Old Syllabus Trainig

[John Thirlwell]

I have had enquiries from students who started training for Sport Diver/Dive Leader under the 'old' syllabus and wish to complete thier training. Is there a cut-off date for completing the old syllabus training and if there is when is/was it?

Regards
John

[allan j bretherton]

Hi John,

See <a href="http://www.bsac.org/technical/dtp/transtable.htm" >http://www.bsac.org/technical/dtp/transtable.htm</a> on the technical services site, this should answer all your questions

Cheers.......Allan


I have had enquiries from students who started training for Sport Diver/Dive Leader under the 'old' syllabus and wish to complete thier training. Is there a cut-off date for completing the old syllabus training and if there is when is/was it?

Regards
John

[John Thirlwell]

Alan,
Thanks for the reply, that clears that one up, now.....where can I get hold of an 'old' syllabus training manual?

[allan j bretherton]

I can sell you one :-) No seriously, let me know off line just what you want and I'll scan and email to you

Cheers.........Allan


Alan,
Thanks for the reply, that clears that one up, now.....where can I get hold of an 'old' syllabus training manual?

[John Thirlwell]

I can sell you one :-) No seriously, let me know off line just what you want and I'll scan and email to you

Cheers.........Allan

Thanks mate, e-mail on the way!

John

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Is there a cut-off date for completing the old syllabus training and if there is when is/was it?

Yes there is now John, it was announced at DOC. From Jan 2006 all training is to be under the new DTP.

HTH

Keith L

[John Thirlwell]

Thanks Kieth, so...is it still possible to get hold of a pre 2002 Instructor Manual in order to complete training for those who require it?

John

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Thanks Kieth, so...is it still possible to get hold of a pre 2002 Instructor Manual in order to complete training for those who require it?

Errr... you can probably beg or borrow one from somewhere, there's probably one around at HQ somewhere, Allan's said he's got one. But in all honesty what most people have done is crossed over to the new scheme.

Keith L

[John Thirlwell]

:=Thanks Kieth, so...is it still possible to get hold of a pre 2002 Instructor Manual in order to complete training for those who require it?

Errr... you can probably beg or borrow one from somewhere, there's probably one around at HQ somewhere, Allan's said he's got one. But in all honesty what most people have done is crossed over to the new scheme.

Keith L

It is obvious that there is not a stock of old manuals laying around BSAC HQ :-), however, if BSAC have decided that the pre-2002 courses can be completed up until Jan 06 then, as a BSAC school instructor I have a responsibility to offer the completion of those courses, therefore.....if there is a manual in BSAC HQ somewhere, is it possible to have it photocopied and posted to me, obviously I am happy to pay the postage costs ;-), alternatively, could it be posted to me, I'll do the photocopying and return it in the New Year.

Regards
John

[Edward Haynes]

John

From the BOH

***
Training started under the 1995 Diver Training Programme:
There is currently no time bar on the completion of a 1995 Diver Qualification Course that commenced before September 2002. The Branch Diving Officer may award a diver qualification from the 1995 Diver Training Programme only when the *additional elements* from the 2002 Diver Training Programme have been completed.
***

As Keith has stated there is now a cut-off date.

The thinking behind the *additional elements* requirement is so that Branch Diving Officers know that when a diver shows up with DL signed off in 2005 they are trained to the 2005 standard, not to the 1995 one.

I take it you are going to include the *additional elements* so your visiting divers can get their new diver qualification signed-off by the Branch Diving Officer of their primary Branch, i.e. the one their BSAC fees go through.

Personally, I would have thought it easier just to teach the current syllabus (2002) for whatever your rates are.

Just my thoughts.

Edward

[John Thirlwell]

Personally, I would have thought it easier just to teach the current syllabus (2002) for whatever your rates are.

I agree, but a lot of people don't want to start over again, when it's an Ocean Diver trainee I think there is a lot to be said for getting him/her to start over as there is the implication that he/she has not dived much since starting training. For other diver grades a look at the log book would indicate currency.
Obviously we will only be offering this training to those who come to use having started on the old syllabus, others wishing to start training will complete the 'new' syllabus courses.

Regards
John

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

:=Personally, I would have thought it easier just to teach the current syllabus (2002) for whatever your rates are.

I agree, but a lot of people don't want to start over again, when it's an Ocean Diver trainee I think there is a lot to be said for getting him/her to start over as there is the implication that he/she has not dived much since starting training. For other diver grades a look at the log book would indicate currency.
Obviously we will only be offering this training to those who come to use having started on the old syllabus, others wishing to start training will complete the 'new' syllabus courses.

Sounds reasonable to me John, if you can get them switched to the more modern courses then great. Personally I never did complete my AD, if I ever get around to it I'll simply do the new course and call it a refresher :-) Anyway... we've managed to sort you out something - problem solved!

Keith L

[johnkendall]

John

From the BOH

***
Training started under the 1995 Diver Training Programme:
There is currently no time bar on the completion of a 1995 Diver Qualification Course that commenced before September 2002. The Branch Diving Officer may award a diver qualification from the 1995 Diver Training Programme only when the *additional elements* from the 2002 Diver Training Programme have been completed.
***

As Keith has stated there is now a cut-off date.

The thinking behind the *additional elements* requirement is so that Branch Diving Officers know that when a diver shows up with DL signed off in 2005 they are trained to the 2005 standard, not to the 1995 one.

I take it you are going to include the *additional elements* so your visiting divers can get their new diver qualification signed-off by the Branch Diving Officer of their primary Branch, i.e. the one their BSAC fees go through.

Personally, I would have thought it easier just to teach the current syllabus (2002) for whatever your rates are.

Hi Edward,

Can you tell us when this was added to the BoH please? I can't find it in any of the versions prior to the August 04 amendments. This seems like it has been snuck through without informing the membership. The BoH states that this page was updated in Nov '04, so I can only assume that that is when this was added.

And in fact if you look at Article 53 which reads:
"No alteration of substance shall be made to rules governing diving qualification and standards unless previously discussed and approved at a meeting of Diving Officers to which all Branches were entitled to send representatives. An agenda and details of such proposed alteration shall be circulated to all Branches at least 14 days before the meeting exclusive both of the day on which notice is served or deemed to be served and the day of the meeting."

I would consider that these additional requirements are an alteration of substance to the Pre-2002 training program. In that those already training under that sylabus now have an additional hurdle to undertake, with no warning. As a Diving Officer, certainly have not been made aware of a meeting where this topic would be discussed. It wasn't even mentioned at DOC.

John

[David Walker]

Can you tell us when this was added to the BoH please? I can't find it in any of the versions prior to the August 04 amendments. This seems like it has been snuck through without informing the membership.

Possibly snuck in there, but really does seem like a very very sensible rule. The topic of completing 'old syllabus' courses has occurred on here quite a few times recently, and it still gets me how people wanting to become Advanced Divers complain about having to actually do stuff to get that qualification. Surely at that level divers should be wanting to actually benefit from the course, to learn something new, to update or refresh their skills? You can't *do* anything more as an AD than you can as DL, so if you don't want to improve your diving then it's just badge collecting - and should the old courses remain in place for so so long just to let people collect their badges more easily?

David

[Dave]

There are no additional elements which need to be completed in order for the award of the qualification. Depending on the qualification, if that person then decides that they wish to progress to the next higher qualification, there may be additional training that may be required

Dave

[iainmsmith]

There are no additional elements which need to be completed in order for the award of the qualification. Depending on the qualification, if that person then decides that they wish to progress to the next higher qualification, there may be additional training that may be required

You see, that's what we thought the case was. However, if you read the Branch Officers' Handbook, para 4.4.6, it's fairly unequivocal:

"The Branch Diving Officer may award a diver qualification from the 1995 Diver Training Programme only when the additional elements from the 2002 Diver Training Programme have been completed."

So there _are_ additional elements which _have_ to be completed before the qualification can be awarded. See my reply to David regarding this.

Iain

[mark jones]

You can't *do* anything more as an AD than you can as DL, so if you don't want to improve your diving then it's just badge collecting - and should the old courses remain in place for so so long just to let people collect their badges more easily?


Not true the one thing you can do with the AD that you can't do with the DL is become an AI, and I think you need an AI to boss some SDC's.

So it is essential if you want to become an AI, which is needed to teach some elemnts of the new DTP

Mark

[iainmsmith]

:=Can you tell us when this was added to the BoH please? I can't find it in any of the versions prior to the August 04 amendments. This seems like it has been snuck through without informing the membership.

Possibly snuck in there, but really does seem like a very very sensible rule. The topic of completing 'old syllabus' courses has occurred on here quite a few times recently, and it still gets me how people wanting to become Advanced Divers complain about having to actually do stuff to get that qualification. Surely at that level divers should be wanting to actually benefit from the course, to learn something new, to update or refresh their skills?

Put it this way: John (my DO) and I (Deputy DO and the other senior instructor in the Branch) have two DL/OWIs who are close to completing their pre-2002 AD. Until this notification regarding additional elements, they were on track to complete the old syllabus, according to the syllabus that was in place throughout their AD training and according to the requirements that were in place for the duration of their progress. We are now told that they have to complete Advanced Lifesaver as well.

What is not clear is whether this means the Advanced Lifesaver components of the new syllabus or attending an Advanced Lifesaver SDC. If the former, at what point are they supposed to do the Lifesaver? If the latter, ditto.

Hardly any Lifesaver SDCs are run. We have no Lifesaver / Advanced Lifesaver Examiners and have no slack in our pool availability to to a Lifesaver exam, even if we had the Examiners. Hence it's almost impossible to get people in a position to attend the Advanced Lifesaver course.

Who is supposed to teach the Lifesaver/Advanced Lifesaver material? Bizzarely, had the divers in question completed AD prior to us being informed of this additional requirement, they could both have TAUGHT and ASSESSED these components of the new scheme, without having attended either course, just as I, having qualified some time ago under the new scheme, can teach the new AD Advanced Lifesaver material without ever having been taught or formally assessed on it (and without having done Lifesaver, for the above reasons).

It seems to be rather unfair to take divers who have been working towards a qualification for some years and throw extra hurdles at them at the last minute which are not only difficult to achieve, but which they might have had the opportunity to take care of in the past, had they known that this would be required of them. It deprives the Branch of new Advanced Divers for the forseeable future and must be infuriating for the divers themselves. And all of this as a change to the official position regarding completion of training, with formal announcement whatsoever. This is not how to encourage divers to stick with the BSAC!

You can't *do* anything more as an AD than you can as DL, so if you don't want to improve your diving then it's just badge collecting - and should the old courses remain in place for so so long just to let people collect their badges more easily?

AD _does_ allow you to do things that you couldn't as a DL, for example, attending the AIC, bossing a number of SDCs (eg nitrox courses and Advanced Diving Techniques), teaching AD lessons, becoming DO, etc. These are all things that people may wish to do in order to give more of their time and effort to their sport - deriding AD as "badge collecting" is frankly insulting.

Iain
AD and proud of it.

[Edward Haynes]

Iain

I know where you are coming from. The wording for 4.4.6 was passed through a representative of the NDC before publication.

A scenario: in 1999 a diver qualifies as a SD. In 2000 they do start their DL, but in 2001 they fill a place of an AD SDC. They are still SD, have they started their AD course?

If yes, when they complete DL, say, in 2004, they do not need to learn the skills that a post 2002 DL candidate will have learned before their move on to AD. Now in 2005 our diver completes the old AD, they still may not have done O2, PRM, Adv Lifesaving or the Weight Belt releases.

If no, then the missing elements are required.

As a BDO, do you always have the time to check which syllabus a diver was trained to.

Thankfully, this will all become academic when all training is to the 2002 syllabus.

The one good thing about the on-line BOH is - if there is something wrong or information goes out-of-date it is easier and quicker to update than the old books. And guess what, I might have another thing to do over Christmas. All I will then need are proof readers. ANY TAKERS.

As for amendments, I asked for the last amendment sheet to be issued with BSAC Talk last October.

Edward Haynes
BOH-IE Project Manager

[johnkendall]

Iain

I know where you are coming from. The wording for 4.4.6 was passed through a representative of the NDC before publication.

A scenario: in 1999 a diver qualifies as a SD. In 2000 they do start their DL, but in 2001 they fill a place of an AD SDC. They are still SD, have they started their AD course?

No, they haven't. They have completed an SDC.

If yes, when they complete DL, say, in 2004, they do not need to learn the skills that a post 2002 DL candidate will have learned before their move on to AD. Now in 2005 our diver completes the old AD, they still may not have done O2, PRM, Adv Lifesaving or the Weight Belt releases.

No, they will need to do the "Catch up" elements Prior to starting the new AD, but After being awarded DL. If you look at the Old DL stuff (I have at least 2 divers Very near completion of the Old sylabus) they now need to do 2 SDCs as well as some other stuff. All at a time when we've now been given a timelimit on it. I have nothing against the time limit, but what is the point of giving us until Jan 06 to complete if you add extra hoops into the system?

As a BDO, do you always have the time to check which syllabus a diver was trained to.

Yes.

Thankfully, this will all become academic when all training is to the 2002 syllabus.

Indeed, but now we have a 3rd sylabus, and by my reckoning it's Illeagal.

The one good thing about the on-line BOH is - if there is something wrong or information goes out-of-date it is easier and quicker to update than the old books. And guess what, I might have another thing to do over Christmas. All I will then need are proof readers. ANY TAKERS.

As always, I'm here.

As for amendments, I asked for the last amendment sheet to be issued with BSAC Talk last October.

In this particular case it doesn't matter. It's against article 53, and so Invalid.

John

[mark jones]

So the outcome of this is as a DL with some of AD now signed off, I need to do catch up work of advanced lifesaver despite only needing to do the Theory Test of the AD Qualification, on the old scheme.

I did 4 of the SDC's in 2000, 1 in 2001 and the last one in 2003. I got all the marshalling signed off in 2003.

So do I need to do the Theory test or Theory test plus catching up the advanced lifesaver as well, to bring me up to the new DTP.

[David Walker]

We are now told that they have to complete Advanced Lifesaver as well.

Where does the advanced lifesaver bit come from? It's not required anywhere in the new syllabus as far as I can see, unless its deemed that all the material is covered in SD/DL/AD lessons?

Hardly any Lifesaver SDCs are run. We have no Lifesaver / Advanced Lifesaver Examiners and have no slack in our pool availability to to a Lifesaver exam, even if we had the Examiners. Hence it's almost impossible to get people in a position to attend the Advanced Lifesaver course.

I see the problem, but can't see where the requirement to do the Advanced Lifesaver SDC would come from. It's certainly not in the new syllabus, so unless its in the old syllabus then I wouldn't have thought it would be required - maybe only part of the normal lessons? And there's no pool lessons for AD under the new syllabus.

AD _does_ allow you to do things that you couldn't as a DL, for example, attending the AIC, bossing a number of SDCs (eg nitrox courses and Advanced Diving Techniques), teaching AD lessons, becoming DO, etc.

All very good things - but if they have time to do things like more instructing, want to boss SDCs, teach the new AD syllabus, then is it really so bad to ask that they update their knowledge of what is actually covered in the new syllabus? Apart from logistical problems of attending the SDCs (which i'm not convinced about anyway) if they're ready to be AD and want to go on to AIC, bossing SDCs and such then I wouldn't have thought that it would be all that bad to do a couple more lessons to get it.

Looking at it from the point of view of the new syllabus, 90% of it is just normal diving activity which i'm sure won't be a problem. The planning / marshalling and rescue type stuff will fill 2 full days of lectures, but most of that would have been covered before too. The rescue lessons are all open water and can be fit in on just about any normal diving trip. We combined it with a PRM course so that we had lots of people around who could die / help.

These are all things that people may wish to do in order to give more of their time and effort to their sport - deriding AD as "badge collecting" is frankly insulting.

Certainly, doing things like instructing / being DO / etc are all good things, and wanting to be an AD is good too... but only for the right reasons. If people really want to improve their skills, improve their knowledge, etc, then adding a couple of lessons shouldn't be a problem for them. If they just don't want to put in the extra time / effort to do those then surely that's not what an AD should be? Shouldn't an AD (especially if they want to become an AI) be enthusiastic, want to lean more, not scrape through doing as little as possible to get the next qualifications?

I'm sure they are all really good divers, and want to go on to become AI, etc, but surely they should actively be wanting to refresh their skills? I'm sure that if I was taught on a scheme over 10 years old I would be very keen to find out what had changed in the teaching, what new ideas were taught, what new skills were considered necessary...

Sorry, I know it's a bit of a harsh point of view, but I see a lot of people already passing through the club who want to be signed off for things with the minimum effort, before they're ready, or having 'done the lesson' but not quite mastered it. There's no hurry with this stuff, and nice as it sounds to say you're an Advanced Diver, shouldn't BSAC as a whole be making sure that those who become AD are as 'good' as they can be? Surely if a change in syllabus was thought to be necessary for whatever reason, then 5 years later we shouldn't still be qualifying people who have just finished the old one?

David

[David Walker]

:=We are now told that they have to complete Advanced Lifesaver as well.

Where does the advanced lifesaver bit come from? It's not required anywhere in the new syllabus as far as I can see, unless its deemed that all the material is covered in SD/DL/AD lessons?

Ahh yeah, just looked at the syllabus for Adv. Lifesaver and all that is more or less covered in the normal AD lessons. I thought Adv. Lifesaver had a lot more in than that, but possibly not. The only thing that isn't covered so much is that the theory paper for AD covers a lot more different material in not much more time.

So does that mean that ADs under the new scheme are considered to have done Adv. Lifesaver? I was planning on doing the lifesaver / advanced lifesaver stuff next year (just for the rescue practice), but looking at it now there doesn't seem to be a lot of point finding time and money for the course when we've already done it, and when it can be taught just as well in-branch anyway.

David

[mark jones]

:=We are now told that they have to complete Advanced Lifesaver as well.

Where does the advanced lifesaver bit come from? It's not required anywhere in the new syllabus as far as I can see, unless its deemed that all the material is covered in SD/DL/AD lessons?

See the following

<a href="http://www.bsac.org/technical/dtp/transtable.htm" >http://www.bsac.org/technical/dtp/transtable.htm</a>

The skills of advanced lifesaver are split between the new diver grades


:=Hardly any Lifesaver SDCs are run. We have no Lifesaver / Advanced Lifesaver Examiners and have no slack in our pool availability to to a Lifesaver exam, even if we had the Examiners. Hence it's almost impossible to get people in a position to attend the Advanced Lifesaver course.

I would run this course if I was allowed to, but as Iain states i don't have the pool time avaliable to do this. I am also not demend suitably qualified to exam this award, despite assessing these skills in the DTP program being an OWI, as well as holding the diver rescue specialist award, and being an RLSS trainer / Assessor for Lifesaving and Lifeguarding, I teach and assess these skills on a weekly basis.


I see the problem, but can't see where the requirement to do the Advanced Lifesaver SDC would come from. It's certainly not in the new syllabus, so unless its in the old syllabus then I wouldn't have thought it would be required - maybe only part of the normal lessons? And there's no pool lessons for AD under the new syllabus.

See the above link


:=AD _does_ allow you to do things that you couldn't as a DL, for example, attending the AIC, bossing a number of SDCs (eg nitrox courses and Advanced Diving Techniques), teaching AD lessons, becoming DO, etc.

All very good things - but if they have time to do things like more instructing, want to boss SDCs, teach the new AD syllabus, then is it really so bad to ask that they update their knowledge of what is actually covered in the new syllabus? Apart from logistical problems of attending the SDCs (which i'm not convinced about anyway) if they're ready to be AD and want to go on to AIC, bossing SDCs and such then I wouldn't have thought that it would be all that bad to do a couple more lessons to get it.

I don't need updating as I am currently teaching these new courses, I have kept updated on the SDC's and have a very support DO and Branch that helps keep us all updated.



:=These are all things that people may wish to do in order to give more of their time and effort to their sport - deriding AD as "badge collecting" is frankly insulting.

Certainly, doing things like instructing / being DO / etc are all good things, and wanting to be an AD is good too... but only for the right reasons. If people really want to improve their skills, improve their knowledge, etc, then adding a couple of lessons shouldn't be a problem for them. If they just don't want to put in the extra time / effort to do those then surely that's not what an AD should be? Shouldn't an AD (especially if they want to become an AI) be enthusiastic, want to lean more, not scrape through doing as little as possible to get the next qualifications?

When I feel the need to improve my knowledge and move on further it won't be a BSAC course, I will only get AI to help others in my branch get AD under the new scheme, and as I only need the theory test, I have almost been an AD under BSAC for 18 months, and still haven't completed as there has been no rush to. I am certainly not a badge collector



Sorry, I know it's a bit of a harsh point of view, but I see a lot of people already passing through the club who want to be signed off for things with the minimum effort, before they're ready, or having 'done the lesson' but not quite mastered it. There's no hurry with this stuff, and nice as it sounds to say you're an Advanced Diver, shouldn't BSAC as a whole be making sure that those who become AD are as 'good' as they can be? Surely if a change in syllabus was thought to be necessary for whatever reason, then 5 years later we shouldn't still be qualifying people who have just finished the old one?

So with just the theory test left to do, should I switch to the new scheme and do the extra skills ie. advanced lifesaver???


Mark

p.s. sorry if I rambled abit it's late

[iainmsmith]

I know where you are coming from. The wording for 4.4.6 was passed through a representative of the NDC before publication.

...but there seems to be a problem with dissemination of information, as many people seem to have been unaware of this rather important change until this thread.

A scenario: in 1999 a diver qualifies as a SD. In 2000 they do start their DL, but in 2001 they fill a place of an AD SDC. They are still SD, have they started their AD course?

Difficult question. One would have to check the exact wording of the old AD syllabus to see what the entry requirements was...except that I am not aware of such a syllabus existing beyond "Do the following SDCs and assessments". The answer is, if only one SDC was done, probably not. My rationale for this would be that O2 and PRM are now part of DL anyway, DPM could not be done before DL. Any one of the "Section A and B" SDCs done as a one-off as you describe was probably done for the specific purpose of the skills taught.

This is, however, very different from a diver who completed DL prior to 2002 and who is known to the DO and senior instructors in the Branch to be working towards AD and who has now been unexpectedly told that they have to complete another SDC (or, in most cases, an additional two SDCs, the first of which is dependent on the Branch having a surplus of pool time and the second of which requires the diver to complete the first)

If yes, when they complete DL, say, in 2004, they do not need to learn the skills that a post 2002 DL candidate will have learned before their move on to AD. Now in 2005 our diver completes the old AD, they still may not have done O2, PRM, Adv Lifesaving or the Weight Belt releases.

O2 and PRM have always been required as part of the previous AD syllabus. Advanced Lifesaving wasn't...and the great majority of ADs to date will not have completed it either. Weightbelt releases are another topic entirely which I don't propose to get into in this thread, but you will note that these are not required additional training for AD from the old syllabus to the new.

As a BDO, do you always have the time to check which syllabus a diver was trained to.

One word answer: Yes.
Longer answer: It doesn't matter. As BDO, whether an AD has done Advanced Lifesaver or not is not going to worry me in the least. Whichever system they have come through, they will have completed PRM, O2 admin and demonstrated competence in rescue and resuscitation skills on a number of occasions in order to complete the qualification. Secondly, in a situation where it did matter (and I'm having difficulty thinking of such), then the DO is going to have to check which syllabus was followed anyway, because none of the ADs up until now were required to have Advanced Lifesaver...unless the next step is going to be to strip the qualification from all those ADs who have not done Lifesaver and Advanced Lifesaver?

Thankfully, this will all become academic when all training is to the 2002 syllabus.

Except that it won't - see above.

The one good thing about the on-line BOH is - if there is something wrong or information goes out-of-date it is easier and quicker to update than the old books. And guess what, I might have another thing to do over Christmas. All I will then need are proof readers. ANY TAKERS.

[Hand up]. Yes. Me.

However, can we _please_ create an on-line archive where the updates to the BoH are listed, so that it is easy to spot when such an update has actually happened and so that the details can be easily identified. Having to re-read the entire document to find out what has changed is not a sensible way of people updating themselves.

As for amendments, I asked for the last amendment sheet to be issued with BSAC Talk last October.

I don't remember seeing the amendments in the emailed version (I may be wrong - I have other things on my mind at the time, like job applications and my honeymoon!) but they are not listed in the online BSAC Talk Archive and there does not seem to be an easy way of finding out what they are. What else changed?

Iain

[iainmsmith]

Where does the advanced lifesaver bit come from?

I see Mark has sent you the link.

I see the problem, but can't see where the requirement to do the Advanced Lifesaver SDC would come from. It's certainly not in the new syllabus, so unless its in the old syllabus then I wouldn't have thought it would be required - maybe only part of the normal lessons? And there's no pool lessons for AD under the new syllabus.

Hence my question on the other thread as to where "Lifesaver" is deemed to be included within the new DTP...and whether there will be any retrospective recognition for those of us qualified to or beyond that level.

All very good things - but if they have time to do things like more instructing, want to boss SDCs, teach the new AD syllabus, then is it really so bad to ask that they update their knowledge of what is actually covered in the new syllabus?

What is really so bad is moving the goalposts at the last minute in a way that requires AD-trainees under the old scheme to do two further SDCs when their peers who qualified under that syllabus did not have to and while those coming through the new system can be taught and assessed on the skills by instructors who are not required to have attended the courses that the old-syllabus candidates are now required to do!

Apart from logistical problems of attending the SDCs (which i'm not convinced about anyway)

I'll spell it out to you then. I live in Cambridge. One course in January - in Wales. That's a massive trek for a one-day course, and I'm working that day in any case. One course at the beginning of February in London which I _might_ be able to attend - I don't have my rota for February yet. A second course in February...in Wales to which the above applies. If Lifesaver is felt to be an essential course to do, it ought to be a lot easier to attend!

if they're ready to be AD and want to go on to AIC, bossing SDCs and such then I wouldn't have thought that it would be all that bad to do a couple more lessons to get it.

Is there anything new in Lifesaver? Or is it just a hoop to jump through? If the latter, there's even less incentive to travel halfway across the country to do. I'd rather go diving than be taught stuff I already know and tested on skills I've already demonstrated competence in (PRM, DL Rescue Assessment, AD Rescue Assessment)

Looking at it from the point of view of the new syllabus, 90% of it is just normal diving activity which i'm sure won't be a problem. The planning / marshalling and rescue type stuff will fill 2 full days of lectures, but most of that would have been covered before too. The rescue lessons are all open water and can be fit in on just about any normal diving trip. We combined it with a PRM course so that we had lots of people around who could die / help.

I don't disagree...but note my previous comments regarding the teaching of these OW lifesaver skills.

If people really want to improve their skills, improve their knowledge, etc, then adding a couple of lessons shouldn't be a problem for them.

It's a big problem when people have been within an ace of getting the qualification and then have another requirement dumped on them with no warning...especially given the difficulties that some will have in meeting those requirements due to logistics.

If they just don't want to put in the extra time / effort to do those then surely that's not what an AD should be? Shouldn't an AD (especially if they want to become an AI) be enthusiastic, want to lean more, not scrape through doing as little as possible to get the next qualifications?

Try putting yourself in the position of someone who has spent the time, money and effort of getting through PRM, O2, DPM, Advanced Nitrox, Boat Handling, the AD Rescue Assessment and (say) three out of four Marshalling Assessments. You've got one Marshalling Assessment to go (you may already have it planned) and all you have left is the theory test. Your DO now tells you that you cannot be awarded the qualification until you have completed Lifesaver (which the Branch is not in a position to run and runs about six times a year between all the Regions) and found an Advanced Lifesaver SDC to do after that. You point out that he, the DO, has never had to do either of these and qualified on exactly the same syllabus that you thought you had followed and all he is able to do is shrug his shoulders and agree that it's unfair. How charitable are you going to be feeling towards BSAC?

It's not just "a couple of lessons". You've got to find a Lifesaver Examiner (personally, I don't think I know ANY) and someone with the spare pool time to let you throw things around it and then have to wait for an Advanced Lifesaver to come around that you can get onto. That's probably going to take at least six months to achieve.

I'm sure they are all really good divers, and want to go on to become AI, etc, but surely they should actively be wanting to refresh their skills? I'm sure that if I was taught on a scheme over 10 years old I would be very keen to find out what had changed in the teaching, what new ideas were taught, what new skills were considered necessary...

I thought that was the rationale for having a club magazine? I'd also point out that, judging by the online syllabi, neither the Lifesaver, nor the Advanced Lifesaver have been updated in any way in that period other than the global change to the way in which in-water AV should be performed. There are, after all, only so many ways that one can throw a rope or a buoyancy aid and any changes to resuscitation need to be disseminated throught the instructor cadre anyway, as we all teach it.

Sorry, I know it's a bit of a harsh point of view, but I see a lot of people already passing through the club who want to be signed off for things with the minimum effort, before they're ready, or having 'done the lesson' but not quite mastered it.

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not suggesting that anyone is trying to get signed off with minimum effort or not having mastered the topic - I'd be the first to have a quiet word in the ear of such an individual and I _know_ that I used the BOH getout clause (4.4.5 "Evident absence of 'the right attitude' can be grounds for declining to award a qualification") on one occasion to temporarily withhold a Dive Leader qualification. I'm equally sure that my current DO would do likewise.

I simply think that it's a significant injustice to people who have worked very hard to fulfil the requirements to then be kicked in the teeth and told that they have to fulfil further requirements which no-one previous to them had to do.

There's no hurry with this stuff, and nice as it sounds to say you're an Advanced Diver, shouldn't BSAC as a whole be making sure that those who become AD are as 'good' as they can be? Surely if a change in syllabus was thought to be necessary for whatever reason, then 5 years later we shouldn't still be qualifying people who have just finished the old one?

Well, we're only two years down the line so far, not five. Given the time it should take for people to gain the diving experience needed to become Advanced Divers, I don't think it's unreasonable to allow a sensible amount of time for them to complete the old syllabi...especially as we were first told that there was no cut-off date and that the syllabus stood as it had been, then we were told that, actually, there was a cut-off date, and now we find out that, with no formal announcement, there are additional requirements to be fulfilled that were never in the syllabus in the first place!

How to upset Branchs' more experienced divers!

Iain

[iainmsmith]

So with just the theory test left to do, should I switch to the new scheme and do the extra skills ie. advanced lifesaver???

Ahem...Mark - you don't have to do ALS. IIRC, you were given exemption from this on some basis (You hold Rescue Specialist - you couldn't have this if you didn't have ALS). Hence all you still have to do is the theory test. Nothing has changed for you. It has for two other members of the Branch.

Iain

[Philip Smith]

... neither the Lifesaver, nor the Advanced Lifesaver have been updated in any way in that period other than the global change to the way in which in-water AV should be performed.

What global change is that?

Phil S

[iainmsmith]

:= ... neither the Lifesaver, nor the Advanced Lifesaver have been updated in any way in that period other than the global change to the way in which in-water AV should be performed.

What global change is that?

(By global, I meant, "applying to all courses")

The need to relieve pressure on the jaw after inflating the casualties lungs in order to allow it to fall open and the casualty to exhale.

<a href="http://www.bsac.org/techserv/irc/resuscitationupdate2.pdf" >http://www.bsac.org/techserv/irc/resuscitationupdate2.pdf</a>

Iain

[Philip Smith]

(By global, I meant, "applying to all courses")

The need to relieve pressure on the jaw after inflating the casualties lungs in order to allow it to fall open and the casualty to exhale.

Oh that. Thanks,
Phil

[mark jones]

Ahem...Mark - you don't have to do ALS. IIRC, you were given exemption from this on some basis (You hold Rescue Specialist - you couldn't have this if you didn't have ALS). Hence all you still have to do is the theory test. Nothing has changed for you. It has for two other members of the Branch.


Thats why I was asking the question, because I believe David is just about as far through as I am now, but doesn't have the lifesaver side

Mark

[David Walker]

What is really so bad is moving the goalposts at the last minute in a way that requires AD-trainees under the old scheme to do two further SDCs when their peers who qualified under that syllabus did not have to and while those coming through the new system can be taught and assessed on the skills by instructors who are not required to have attended the courses that the old-syllabus candidates are now required to do!

Right, i'm with you now. If it actually does have to be done as an SDC then that seems wrong (I've looked for them before, and know just how few there are). If it can be taught in-branch as it is under the new syllabus then I don't see the problem. I'm not fully versed in the crossover from old to new - if it is done sensibly then I can't see the problem, if they are putting in dodgy rules (ie if you've done all the stuff but you're not allowed to count it) then i'd agree that that needs to be changed.

It's not just "a couple of lessons". You've got to find a Lifesaver Examiner (personally, I don't think I know ANY) and someone with the spare pool time to let you throw things around it and then have to wait for an Advanced Lifesaver to come around that you can get onto. That's probably going to take at least six months to achieve.

I see the problem now. If BSAC really do require it to be an SDC-style lifesaver then I really don't see the point. It should be allowed to be taught exactly as it is done under the new syllabus, ie by instructors within the branch.

David

[Mike Halligan]

You see, that's what we thought the case was. However, if you read the Branch Officers' Handbook, para 4.4.6, it's fairly unequivocal:

"The Branch Diving Officer may award a diver qualification from the 1995 Diver Training Programme only when the additional elements from the 2002 Diver Training Programme have been completed."

So there _are_ additional elements which _have_ to be completed before the qualification can be awarded. See my reply to David regarding this.

News to me as well. Equally shocked and disappointed. I shall have to re-think, for the umpteenth time, how to deal with the majority of our trainees.

Mike

[David Martin]

I'm appalled with BSAC's decision, but frankly I'm not surprised. It seems to be another example of people at HQ making decisions wihtout thinking of the potential damage that may be caused, and without consulting the membership. At best it's ill-thought out, at worst it's a deliberate attempt to stop people qualifiying under the old sylabus.

As an aside - the announcement for the cut-off of the old training scheme at DOC was very low-key, and might easily have been missed. I understand why a cut-off date has been imposed (but think that it should have been announced back in 2002, when 1st Jan 2006 would have been 3years, not 1 year away).

The 1995 sylabus AD, takes most people a couple of years to complete. This is exacerbated by the cancellation of SDCs by BSAC, and the difficultlies in running many of the SDCs in many branches (such as branches without AIs - for whom new ADs would be most useful). The timescale, and the explicit statement that there would be no cut-off date makes it highly likely that there are people who are now "near to completing" the 1995 AD.

I completed my Dive Leader qualification in 1996, but made little progress on Advanced Diver, since I didn't feel that it was necessary for my diving. I've since decided that it would be a useful qualification to have, since it will let me run Advanced/Combined Nitrox SDCs.

I expect to complete all the requirements of the "old" 1995 sylabus by mid 2005. I'm not sure if I'll be able to complete the *NEW* requirements this year. It is this decision that I object to.

Either someone completing the 1995 sylabus is an "Advanced Diver" or they are not. I fail to see why completing it in 2005 is any less acceptable than in 2004 or 2002. I presume that BSAC don't propose to strip all old ADs without Advanced lifesaver of their AD badge?

The three requirements must be completed in order: Livesaver course, Livesaver Exam, Advanced Livesaver SDC. The teaching requirements and timetabling of these SDCs will make it extemely difficult for me to complete the elements before 1st Jan 1996.

BSAC runs only 6 lifesaver courses, and even then candidates are required to get an assessor to a separate event for the examination! I cannot attend any of the Lifesaver SDCs in Jan/Feb due to exams. The two in November are only a week before the last Advanced Lifesaver SDC. The ONLY SDC that I can attend is 2nd April. This is during our Branch's Easter Training trip for OD/SD divers.

Completing Advanced Diver has felt like a hoop-jumping exercise. I understand the need to get formal recognition of Planning and Marshalling, and Rescue Management - but the SDCs were pitched at a level significantly below the marshalling that I was already doing and the rescue scenario was far simpler than an the in-branch scenarios that I'd been involved in (both as rescue manager and helping create them).
My Branch does not have a RIB, we use commercial hardboats, so Boathandling/Chartwork (and the voyage planning part of DPM) are arbitary requirements which I completed this year.

Experienced divers who are trying to complete AD are generally very usful to clubs and to BSAC. BSAC should be trying to help these people not putting up barriers to their progres. The attidude of BSAC and/or senior members of BSAC has frequently annoyed me. I don't need BSAC for my diving. I stay a member mainly to instruct. I'm sure that there are others in a similar position.

David

[jens hucke]

I wouldn't worry too much if I where you.

Just look at the crossover table as it is published ( hence MUST surely be current!), and read it properly, something that most fail to do.

When comparing OLD AD and the post 2002 AD, then it does state that Adv Lifesaver has to be done, PRIOR TO doing the next diving grade in the new DTP, which would be the new style 1st class Diver. It doesn't say that Adv Lifesaver is a prerequisite to completeing your old style AD.

In the same manner someone finishing old DL, would need to pick up :
Oxygen Administration
Practical Rescue Management
Dive Marshalling for known sites
Own weight / weightbelt release
Casualty's weight / weightbelt release

...prior to starting their AD course under the -new- system, because the new AD syllabus assumes that these elements have been covered. If they aren't fussed about doing the new AD course, then they might as well not bother unless they fancy progressing.

If I am wrong, then I will send a tenner to BSAC towards paying for the Web site updates needed to get the right info up!

Good luck,
jens

[Mike Halligan]

David,

Rather than reply, and surely inflame already deeply hurt feelings, I have raised this formally. What I can then tell, I shall in due course release.

Suffice to say, it has been my belief until today that those additional elements were intended to "top-up" the previous qualification before one embarked upon a 2002 course, not to be achieved pre-qualification by students of 1995 or 1998 courses.

Mike

[David Walker]

Either someone completing the 1995 sylabus is an "Advanced Diver" or they are not. I fail to see why completing it in 2005 is any less acceptable than in 2004 or 2002. I presume that BSAC don't propose to strip all old ADs without Advanced lifesaver of their AD badge?

This is the only bit I disagree with. If they changed the syllabus, then surely there was a reason for it, otherwise why bother? As they have changed the syllabus, then surely we need a point at which the old syllabus becomes obsolete?

Think about driving for example - prior to (I think) 1998, anyone getting a car license could also drive many more things than someone who's taken their test since that changeover date. At that point they didn't take the entitlements away from people who already had them, that'd never happen, just as BSAC won't take away Advanced Diver from people qualified under the old syllabus. In both cases (driving and diving) it's not that the old way was wrong or dangerous, just that it was decided that a better / safer way of doing things was possible, and so it was changed. If there is a new way of doing things, then after a reasonable transitional period everyone should be doing the new syllabus - the only sticking point is what the interpretation of a "reasonable period". If this was notified in advance then I can't see any problem with it - it's only because this new requirement seems to have been introduced quietly, and with no advanced notice, that it's really a problem.

By far the best way to have handled the change would have been to do a bit of renaming. Just like we went from Club to Ocean Diver, if Advanced was renamed to something else then it would be completely clear which scheme someone had qualified under, DOs would know what everyone had been taught and the old Advanced Diver wouldn't need to be phased out so quickly.

It's a shame that some may not get a chance to finish the old syllabus, but it needn't be a problem. If you actually look at what is required for the new syllabus it shouldn't take very long at all for someone who's been a Dive Leader for a while and who is actually diving to an AD level.
Say someone today looks at the new syllabus for the first time - if they've been diving towards AD then they can most likley sign off all the qualifying dives immediately. The lectures should take a couple of days to do properly, and these are often run regionally if you look around. That leaves the planning & marshalling exercise to do, which can be done on a normal club trip, the theory assessment, a day in the water (even just between dives) should get all the rescue stuff out of the way, and if they're anywhere near AD then i'd imagine that they'll have done all the marshalling stuff already too.
If someone wanted to, they could do the rescue assessments, the theory test, and AP2 (the planning / marshalling thing) in a weekend, get the DO to check through their old log book and sign off all the experience dives, and they could be qualified as AD pretty much as soon as the weather's OK to go diving again - certainly by March there's no reason that anyone who's even close to completing the old AD couldn't complete the new one.

David

[Edward Haynes]

All

I will be requesting clarification from the NDO who is ultimately responsible for training and qualifications about the *additional elements*.

If the Section in the BOH is incorrect then I will get it corrected.

Edward Haynes
BOH-IE Project Manager

[iainmsmith]

Just look at the crossover table as it is published ( hence MUST surely be current!), and read it properly, something that most fail to do.

When comparing OLD AD and the post 2002 AD, then it does state that Adv Lifesaver has to be done, PRIOR TO doing the next diving grade in the new DTP, which would be the new style 1st class Diver. It doesn't say that Adv Lifesaver is a prerequisite to completeing your old style AD.

Jens,

The problem is not with the Crossover table (which describes the position as I had understood it to be) but with the Branch Officers' Handbook, which specifically states that the additional requirements MUST be completed before the qualification can be awarded. See the links and extracts posted elsewhere in the thread.

Now it may be that the BOH meant to say that the additional material is required in order to progress to the _next_ grade, not to complete the current grade, but unfortunately, that is _not_ what it says. As Edward apparently confirmed the wording in the BOH with a member of the NDC, one has to assume that it is correct and that the additional requirements are a prerequisite for the current grade to be awarded.

Iain

[Edward Haynes]

John

What makes you think the 2002 (or 1995) syllabus was ever voted on at a DOC before it was introduced, it was just anounced. Bypassing this rule was one of the major reasons I stood for Council in 2000.

Edward

In this particular case it doesn't matter. It's against article 53, and so Invalid.

[David Martin]

I'm going to try to refrain from adding anything until Edward posts his follow-up about the BOH.
However, I've posted this since, it might be that my main concern has been missed - there were a number of grumbles in my previous post!

:=Either someone completing the 1995 sylabus is an "Advanced Diver" or they are not. I fail to see why completing it in 2005 is any less acceptable than in 2004 or 2002. I presume that BSAC don't propose to strip all old ADs without Advanced lifesaver of their AD badge?

This is the only bit I disagree with. If they changed the syllabus, then surely there was a reason for it, otherwise why bother? As they have changed the syllabus, then surely we need a point at which the old syllabus becomes obsolete?

I know that the sylabus has changed. And don't have a problem with the fact that it changed - so long as:
1. there is a reasonable period to complete the old sylabus
2. there is a reasonable advance notification of the cutoff date
3. no additional requirements are introduced during this period (otherwise it is not a chance to complete the old sylabus)

This hasn't happened.

Think about driving for example - prior to (I think) 1998, anyone getting a car license could also drive many more things than someone who's taken their test since that changeover date.

It was 1st Jan 1997, I fell the wrong side of it, and getting qualified to drive minibuses/small lorries/large trailers is going to be expensive :-)

If there is a new way of doing things, then after a reasonable transitional period everyone should be doing the new syllabus - the only sticking point is what the interpretation of a "reasonable period". If this was notified in advance then I can't see any problem with it - it's only because this new requirement seems to have been introduced quietly, and with no advanced notice, that it's really a problem.

No.
I don't have a problem with the cut-off date of 1st Jan 2006. I'd have prefered it to have been announced at the time of the sylabus change, rather than the original statment in 2002 of "no cut-off", followed by a cut-off date announced at DOC this year.
The "sticking point" is the change in the BOH imposing the requirement to complete the additional elements in the new sylabus before awarding the "old" qualification. (The 1st Jan 2006 cutoff, simply makes this requirement even more onerous).

David

[David Martin]

I will be requesting clarification from the NDO who is ultimately responsible for training and qualifications about the *additional elements*.

If the Section in the BOH is incorrect then I will get it corrected.

Edward.

Thank you for your action. I await the response.

David

[David Walker]

The "sticking point" is the change in the BOH imposing the requirement to complete the additional elements in the new sylabus before awarding the "old" qualification. (The 1st Jan 2006 cutoff, simply makes this requirement even more onerous).

Yeah - a bit mean of BSAC I think, maybe just lack of forward planning.
In essence I think the progression they've made does make sense, but it should have been announced years ago rather than now. The progression of eg:
- New scheme introduced
- Old scheme allowed to continue to certain cut-off date
- Old scheme allowed to continue as long as they then complete the 'additional' elements of the new
- No further training under the old scheme.
To me that works (depending on time scales between the parts of course) - it keeps the old scheme alive long enough to let people complete it, and after a while means that people will all end up equivalent to the new scheme even though they started the old.

Now they have done that, and it seems sensible, EXCEPT that no one was told in advance of the most recent change (did anyone know of it before this thread started???). That is just very bad communication. However, I still believe anyone who's most of the way through the old scheme can very very easily complete the new Advanced Diver syllabus in a very short space of time - see my other post (wherever it was).

David

[Clare Peddie]

Dear All

Edward Haynes e-mailed to let me know about the slight confusion that has arisen regarding completing 'missing elements' in Diver Training. The transition table on th BSAC site and the entry in Branch Officer's Handbook, I admit, unclear. However, if you read Q&A number 1 it becomes clear this reads????..


I am halfway through Sports Diver training, what should I do when the new scheme is introduced?

A For any diver, who is part way through training for any grade, they should complete that grade under the current system, even after the new system has been introduced. The Transition Table will then indicate what additional elements need to be incorporated into the training for the next grade or where elements already undertaken can be credited.





The transition table indicates that Advanced Lifesaver is needed for an Advanced Diver (qualified under the old system) to go for First Class Diver (under the ?new? system). Basically the missed elements are covering for any gaps in training from the old DTP before progressing to the next grade under the new DTP. The transition table has been in existence since the introduction of the new DTP.



The announcement at DOC re the deadline for training under old DTP of Jan 2006 will go in BSAC talk, NDC e-bulletin and Dive magazine.

[Clare Peddie]

Dear All

I don't normally have time to post on the forums - so please forgive me if I don't ever find time to do this again but I think I can shed some light on this issue.

If you read the first Q&A on the BSAC link below it becomes clear. This reads????

Q I am halfway through Sports Diver training, what should I do when the new scheme is introduced?

A For any diver, who is part way through training for any grade, they should complete that grade under the current system, even after the new system has been introduced. The Transition Table will then indicate what additional elements need to be incorporated into the training for the next grade or where elements already undertaken can be credited.

So the transition table indicates that Advanced Lifesaver is required for an Advanced Diver (qualified under the 'old' system) to progress to First Class Diver (under the ?new? system), NOT for that individual to get the Advanced Diver qualification under the old system.
Basically the missed elements are covering for any gaps in training from the old DTP before progressing to the next grade under the new DTP.

The transition table has been in existence since the introduction of the new DTP and the requirements have never changed at all. The Branch Officer's Handbook entry is a little ambiguous but actually refers to the training elements missed when moving from the old DTP to the new DTP. For example for an 'old' Dive Leader to become a 'new' Advanced diver these are :-

Oxygen Administration
Practical Rescue Management
Dive Marshalling for known sites
Own weight / weightbelt release
Casualty's weight / weightbelt release


The announcement at DOC regarding the deadline for any training under old DTP of Jan 2006 will go in BSAC talk,
NDC e-bulletin and Dive magazine. Life will hopefully be so much simpler for us all once we are all on one training programme.

Happy New Year when it comes

Cheers
Clare.

[Clare Peddie]

OOOPS
It appears I have proved that I shouldn't post on these forums - second post is the more explanatory!




Dear All

I don't normally have time to post on the forums - so please forgive me if I don't ever find time to do this again but I think I can shed some light on this issue.

If you read the first Q&A on the BSAC link below it becomes clear. This reads????

Q I am halfway through Sports Diver training, what should I do when the new scheme is introduced?

A For any diver, who is part way through training for any grade, they should complete that grade under the current system, even after the new system has been introduced. The Transition Table will then indicate what additional elements need to be incorporated into the training for the next grade or where elements already undertaken can be credited.

So the transition table indicates that Advanced Lifesaver is required for an Advanced Diver (qualified under the 'old' system) to progress to First Class Diver (under the ?new? system), NOT for that individual to get the Advanced Diver qualification under the old system.
Basically the missed elements are covering for any gaps in training from the old DTP before progressing to the next grade under the new DTP.

The transition table has been in existence since the introduction of the new DTP and the requirements have never changed at all. The Branch Officer's Handbook entry is a little ambiguous but actually refers to the training elements missed when moving from the old DTP to the new DTP. For example for an 'old' Dive Leader to become a 'new' Advanced diver these are :-

Oxygen Administration
Practical Rescue Management
Dive Marshalling for known sites
Own weight / weightbelt release
Casualty's weight / weightbelt release


The announcement at DOC regarding the deadline for any training under old DTP of Jan 2006 will go in BSAC talk,
NDC e-bulletin and Dive magazine. Life will hopefully be so much simpler for us all once we are all on one training programme.

Happy New Year when it comes

Cheers
Clare.

[Edward Haynes]

Hi

From Clare's post, I will be redrafting section 4.4.6 of the BOH to reflect that the *additional elements* are only to be undertaken when a member STARTS training for there next higher diver qualification, once they?ve awarded the diving qualification started before September 2002. (or something along those lines, once the proofreaders have checked things.)

If anyone has better words of wisdom, please e-mail them off-line to edward dot haynes @ bsac dot com.

Thanks

Edward Haynes
BOH-IE Project Manager

[Mike Halligan]

David,

Rather than reply, and surely inflame already deeply hurt feelings, I have raised this formally. What I can then tell, I shall in due course release.

Suffice to say, it has been my belief until today that those additional elements were intended to "top-up" the previous qualification before one embarked upon a 2002 course, not to be achieved pre-qualification by students of 1995 or 1998 courses.

Clare and Edward have now clarified the position, I believe they have confirmed the interpretation outlined above. Thanks to them both. Perhaps someone can help Edward in re-wording the BOH to align more closely with the Tech Serv write-up on this subject.

Happy New Year

Mike

[David Martin]

Dear Claire,

I'd like to say "Thank You", on behalf of myself and others, for taking the time to clarify the position for qualifying under the Pre-2002 syllabus.

Your clarification puts us into the position, as we had understood it to be after DOC, and removes the objection/problem, based on the interpretation of the BOH suggested earlier in this thread.

Hopefully I should be able to complete the old-style AD this year!

David