replaces the ITC the students get between 2 and 21/2 hours in the pool as well as watching a video of a typical lesson then that?s it. We no longer examine in the pool and the next time we see the students for practical skills is the OWIC.

Is there any evidence to suggest that 2 1/2 hours of pool work during the IFC is inadequate? Is there in fact a problem that needs attention?

The majority of our members do not progress beyond sports diver, as a matter of fact, out of 34,500 members in year 2000 5,400 were club divers, 9,200 sports divers and 10,500 under training, i.e. 72% of our membership at sports diver or below. The vast majority of the practical training for 72% of our members is undertaken in the swimming pool and we no longer assess our instructors in this environment.

Surely only a small proportion of that 72% is undertaking the pool training element. The majority will be engaged in CD, SD and DL Open Water training. The statistic I think you need to look at is the proportion of the membership qualified to teach in Open Water. Should you go on to work out the number of Open Water dives each instructor is required to make in order to progress the 72% to Dive Leader, I suspect that you will find the work load is greater than most instructors are willing to volunteer.

If there is a problem with the ITS it stems from the removal of DLs and ADs from the available instructor pool. Very little in the way of co-ordinated effort was made by BSAC to help branches rectify the resourcing problems they were lumbered with. The result has been increasing numbers of divers stalled at CD and SD because the correctly qualified instructors are too busy to provide higher qualifications.

Before thinking up new ways of making Instructor qualifications take any longer than they currently do, you might want to give a thought as to how OW instructor numbers can be significantly increased.

You don't need to be a genius to realise that some of BSACs current membership woes are the result of not being able to deliver training in a timely manner. The best delivery channel we have is the branch but until the branches have sufficient instructors to satisfy demand we will fail to meet our membership's expectations.

I for one will object loudly and bitterly against any move that is likely to further reduce the number of instructors available for Open Water training. The introduction of yet another National Exam would do just that. It is already a devil of a job to try and get people to progress down the ITS. The lack of convenient dates and locations delays qualification as it is. Another stat to look at; how long do instructors spend between IFC and PIE?

A compromise between no assessment and National assessment, might be to have pool training skills assessed by AIs in the branch. This would help make AI status more desirable and provide a much needed first step between branch training and the ITS.

[Mike Halligan]

If there is a problem with the ITS it stems from the removal of DLs and ADs from the available instructor pool. Very little in the way of co-ordinated effort was made by BSAC to help branches rectify the resourcing problems they were lumbered with. The result has been increasing numbers of divers stalled at CD and SD because the correctly qualified instructors are too busy to provide higher qualifications.

Matt,

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say, bar this. Even here, I disagree only because in '98 I was qualified to CI - and immediately thrown into ADO. I doubt I would otherwise understand what is the fuss.

The facts at that time were that the long publicised ambition of the BSAC to migrate all Branch Trainers to NQI - and thus have all training conducted by instructors or trained assistants - had not been achieved. This, despite ready access to the very simple process then in place (ITC + CIE = CI) and constant pleas from the BSAC for more students at ITC. OWI was a relatively new grade. It was little understood in my neck of the woods, but achievable all the same by OWIC and logging.

At that time, too, AD (by SDC) was in many minds neatly filed under 'too difficult' and DL awaited the Branch getting 'a round tuit' - available we believed in seafront tat-shops for ?1-99. The Branch, like many others, was not integrated within the area/regional scheme and appeared to view it with some suspicion.

The new syllabus (for CD/OD and SD) made clear the requirement for NQIs and its expectation of OWIs and was met with surprise despite all those years of encouragement. There is no mileage in claiming the 2002 syllabus was a change, it merely insisted on what had long been recommended and later required.

I have the greatest respect for those who gave their time and efforts as Branch Trainers prior to 1998, but not so much as to deny they were encouraged onto ITC and/or warned of their demise.

I fully support your description of the symptoms, but cannot subscribe to your view of their cause. I believe that serious co-ordinated effort was made by BSAC to help branches avoid the resourcing problems they are now lumbered with. In my experience, the disease is a combination of vested interest, 'Grandma knows best', wilful independence, resistance to change and 'ladder-pulling'. All are perfectly human characteristics, so short of having computers run Branches (Heaven forfend), we shall probably have to live with such problems for a very long time.

Regards,

Mike

[John Williams]

So John, which hymn sheet are you singing from today?

Allan


The one that says:
"here are some ideas for the future - that I will feed into the right forum"

On a separate sheet is a recommendation to those receiving those suggestions to acknowledge them and encourage more.

I've fed into those forums and never received acknowledgement - the disinclines me to contribute again. I does not invalidate the process. My comments are on file - somewhere!. They do not need re-stating - that just wastes time and effort.

Therefore the hymn sheet that I am NOT singing from is:
"Let's repeat points I have already made and hope that if I raise them in a different forum then I might get some action!"

That is one of the first lessons that parents and kids teach each other:
Ask Daddy something and he says "No!"
Go ask Mummy the same thing and she says "Yes"
Daddy is still gonna bollock you and Mummy & Daddy will have a "friendly discussion" and whatever the kid asks in future the answer will either be "Have you asked the other parent?" or a staight "No!" - to avoid a scene.

You have presented no new arguements, brought no new solution to the table. You are effectively asking the other parent a question to which you already have your answer. Even if you get sympathy - you're still heading for trouble without gaining the support of Parent 1.

Bring us something new to debate and perhaps you might be able to refine your arguement with ideas given in response. Once refined you can take a DIFFERENT QUESTION to the BoE, cite popular support and present a workable answer...then you might get somewhere.

Rehashing the same old stuff in a different forum is just going to upset those that can actually help you acheive your goals.

So...
What have you got that's new?
How can we help you refine it?



I'll ask again - do you understand the "raison d'etre" of the Bosses Workshop?
Have you been to one and seen for yourself what it sets out to acheive?
It really is NOT the right forum for the debate you are asking for.

You know what the right forum is. Let me refer you back to Sean's post for where to send your final draft suggestions (after refining them via these fora)

John

[allan j bretherton]

Gentlemen,

This is not about the ?correct? forum, sour grapes (not that there ever was any) or pulling up the ladder, it?s about safety and getting it right at the early stages.

I?m not against change, quite the opposite and was heavily involved in the new diver training programme which provides training that is both safe and appropriate to today?s branch diving. It was also necessary to review the ITS in line with the new diver training programme and as many of you will know, extracts from the new diver training programme are used within the IFC where we concentrate on teaching techniques rather than the minutia of picking a small section of a topic for either the classroom or pool element of the course.

As I said previously, some 72% of our members are CD/OD, SD or divers under training and yes Matt, these figures are correct. We (in 2000) had about 35,000 members, 5,400 were club divers, 9,200 sports divers and 10,500 under training. As an organisation we get approximately 30% new members each year and unfortunately, lose just over 30%. 30% of 35,000 is about 10,500 new members and those are the ones under training to become Ocean Divers.

Also, I?m not suggesting that we go back totally to the old system, rather I?m asking that we at least debate that we may have got it wrong and look at the inclusion of a pool assessment; not to make it more difficult, not to make the process take longer and certainly not to raise the ladder but to make us better and safer.

Under the ?old? system and I?m talking purely about timing, the following programme was followed:

ITC (2 days) CIE (1day) OWIC (1day) then either 12 hours experience or later, a 1 day exam

Under the new system we are looking at

IFC (2 days) TIE (timetabled as 1/2 day but effectively, takes a full day out) OWIC (1 day) PIE (1 day)

Both the old and new system take 5 days to get to OWI which is NQI level 1 so timing is not really an issue. What is an issue is both divers and instructors being full proficient in practical skills before venturing to open water. We?ve all seen (or at least I have) the divers that can?t fin properly, that can?t clear a mask properly and have indifferent buoyancy control ? these are the skills that have to be perfected in the pool before venturing to open water. If we get the basics right the rest comes much easier as we are building on a solid foundation.

The suggestion of an assessment is not to make it more difficult, quite the opposite as the confidence gained in passing a pool assessment makes life much easier in the open water environment where, in general, the water is colder, darker and the visibility at most of the sights we use is in general much worse than in the pool. And for the ones that do inevitably fail, the feedback they receive from the assessment is usually very useful and helps in perfecting skills before moving on.

Litigation has been mentioned on these postings and that pool training is safe whilst open water is more of a risk but it?s not just about litigation. If we get it right in the pool we are far more likely to get it right in open water hence the need to ensure that all our instructors are fully proficient in the pool which by default necessitates the need for some form of assessment. Whether this be as part of the ITS or as Mike suggests, in branch by AI?s or even the coaching scheme is open to debate ? something I?ve been pushing for.


Cheers?????Allan



:=So John, which hymn sheet are you singing from today?
:=
:=Allan


The one that says:
"here are some ideas for the future - that I will feed into the right forum"

On a separate sheet is a recommendation to those receiving those suggestions to acknowledge them and encourage more.

I've fed into those forums and never received acknowledgement - the disinclines me to contribute again. I does not invalidate the process. My comments are on file - somewhere!. They do not need re-stating - that just wastes time and effort.

Therefore the hymn sheet that I am NOT singing from is:
"Let's repeat points I have already made and hope that if I raise them in a different forum then I might get some action!"

That is one of the first lessons that parents and kids teach each other:
Ask Daddy something and he says "No!"
Go ask Mummy the same thing and she says "Yes"
Daddy is still gonna bollock you and Mummy & Daddy will have a "friendly discussion" and whatever the kid asks in future the answer will either be "Have you asked the other parent?" or a staight "No!" - to avoid a scene.

You have presented no new arguements, brought no new solution to the table. You are effectively asking the other parent a question to which you already have your answer. Even if you get sympathy - you're still heading for trouble without gaining the support of Parent 1.

Bring us something new to debate and perhaps you might be able to refine your arguement with ideas given in response. Once refined you can take a DIFFERENT QUESTION to the BoE, cite popular support and present a workable answer...then you might get somewhere.

Rehashing the same old stuff in a different forum is just going to upset those that can actually help you acheive your goals.

So...
What have you got that's new?
How can we help you refine it?



I'll ask again - do you understand the "raison d'etre" of the Bosses Workshop?
Have you been to one and seen for yourself what it sets out to acheive?
It really is NOT the right forum for the debate you are asking for.

You know what the right forum is. Let me refer you back to Sean's post for where to send your final draft suggestions (after refining them via these fora)

John

[Mike Halligan]

Tom,

I may be playing devils advocate hear & I usually end up getting late night phone calls threatening me with being thrown out of BSAC & the like but hear goes.
Always a useful stance, but 'usually'? How often have you provoked such extreme reaction? I'm sure many, on Council and off,would be interested to know who makes such calls.

SINCE WHEN, have the BSAC council members ever really gone with what the membership wants or needs & not with what the click at the top wants?.
Well, our NDO is open with us, and so at least is Keith. Who then comprise the perceived clique?

Edward Haynes and I requested clarification from our NDO (in my own case, I used 'delayed send' to let the best part of the Christmas holiday pass) and she replied direct and on-forum inside 90 minutes ("Old syllabus training", below).

Think back to bygone days, You could get your advanced diver qualification in branch, nearly all our senior members (for the want of a better word)were all Advanced Divers. Then BSAC in their wisdom think it will be much better to have Advanced a skill development course, NOT ONE person within our branch has qualified to Advanced since. Why you ask? because of the cost & time commitments involved & the fact they do not trust BSAC's motives for changing.
We found that, too, until as a Branch we collaborated with our Region and some of us trained as SDC instructors. Now, we train AD in-Branch on both 1995 and 2002 syllabi.

Now Dive leaders going the same way, guess what everyone is staying at sports diver level now (apart from a couple who because of seniors leaving have no choice if the club is to survive, to qualify higher). Funny that.
Not my experience, members respond to encouragement and want the added responsibility - where they can be sure they will be allowed to shoulder it. Nothing destroys ambition like a bunch of shellbacks blocking any glimpse of opportunity.

Has anyone eles noticed that when ever someone from within BSAC council starts any boat rocking they suddenly resign(without any pushing at all), Thats funny as well.
Ask Keith, I suspect he knows otherwise!

I once sent off for an application form to stand on council, the form was duly sent back with a very polite discouraging letter telling that BSAC council was looking for a certain type of person to stand, The letter was so bad that I just threw the whole lot in the bin, me only being the Managing Director of a company felt that I was not going to be up to the standards the council wanted.
How long ago was that?

Doubtless there will be other views, such is the forum.

Happy New Year to all,

Mike

[andy wade]

I may be playing devils advocate hear & I usually end up getting late night phone calls threatening me with being thrown out of BSAC & the like but hear goes.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, it must be true then...
Late night threatening phone calls? really? Gosh! Look, if someone does ring you up, please write the conversation down and post it here will you? As long as it's not libellous for the BSAC Forum to publish it, I'm sure Keith would allow it.
He's definitely not into censorship.
If you really are getting threatening phone calls, call the police. I know from personal experience that they will take you seriously. Make sure you take careful note of times, and details of the conversation.

SINCE WHEN, have the BSAC council members ever really gone with what the membership wants or needs & not with what the click at the top wants?.

In my experience the membership rarely says what it needs in large enough numbers to even affect voting at the AGM.

Think back to bygone days, You could get your advanced diver qualification in branch, nearly all our senior members (for the want of a better word)were all Advanced Divers. Then BSAC in their wisdom think it will be much better to have Advanced a skill development course, NOT ONE person within our branch has qualified to Advanced since. Why you ask? because of the cost & time commitments involved & the fact they do not trust BSAC's motives for changing.

I know at least one of the reasons that it happened, because I was asked before the changes what I thought about it (sometime in 1991/92 I think).
Here it is:
At First Class Diver examinations it had been noticed that on a lot of occasions, divers putting themselves up for the FCD exam weren't even up to Advanced Diver standard (not necessarily in all areas but certainly some). It is after all the first occasion that a lot of branch trained divers get their AD skills seen by someone at national level. (I do know that some of this was correct as I'd seen it for myself, at least one Advanced Diver with a very sparse knowledge of decompression theory for example, and some of this persons general diving practices left a lot to be desired).
Anyway, this problem was seen to be because (some) branches weren't all being quite as thorough as they could have been, so it had been decided that some of the skills needed might be better attained on SDC's, this should allow the AD standards to be met and using NQI's at that to do it. Certainly at the time it seemed like a good idea.

Now I'm not sure if it has raised the standard of the average AD attending FCD as I'm not aware of the statistics. However, I do think that it has certainly led to there being less of them being trained up, possibly because the people who made the changes didn't forsee the inabilities of the SDC system to support the amount of AD training required. Lots of SDC's have failed to take place because of lack of instructors, lack of trainees, for several reasons, including manpower, cost, and people simply not being able to attend them because the dates aren't convenient, or the one they'd like to attend took place too far away to be worth travelling all that way for. Not forgetting that some people simply didn't want to go outside their branch for a qualification that they saw as being better done within the branch.
Effectively the AD ladder was pulled up because it made it harder to attain AD, I don't think that was ever the intention though.

Now Dive leaders going the same way, guess what everyone is staying at sports diver level now (apart from a couple who because of seniors leaving have no choice if the club is to survive, to qualify higher). Funny that.

Is that because the NDC tried to inflict controls for the wrong reasons (conspiracy theory) or because they tried something with the DTP that just didn't quite work as well as they would have wanted and had repercussions they didn't foresee? I choose the latter, because they're all human after all.

Has anyone eles noticed that when ever someone from within BSAC council starts any boat rocking they suddenly resign(without any pushing at all), Thats funny as well.

Who and when? Please, because I really don't know who you're referring to here. Off the top of my head I can only think of one person who has resigned from council.

I once sent off for an application form to stand on council, the form was duly sent back with a very polite discouraging letter telling that BSAC council was looking for a certain type of person to stand, The letter was so bad that I just threw the whole lot in the bin, me only being the Managing Director of a company felt that I was not going to be up to the standards the council wanted.

Hmmm... They are looking for a certain kind of person.
Someone who will give up all their free time for no thanks and no pay, and be prepared to take the flak without any real way to defend their actions. (I'm sure Keith can confirm some or all of this.)
It sounds like they want to make it clear enough so that people go into it with their eyes open. Nothing wrong with that.

Who knows I might stand next time just to see how long it is before I have to resign.

Go for it Tom.
Prove yourself right.
But be prepared to discover that they might just be very dedicated people who want to make diving better, probably just like you and I.
And being human they inevitably make some mistakes along the way.

[Edward Haynes]

Tom

Please stand, its people who understand how a business is run compared to running a Branch that (IMVHO) is required to oversee the National organisation.

New prospectives and ideas are allways welcome.

It will be the 4th time. but I'm still putting myself forward again. Does that mean I will turn my back on BSAC if not elected. No. I'll still oversee the BOH and partake in Teams (e.g. IT and Memebership) providing Council want me too.

Edward Haynes

Who knows I might stand next time just to see how long it is before I have to resign.

[andy wade]

Tom

Please stand, its people who understand how a business is run compared to running a Branch that (IMVHO) is required to oversee the National organisation.

New prospectives and ideas are allways welcome.

It will be the 4th time. but I'm still putting myself forward again. Does that mean I will turn my back on BSAC if not elected. No. I'll still oversee the BOH and partake in Teams (e.g. IT and Memebership) providing Council want me too.

Edward Haynes

You've already got my vote Edward.

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Is this a troll? Come on ? it?s GOT to be a troll! But Tom is a BSAC member so I suppose that I had better say something, the only trouble is I?m not sure which BSAC Tom is talking about because the one he belongs to bears no relationship whatsoever to the one I?m a member of. Still ? I?ll do my best?

I may be playing devils advocate hear & I usually end up getting late night phone calls threatening me with being thrown out of BSAC & the like but hear goes.

Get real please. You have really got to go some to get thrown out of the BSAC, all such expulsions have to go before full Council, I am aware of every single one (a small handful) over the past four or five years. It can?t happen the way that you claim Tom, it doesn?t happen, if it ever did I would personally follow said member out of the door because I would have nothing to do with a club that did that.

SINCE WHEN, have the BSAC council members ever really gone with what the membership wants or needs & not with what the click at the top wants?.

Since I?ve been on Council and from the papers I have seen long before that Tom. The members get the Council they vote for, it?s as simple as that. I?ve been looking for this supposed clique BTW, through countless hours of Council meetings, reams of Council documents, dozens and dozens of proposals and business decisions. Sorry, I can?t find them, neither can any of the other Council members I?ve ever spoken to. So either they are so good that they have been fooling everybody from the Chairman down over all these years or they don?t exist ? your call.

Think back to bygone days, You could get your advanced diver qualification in branch, nearly all our senior members (for the want of a better word)were all Advanced Divers. Then BSAC in their wisdom think it will be much better to have Advanced a skill development course, NOT ONE person within our branch has qualified to Advanced since. Why you ask? because of the cost & time commitments involved & the fact they do not trust BSAC's motives for changing.
Now Dive leaders going the same way, guess what everyone is staying at sports diver level now (apart from a couple who because of seniors leaving have no choice if the club is to survive, to qualify higher). Funny that.

You are citing evidence from one branch. Our international statistics, feedback, branch visits, regional reports, numerous pieces or correspondence and feedback, personal conversations with hundreds of members ? that tells us different. I rest my case.

Has anyone eles noticed that when ever someone from within BSAC council starts any boat rocking they suddenly resign(without any pushing at all), Thats funny as well.

ROFLMAO! Now I know it?s got to be a troll. If that were the case then I would never even have got onto Council and I certainly wouldn?t have made it past my first meeting! Rock the boat? Over the years I?ve come damn near to getting water in over the sides a few times ;-) Where are all of these resignations? I am only aware of one person who has resigned over a difference of opinion (that was their choice), everybody else who has resigned has normally done so for personal reasons and under the friendliest of circumstances.

I once sent off for an application form to stand on council, the form was duly sent back with a very polite discouraging letter telling that BSAC council was looking for a certain type of person to stand, The letter was so bad that I just threw the whole lot in the bin, me only being the Managing Director of a company felt that I was not going to be up to the standards the council wanted.

Ooohhh ? it?s that bad, that terrible, that off-putting is it? Tell you what Tom, I?ve posted the current 2005 ? 2008 nomination form and supporting information, perhaps you would care to highlight the parts that you took exception to? Perhaps others would like to look at it as well (or even better ? apply!), if anybody has any questions at all then start a thread in ?Club Maters? and I or one of the other Council members will answer your questions with full honesty.

Who knows I might stand next time just to see how long it is before I have to resign.

If that is your attitude then I suggest that you don?t bother and don?t waste the members time, I am sure that you could find a reason to resign and therefore prove your point if that?s your objective. But the members need somebody who is going to stick with it, to represent their interests over the longer term ? not somebody who is going to storm off in a huff discarding teddies as they go because they cannot accept a majority democratic decision. Numerous times Council has collectively reached a decision that I personally do not agree with, but I respected those decisions and the way that they were reached because that is the way that it works, if you can?t accept that then don?t even consider standing.

That?s the reality of it Tom.

Keith L

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

What a short memory you have Keith, I do not really want to go into the in's & out's of it, but if you recall or maybe check your old emails you will see we had communication on this subject & I do not remember you response to be as it is now, but times change.

Please give me a time-frame reference, I have complete email records here and I will review them.

What about Joe Astre Chief Examiner in 1999 (about the time I was asking for answers, (still never got the answer))

Before my time. I was talking about the BSAC as it is now, not as it may have been at some stage in the past.

Im going to look for the letter I got because it does not resemble the nomination form you have posted on the net, but as I say times change (im sure for the better in this case)

I hope so. It seems that we are talking at cross purposes here - I'm telling you what the current, modern BSAC is like. Does it matter what an old nomination form was like?

Keith L

[Mike Rowley]

:=What about Joe Astre Chief Examiner in 1999 (about the time I was asking for answers, (still never got the answer))


I think you will find that Joe was a member of NDC, Club Instructor Chief Examiner as I recall. Before that he was a Regional Coach for the North West. I don't think he was ever a member of Council. NDC memebers and Regional Coaches are appointed by the NDO they are not elected. The NDO is the elected Council Officer.

Mike

[james parrott]

Somebody else got a phone call over something they posted?

For my money the ITS are the best BSAC courses I have been on. I recommend everybody to do the IFC wether they wish to instruct or not. I personally think there should be a pass/resit assesment before assistant instructor/owic, but that is because listening to a guy on my owic admit he can not clear a mask is on my list of things that make you go Hmmmmmm.

[gridler]

What is everyone getting so wound up about there has been some mud slinging between different camps and the issues have got lost. Politics dont you just love them. What has happend in the past has happend, there are problems with the DTP but it is also progress. To suggest that BSAC is run by X men making threating calls is a bit far fetched. I must say that to see the public spat between well respected members and ex members is a bit disapointing. Happy New Year everyone lets try and be nice to each other just for a while any way

[tristan green]

You've already got my vote Edward.

and you would have had mine too - had I been able to vote ...

Has there been any progress on the voting by e-mail/online? I ask as I was unable to vote last year since I didn't receive the paperwork until after the event (I live in Hong Kong) and I'm sure several others mentioned they missed out too for the same reason.

Cheers,
Tristan

[Edward Haynes]

Tristan

I remember reading that HQ are trying something new this year to speed up the out-bound paperwork, might even be via e-mail. Unfortunately the link to November's BSAC Talk is down as that was where (I remember) it being posted.

Edward

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Tristan

I remember reading that HQ are trying something new this year to speed up the out-bound paperwork, might even be via e-mail. Unfortunately the link to November's BSAC Talk is down as that was where (I remember) it being posted.

There was something in the December etalk which can be found at <a href="http://www.bsac.org/etalk/etalk1204.html," >http://www.bsac.org/etalk/etalk1204.html,</a> that only answers one of the earlier questions though - there are 10 general council positions available.

I haven't seen the public minutes for our November meeting but I did have an agenda item about e-voting that we discussed : In short we cant because our consitution wont let us, but we're looking to propose a change that will allow it. For these elections we're going to be doing a special mail-out to our overseas members. As soon as the papers are ready we'll send them out (rather than wait for the Dive issue) to try and give our overseas members every chance of voting. Sorry - ERS don't do fax (we did ask!) and according to our constitution it has to be actual paper voting forms :-(

HTH

Keith L

[Edward Haynes]

Thanks Keith for clarifying things.

Unfortunately all I get when I try your link is

The requested URL was not found on this server.

Edward

[iainmsmith]

Thanks Keith for clarifying things.

Unfortunately all I get when I try your link is

The requested URL was not found on this server.

There's a comma at the end of Keith's URL which stops it working. The corrected URL is:

<a href="http://www.bsac.org/etalk/etalk1204.html" >http://www.bsac.org/etalk/etalk1204.html</a>

Iain

[derek perry]

:=Tristan
:=
:=I remember reading that HQ are trying something new this year to speed up the out-bound paperwork, might even be via e-mail. Unfortunately the link to November's BSAC Talk is down as that was where (I remember) it being posted.

There was something in the December etalk which can be found at <a href="http://www.bsac.org/etalk/etalk1204.html," >http://www.bsac.org/etalk/etalk1204.html,</a> that only answers one of the earlier questions though - there are 10 general council positions available.

I haven't seen the public minutes for our November meeting but I did have an agenda item about e-voting that we discussed : In short we cant because our consitution wont let us, but we're looking to propose a change that will allow it. For these elections we're going to be doing a special mail-out to our overseas members. As soon as the papers are ready we'll send them out (rather than wait for the Dive issue) to try and give our overseas members every chance of voting. Sorry - ERS don't do fax (we did ask!) and according to our constitution it has to be actual paper voting forms :-(

HTH

Keith L

Keith

I've run through the constitution and can't find where it says it has to be paper forms. In any case can't we 'e' mail the forms out and the recipitant prints it off and posts it back. That is still a paper voting form. The only part of the constitution you would have to get around is article 61 which states

'NOTICES
(A) A notice may be served by BSAC upon any Member either personally or by properly sending it through the post in an envelope addressed to such Member as his address appearing in the Register of Members.

(B) Any notice if served by post shall be deemed to have been served on the day following that on which the envelope containing the same is put into the post and in proving such service it shall be sufficient to prove that the envelope containing the notice was properly addressed and sent by post.'

I take it this refers to ANY notice including voting forms?. Provided you also post one to all members it doesn't state the returned item has to be the same one you sent out. Article 41 actualy states;

'(F)An instrument appointing a proxy shall be in the form of the document shown in the Appendix to these Articles or as near thereto as circumstances permit.'
In other words send it by both post and 'e' mail and accept the one sent back by the member, which will be, 'as near thereto as circumstances permit.'

Does this make sense?

Derek

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Hi Derek

The key clauses are Rule 23(B) which states "Ballot papers duly marked shall be returned to the Office...", it is the view of Council (on legal advice) that this wording could lead to a challenge to the validity of the ballot should it be conducted electronically. We do not hold valid email addresses for all of our overseas members, so even distribution via email would not be reliable.

Rule 41 (D) and (E) deals with proxies for special resolutions, it is clearly stated that "The instrument appointing a proxy shall be in writing under the hand of the appointer", this rules out any form of electronic returns of proxy votes.

Council are very much FOR electronic voting, but our view at present is that we would like to do it properly and give members the option of voting electronically for all aspects of the elections. Therefore we will stick with what we have for now (with improvements for our overseas members) and revisit this issue once the constitution has been sorted out.

It's on our "To Do" list Derek, but under our current constitution we just can't take the risk.

Regards

Keith L

[derek perry]

Hi Derek

The key clauses are Rule 23(B) which states "Ballot papers duly marked shall be returned to the Office...", it is the view of Council (on legal advice) that this wording could lead to a challenge to the validity of the ballot should it be conducted electronically. We do not hold valid email addresses for all of our overseas members, so even distribution via email would not be reliable.

Rule 41 (D) and (E) deals with proxies for special resolutions, it is clearly stated that "The instrument appointing a proxy shall be in writing under the hand of the appointer", this rules out any form of electronic returns of proxy votes.

Council are very much FOR electronic voting, but our view at present is that we would like to do it properly and give members the option of voting electronically for all aspects of the elections. Therefore we will stick with what we have for now (with improvements for our overseas members) and revisit this issue once the constitution has been sorted out.

It's on our "To Do" list Derek, but under our current constitution we just can't take the risk.

Regards

Keith L

Keith

I fully understand you have to abide by the rules. I was actualy looking at how quickly we get the forms out. I couldn't see why we can't 'e' mail them out as well, and once printed off by the recipitent, they post them back in the normal way, by mail. You could even post one on the web site and let them download themselves. I do appreciate the lack of 'e' mail address problem as well.

Just a thought, I'm sure you and council will crack it eventualy

Happy New Year

Derek

[tristan green]

&gt;We do not hold valid email addresses for all of our overseas members, so even distribution via email would not be reliable.

Gents,

Nice to hear that the problem has been recognised and motions are being gone through to improve the system. Actually, I'd forgotten that this topic was raised just after the last vote and I think it was reported then that work was in hand to look at the viable options.

Would a solution for unknown e-mail addresses be to have an "opt in" for electronic voting (in much the same way as the option to get the BSAC updates and information through e-mail)? That way you'd be able to mail to the masses and e-mail to those with a valid e-mail who are expecting your message because they signed up for it. If the e-mail bounced back for any reasone then maybe you could send them a hard copy through the post anyway. Might reduce the cost to BSAC in the long run too.

Regards,
Tristan