Old syllabus again - when does AD commence

[Pete Young]

One question didn't get answered during the recent
lengthy debate about the old syllabus.

If a diver completed an SDC that could be counted towards
Advanced Diver training, does the date of that SDC establish
the date at which the training for AD started?

If the answer to that question is 'No', then what
did trigger the 'has started Advanced Diver Training'
event?

We have encouraged people over the years to do various
SDCs, particularly O2 and PRM, on the grounds that it
would count towards AD, and in the case of PRM, both
AD and DL.

If I have a person in the branch who needs to complete
one exercise to achieve old DL, and one rescue assessment
and theory exam to achieve old AD (having completed sufficient
SDCs to meet all the other requirements) by 1st Jan 2006,
please tell me that I don't have to make them go through
the whole of the branch-trained 2002-AD syllabus.

What would also be useful is a statement of which SDCs grant
exemption for which parts of the 2002 AD syllabus. I haven't
been able to find this. My chief concern is not having the
instructor resources to be able to provide full AD syllabus
for the 2002 programme in addition to all the OD, SD, and DL
requirements - there are simply not enough instructor hours
in the year for smaller branches to do it all in house. The
more we can continue to make use of regional SDCs the better.

Kind regards,

Pete

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Hi Pete

Have a look at the second and third questions in the Q&A.

Keith L

[Dave]

Hi Pete

Have a look at the second and third questions in the Q&A.


The 2nd and 3rd questions don't seem to address this issue at all. The situation being put forward meems to me is that there is a Sports Diver who has almost completed Dive Leader and has also completed most of the SDC requirements for Advanced. The question is whether this person can continue and complete the small amount that is needed for the Old Advanced Diver award once they have completed the old Dive Leader

i.e. Since the AD course consists of SDCs, can the candidate be classed as having started the AD course on the date that they completed their 1st SDC or does it count on the completion date of the Dive Leader qualification

The information I received from BSAC when raising this question is that the latter counts. i.e. this candidate will have to complete the new Advanced Diver qualification rather than be abl e to just finish the missing bits of the old

Dave

Dave

[David Walker]

The information I received from BSAC when raising this question is that the latter counts. i.e. this candidate will have to complete the new Advanced Diver qualification rather than be abl e to just finish the missing bits of the old

Yeah - its a clear definition in the entry requirements for the courses that to start Advanced Diver you must have finished Dive Leader, and so I can't see much in the way of ambiguity really. He'll have to do the new syllabus AD, and that includes the 'crossover' from old DL to new DL too.

David

[edward haynes]

Hi Pete

An interesting question. One I had considered when drafting the BOH update for last September. I left it out because: 1. the entry requirements to start a diver-training course are contained in the Instructor manual; 2. SDCs contain their own entry requirements. These requirements are not necessarily the same. For example O2 is in DL training, but an OD can attend the SDC.

We would debate when a course starts, but from past experience, finding a definition that meets all the possible presentations is highly unlikely. The reality is your particular situation can be addressed in discussion with your BDO, after all they are the one to award the qualification.

My personal view: I would forget AD until after the DL qualification has been awarded. Then it?s a straight forward question of how is AD to be completed.

Edward

[Dave]

:=The information I received from BSAC when raising this question is that the latter counts. i.e. this candidate will have to complete the new Advanced Diver qualification rather than be abl e to just finish the missing bits of the old

Yeah - its a clear definition in the entry requirements for the courses that to start Advanced Diver you must have finished Dive Leader, and so I can't see much in the way of ambiguity really. He'll have to do the new syllabus AD, and that includes the 'crossover' from old DL to new DL too.

David

Personally I do see ambiguity. Given, for example, that PRM can be done without being DL, then it is obviously possible to start AD elements whilst SD. In fact, all bar the DPM element could be completed before attaining DL. How can it be claimed that the old AD had not been started?

Dave

[Mike Halligan]

"He'll have to do the new syllabus AD, and that includes the 'crossover' from old DL to new DL too."

David,

There are transitional elements which must be built into the teaching of current AD to former DL rated students, and there are credits to carry forward. There is no crossover.

If I am an 'old DL', I cannot become a 'new DL'. However, by a combination of the current AD course and transitional elements, I may become a 'new AD'.

HTH

Mike

[Mike Halligan]

My personal view: I would forget AD until after the DL qualification has been awarded. Then it?s a straight forward question of how is AD to be completed.

Edward,

I would apply the same maxim, AD may start once DL awarded.

But where is my authority?
I can find no "Student Requirements" in the Instructor Manual (2002), at any grade.

Looks like all the fun of September is about to return ;-)

Regards,

Mike

[Andrew Botten]

There are other bits that neeed signing off for Advanced as well: 20 dives since D/L, etc.
As a DO if he has not been signed off D/L he cannot be considered as having stating AD. If he qualified as D/L after 2002 then he must do the new AD course.

South East are running the Advanced lectures in April.

HTH

[TerryH]

Personally I do see ambiguity. Given, for example, that PRM can be done without being DL, then it is obviously possible to start AD elements whilst SD. In fact, all bar the DPM element could be completed before attaining DL. How can it be claimed that the old AD had not been started?


Simple, because entry level for AD is completion of DL
regardless of what SDC's have already been done.

T.

[David Walker]

"He'll have to do the new syllabus AD, and that includes the 'crossover' from old DL to new DL too."

There are transitional elements which must be built into the teaching of current AD to former DL rated students, and there are credits to carry forward. There is no crossover.

Well yeah, I knew what I meant, just couldn't think of a better word (hence putting it in '')

David

[Dave]

:=
:=Personally I do see ambiguity. Given, for example, that PRM can be done without being DL, then it is obviously possible to start AD elements whilst SD. In fact, all bar the DPM element could be completed before attaining DL. How can it be claimed that the old AD had not been started?
:=

Simple, because entry level for AD is completion of DL
regardless of what SDC's have already been done.


Ok, taking that theory... If an OD trainee is still undertaking the OW element of the course, but attends SD theory lessons, would you sign him off for the lessons or would you make him redo them when he has completed OD?

Dave

[TerryH]

:=:=
:=
:=Simple, because entry level for AD is completion of DL
:=regardless of what SDC's have already been done.


Ok, taking that theory... If an OD trainee is still undertaking the OW element of the course, but attends SD theory lessons, would you sign him off for the lessons or would you make him redo them when he has completed OD?

Dave

New course, new standards. It might be a quick runthrough going
over missing elements, but in essence he hadnt completed OD
and new sport is diffrent so no I wouldnt sign.

I'd also make it very easy to catchup though, which is
what TO's and Do's will be doing with Old DL/Adv to new Adv.

TerryH

[David Walker]

Ok, taking that theory... If an OD trainee is still undertaking the OW element of the course, but attends SD theory lessons, would you sign him off for the lessons or would you make him redo them when he has completed OD?

Slight difference in circumstances I believe. I see the logic you're getting at, but equally if people wouldn't sign the OD trainee off for SD done early, then by that logic the SD in question (who is just about finished DL *and* AD) would have to redo all of the SDCs he needed for AD even if he had done them and had the certificates... which is clearly not the case even if he could finish AD on the old syllabus.

I've posted before that I don't think AD should be rushed to get it done under the old syllabus just because they've done the odd SDC, I won't go through all that again. BUT, if you're dived up to AD level, then there is a weekend worth of theory and planning stuff to go through (which most regions seem to run now), a couple of rescue dives that can be done anywhere, and if they really are dived up to AD level then they should have done all of the qualifying dives and trip organising / marshalling already. The only problem will be AP2, for which they need to organise one trip under the supervision of an AI. By far the most difficult part of AD to complete in my opinion due to the lack of trips and lack of AIs to go on trips. Other than that, one weekend and a day's diving should be able to get someone who is truly at AD level through the NEW syllabus, never mind the old! If they can't, they're probably not ready for it yet in which case rushing them through the old syllabus does no one any good.

David

[Dave]

:=:=:=
:=:=
:=:=Simple, because entry level for AD is completion of DL
:=:=regardless of what SDC's have already been done.
:=
:=
:=Ok, taking that theory... If an OD trainee is still undertaking the OW element of the course, but attends SD theory lessons, would you sign him off for the lessons or would you make him redo them when he has completed OD?
:=
:=Dave

New course, new standards. It might be a quick runthrough going
over missing elements, but in essence he hadnt completed OD
and new sport is diffrent so no I wouldnt sign.


That's not my point. If someone is part way through the new Ocean Diver course just needing to do Open Water elements and attends lecture for Sports Diver would you sign them off as having attended the lectures?

If yes ( which I would expect to be the case , since attending the theory of the next level is quite permitted by BSAC ), then surely they must ,in fact, have been permitted to start SD before completing OD.

Dave

[TerryH]

:=
:=New course, new standards. It might be a quick runthrough going
:=over missing elements, but in essence he hadnt completed OD
:=and new sport is diffrent so no I wouldnt sign.


That's not my point. If someone is part way through the new Ocean Diver course just needing to do Open Water elements and attends lecture for Sports Diver would you sign them off as having attended the lectures?


Yes of course.

If yes ( which I would expect to be the case , since attending the theory of the next level is quite permitted by BSAC ), then surely they must ,in fact, have been permitted to start SD before completing OD.

Dave

Well it's not actually permitted. If you read all the blurb it
says that you must complete a level before commencing the
next. However in most clubs, pool/lectures rapidly overtake
the availablity of Open water training, so we carry on.

It's one thing to sign up the odd lecture. Another to use this
as a premise for when the course was started. I'm sorry but IMO
any lectures etc. are just that and you still need to finish
OD before saying you have started Sport.

TerryH

[Mike Halligan]

If you read all the blurb it
says that you must complete a level before commencing the
next. However in most clubs, pool/lectures rapidly overtake
the availablity of Open water training, so we carry on.

Terry,

You have the answer then to my question of Edward further down, "Where is my authority?" (to apply the maxim that one must complete a level before starting the next).

I haven't found it yet in any of the blurb I have.

Regards,


Mike

[gareth]

I agree with TerryH

You have only started the next diving qualification once you have finished the existing qulaification. So, if you are currently working through Sports diver, any lectres SDC's etc that you do for Diveleader do NOT mean you have started Diveleader.

Otherwise if you took the alternate view, you could say that a Student doing Ocean Diver who also did the O2 coarse during his Ocean diver training has started the Old Advanced Diver Coarse (O2 being one of the SDC's). To be more extreme, If some one had done the Advanced lifesaver, & was currently doing Sports diver you could say they had started First Class Diver because Advance Lifesaver is a required element of the First Class Qualification!

I think the whole point of the original guidence was that individuals could complete the qualification that they are currently doing, be awarded this qualification.
Then do the require cross over elements in the new training scheme for the next qualification prior to starting the new training scheme.

This seems very logical & sensible to me.

The question about when the old training is totally suspended is different. This is partially down to the individual branch setting a cut off date internally (as well as the BSAC). It does take additional time & logistics to run two different training schemes.
If branch members don't complete a qualification under the old training scheme in say the next 6 months, you have to ask the question how important is it to them to complete it. Would they not benefit from the revision/study doing the new syllabus. But this is a matter for individual D.O.'s & T.O.'s.

You cannt run an old scheme indefinately, otherwise we would still have individuals doing b, C & D tests!

Thats my humble opinion!

Gareth

[TerryH]

:=If you read all the blurb it
:=says that you must complete a level before commencing the
:=next. However in most clubs, pool/lectures rapidly overtake
:=the availablity of Open water training, so we carry on.

Terry,

You have the answer then to my question of Edward further down, "Where is my authority?" (to apply the maxim that one must complete a level before starting the next).

I haven't found it yet in any of the blurb I have.

Regards,


Mike

Well I can remember a paragraph somewhere saying that you must finish one before commencing the next, but until I've found it how about.
<a href="http://www.bsac.org/techserv/tecpuba11.htm" >http://www.bsac.org/techserv/tecpuba11.htm</a>

Notice that the entry level for commencment of Sport is CD, OD
or equivilent level (PADI OW etc.). So the prerec and thus the
starting point for Sport is those grades. Not halfwaythrough
OD and the odd Sport lecture, but actual full CD/OD etc.

TerryH

[iainmsmith]

Well it's not actually permitted. If you read all the blurb
it says that you must complete a level before commencing the
next. However in most clubs, pool/lectures rapidly overtake
the availablity of Open water training, so we carry on.

And do so with the full sanction of the DTP. I haven't got time to find the relevant paragraph, but there is something in either the Instructor Manual or the BOH about sequencing of lessons - as long as a student has attended the relevant lectures for the lower grade, they may attend the susequent lectures for the higher grade, even if they have yet to complete all aspects of the lower grade.

However, I think you're right that a distinction is made between being signed off on lectures and starting the course (in other words, yes, it is possible to attend and be signed off on lectures prior to starting a course.) The 1992 manual I have specifically states that the entry requirements for each course include holding the previous grade.

I don't know if any Instructor Manual update was released when AD went over to SDCs and whether it might say the same. If such an update exists and it _does_ say the same, then the question is answered. It would be useful to know what the definitive word on the 1995 DTP was.

However, like Mike, I can't find the equivalent statement for the new DTP, but this isn't relevant to the question regarding the point at which divers are considered to have commenced training under the old DTP.

Iain

[TerryH]

And do so with the full sanction of the DTP. I haven't got time to find the relevant paragraph, but there is something in either the Instructor Manual or the BOH about sequencing of lessons - as long as a student has attended the relevant lectures for the lower grade, they may attend the susequent lectures for the higher grade, even if they have yet to complete all aspects of the lower grade.


Depends how you interpret teh "not ideal" statement, but it's
only ok if the student has passed the theory or practical
assessments.

************************************************** **********

.2.6 Sequence of Instruction
In the ideally run training programme, theory and practical lessons are presented in the order listed in the BSAC Instructor Manual / Qualification Record Book. It is useful to distinguish between knowledge, skill and experience. Practical ability is frequently best built on a foundation of relevant theory, yet the reverse is seldom true. Hence, Branches should avoid practical training getting well ahead of classroom lessons. Classroom lessons getting ahead of practical skill development are much less of a problem, so try to keep it that way. Logical progression should be observed where appropriate. However, it should be noted that full understanding of Dive Leader and Advanced Diver theory depends on established practical ability and actual diving experience. Maintaining the sequence of lessons also ensures trainees remain focussed on a single body of knowledge.

Attending Theory Lessons for Higher Qualifications:
Where there is no progressive build-up of knowledge over a series of qualifications, there is no real problem in trainees attending lessons for higher qualifications. Members under training for one level of qualification may wish to take a full and active part in classroom lessons for higher qualifications, and this might be encouraged in appropriate cases, for example, a trainee Ocean Diver might attend a Boat Handling theory lessons. However, in subject areas where there is a progressive build up of knowledge over a series of BSAC diving qualifications training should only be signed up when trainees have appropriate prior knowledge. For example:

An Ocean Diver trainee who has passed the Ocean Diver theory assessment could benefit from Sports Diver theory lessons.

An Ocean Diver trainee who has not passed the Ocean Diver theory assessment or who?s theory training is incomplete, should be discouraged from attending higher qualification theory lessons. The higher-level theory lesson could be disrupted as the instructor may be forced to cover material from lower-level theory lessons.

Attending Practical Lessons for Higher Qualifications: The principles described in the above sub-section apply equally to trainees wishing to attend practical lessons for higher diver qualifications.

************************************************** ************

I think we are talking cross purposes here. Each block (theory,
pool, Open water) needs to be seen in it's own light and
obvioulsy you need to finish one before commencing the next highest.

However, I think you're right that a distinction is made between being signed off on lectures and starting the course (in other words, yes, it is possible to attend and be signed off on lectures prior to starting a course.) The 1992 manual I have specifically states that the entry requirements for each course include holding the previous grade.

I don't know if any Instructor Manual update was released when AD went over to SDCs and whether it might say the same. If such an update exists and it _does_ say the same, then the question is answered. It would be useful to know what the definitive word on the 1995 DTP was.

However, like Mike, I can't find the equivalent statement for the new DTP, but this isn't relevant to the question regarding the point at which divers are considered to have commenced training under the old DTP.


I've seen it somewhere in B&W!!!!!!!!!
Annoying when you cant find it.

TerryH

[Mike Halligan]

Well I can remember a paragraph somewhere saying that you must finish one before commencing the next, but until I've found it how about.
http://www.bsac.org/techserv/tecpuba11.htm

Notice that the entry level for commencment of Sport is CD, OD
or equivilent level (PADI OW etc.). So the prerec and thus the
starting point for Sport is those grades. Not halfwaythrough
OD and the odd Sport lecture, but actual full CD/OD etc.

Terry,

In that case, we are in the same boat. I think I remember seeing something, too. Yet I cannot find anything to actually say what we both instinctively believe should be the case.

The Tech sheet you quote doesn't actually mention anything more than "is used to develop CD/OD etc." and certainly doesn't quote a pre-req. Neither does the current Instructor Manual and the best I can see in BOH is 4.2.6 of which more, elsewhere.

We remain, then, without authority for our belief.

Mike

[Mike Halligan]

Iain,
&lt;&gt;
there is something in either the Instructor Manual or the BOH about sequencing of lessons
That's 4.2.6 as re-written in September 04. I believe it intends to convey the principle that if Theory is completed and assessment passed at one level, then it is OK to start studying Theory at the next level, where practicable. It says that the same can apply to Practical. However, it is noted that it is wise to keep Theory ahead of Practical.

&lt;&gt;
I don't know if any Instructor Manual update was released when AD went over to SDCs and whether it might say the same. If such an update exists and it _does_ say the same, then the question is answered. It would be useful to know what the definitive word on the 1995 DTP was.
My (1/95) page AD1 states
"Entry requirements -
Membership: Refer to individual SDCs
Medical: Current certificate
Diving Experience 20 logged dives since qulaifying DL are desirable."

I guess this means that DL is desirable and not, after all, mandatory.

Regards,

Mike

[Dave]

I think we are talking cross purposes here. Each block (theory,
pool, Open water) needs to be seen in it's own light and
obvioulsy you need to finish one before commencing the next highest.

This is your own personal interpretation. There is nothing in any documents I have seen which states this.

The information you have posted, and to which I was alluding in my previous post, categorically states that an Ocean Diver who has completed all the theory elements may attend theory lessons for Sports Diver.

How can this not be classed as being permitted to start Sports Diver before Ocean Diver is completed?

Dave

[iainmsmith]

:=I don't know if any Instructor Manual update was released when AD went over to SDCs and whether it might say the same. If such an update exists and it _does_ say the same, then the question is answered. It would be useful to know what the definitive word on the 1995 DTP was.
My (1/95) page AD1 states
"Entry requirements -
Membership: Refer to individual SDCs
Medical: Current certificate
Diving Experience 20 logged dives since qulaifying DL are desirable."

I guess this means that DL is desirable and not, after all, mandatory.

Surely it means that you can start AD once qualified as DL, although it is preferable if one gains the additional 20 dives experience (presumably for consolidation) before beginning AD training.

Iain

[David Walker]

Surely it means that you can start AD once qualified as DL,

Of course it does - everyone knows full well that you can't start AD until you've finished DL, and certainly not when you're a SD. Does it really matter if you can't find the exact words "you can not start AD until you have completed DL". If it is not written explicitly it is very very strongly implied throughout all of the literature BSAC publish - maybe they hoped that people had enough sense to realise that. If not, then maybe they'll have to increase all of our membership fees to pay for lawyers to triple check every word in the manual to ensure it is completely clear because of a few people who won't accept what is acknowledged by everyone else throughout BSAC.

David

David

[Dave]

:=Surely it means that you can start AD once qualified as DL,

Of course it does - everyone knows full well that you can't start AD until you've finished DL, and certainly not when you're a SD. Does it really matter if you can't find the exact words "you can not start AD until you have completed DL". If it is not written explicitly it is very very strongly implied throughout all of the literature BSAC publish - maybe they hoped that people had enough sense to realise that. If not, then maybe they'll have to increase all of our membership fees to pay for lawyers to triple check every word in the manual to ensure it is completely clear because of a few people who won't accept what is acknowledged by everyone else throughout BSAC.


What matters is what is stated, not what is inferred by you or implied by BSAC. It isn't strongly implied, imo, given that they permit students to start elements of higher grades before completing the current grade; this is not implied, but explicitly stated. What you are suggesting is that it is ok for a student to be able to undertake some elements of a course before completing the previous grade unless it relates to Advanced Diver.

I also think it is unreasonable to not permit the old AD path. People embarked on SDCs under the understanding that they would count towards the AD qualification, perhaps even taking SDCs that they would never have taken otherwise, and then BSAC suddenly changed the rules on them.

Dave

[terryh]

I also think it is unreasonable to not permit the old AD path. People embarked on SDCs under the understanding that they would count towards the AD qualification, perhaps even taking SDCs that they would never have taken otherwise, and then BSAC suddenly changed the rules on them.


Whats sudden about it?
It's not like people havnt been given enough time to get it
finished.
What next? Anybody still finishing Novice 2 BTW?

Besides all those SDC's still count with the new AD.
<a href="http://www.bsac.org/techserv/tecpuba13.htm" >http://www.bsac.org/techserv/tecpuba13.htm</a>

TerryH

[janos]

I also think it is unreasonable to not permit the old AD path. People embarked on SDCs under the understanding that they would count towards the AD qualification.

Personally I go on SDCs because I want to be a better diver, and I enjoy learning. I suppose other people might have different motivations.

Laters,
Janos

[Dave]

:=
:=I also think it is unreasonable to not permit the old AD path. People embarked on SDCs under the understanding that they would count towards the AD qualification, perhaps even taking SDCs that they would never have taken otherwise, and then BSAC suddenly changed the rules on them.
:=

Whats sudden about it?
It's not like people havnt been given enough time to get it
finished.
What next? Anybody still finishing Novice 2 BTW?

Besides all those SDC's still count with the new AD.
http://www.bsac.org/techserv/tecpuba13.htm

TerryH

When the change came in, someone could quite easily have been still completing DL and have done most of the SDCs towards AD. To then say that they would have to transition to the new scheme is unfair imo. It all hangs on the definition on when a person is classed as starting a qualification. I would maintain that if they have validly completed any elements of the course, then they must logically have started it

I see nothing wrong with a reasonable timeframe having been put in place to complete old qualifications, that is another issue and found it strange that no cut off point was given.

Dave

[Dave]

:=I also think it is unreasonable to not permit the old AD path. People embarked on SDCs under the understanding that they would count towards the AD qualification.

Personally I go on SDCs because I want to be a better diver, and I enjoy learning. I suppose other people might have different motivations.

Indeed; but there may be SDCs which someone only have done for AD rather than it being of use to them; e.g. I only did Boathandling for AD, it is of zero value to me otherwise.

Dave

[terryh]

When the change came in, someone could quite easily have been still completing DL and have done most of the SDCs towards AD. To then say that they would have to transition to the new scheme is unfair imo. It all hangs on the definition on when a person is classed as starting a qualification. I would maintain that if they have validly completed any elements of the course, then they must logically have started it

I see nothing wrong with a reasonable timeframe having been put in place to complete old qualifications, that is another issue and found it strange that no cut off point was given.

Dave

Based on that logic, doing O2 after finishing OD entitles you
to complete Sport, DL & AD.

Besides if you had done these SDC's some time go, how fresh
are those skills? In most organisations rescue stuff only lasts 2/3 years before an update is required. How many of those same
DL + SDC's have updated the info in O2 & 1st Aid etc.?

TerryH