Grade depth limits [Archive] - BSAC Scuba Diving Forums

Bill Bird

17-11-2003, 17:18

Hi Angie,

The DO of any branch can issue awards beyond sports diver, they're called dive leader and advanced diver. The depth restrictions are there for a very good reason and these depths should only be exceeded after proper training. The annual incidents report will be out in a couple of weeks time. This gives a very good indication of where problems occure and why things go wrong.

Allan

Allan,

I can understand what Angie is referring to. We are talking about Sport Divers who learned to dive many years ago - before we had the current depth restrictions, before the current, and the two previous (at least) training systems, and when the only recommended limit was 50 metres. These people have many dives in their logbooks beyond 35 metres, and this needs to be recognised. If we've changed the goalposts - for good reasons - and these divers were trained under the old system, and are more than competent to dive to 50 metres, then this needs to be recognised. I don't think you can ask some of these people to then sit through lectures and undergo training when they have been doing it for donkey's years. You either need to come up with some kind of dispensation, or give them the grade by dint of their experience.

I do believe Angie's got a point.

Regards.

Bill

John Williams

17-11-2003, 18:37

:=Hi Angie,
:=
:=The DO of any branch can issue awards beyond sports diver, they're called dive leader and advanced diver. The depth restrictions are there for a very good reason and these depths should only be exceeded after proper training. The annual incidents report will be out in a couple of weeks time. This gives a very good indication of where problems occure and why things go wrong.
:=
:=Allan

Allan,

I can understand what Angie is referring to. We are talking about Sport Divers who learned to dive many years ago - before we had the current depth restrictions, before the current, and the two previous (at least) training systems, and when the only recommended limit was 50 metres. These people have many dives in their logbooks beyond 35 metres, and this needs to be recognised. If we've changed the goalposts - for good reasons - and these divers were trained under the old system, and are more than competent to dive to 50 metres, then this needs to be recognised. I don't think you can ask some of these people to then sit through lectures and undergo training when they have been doing it for donkey's years. You either need to come up with some kind of dispensation, or give them the grade by dint of their experience.

I do believe Angie's got a point.

Regards.

Bill

Bill,

I think you've missed the point of why the depth limits were introduced.

These experienced SDs, as a group, were having accidents far more often than those who were equally (or even less experienced) but had completed DL training. Just because a group of divers is doing something that, they are clearly unprepared for (because they were having too many incidents), does not mean that they should be given dispensation to keep taking disproportionate risks. That's not good for them, the rest of us or for their training agency.

If these SDs are doing that sort of diving safely and properly then the few hoops that they have to jump through to get DL wont cause them any difficulty and can probably be completed with the minimum of fuss and without undue delay either.

If, on the other hand, they are in that group of SDs diving beyond their limits and at risk of having incidents - then getting them to pause, take stock, undergo the required training and gain the skills/knowledge to do the dives safely has to be good for everyone.

A branch DO has to think of the safety of all the branch members...I believe Allan was just pointing out that the safest way forward was to follow the advice and training schedule given by the BSAC before embarking upon dives that one is not trained for.

Experience is no substitute for training. And equally - training is no substitute for experience.
A safe diver needs both!

John

Andy Nye

17-11-2003, 19:08

I do believe Angie's got a point.

Bill, I also agree with your points.

Experience is no substitute for training. And equally - training is no substitute for experience.

Thats right John BUT training can be done at any depth , rather than every week in a 3 mt depth swimming pool, i recently saw 2 sports divers at 41 mts practicing mask clearing and DV retrivial......... nout wrong with that.

EXPERIENCE is EQUAL to TRAINING is some places and rightly so, BUT surely a very capable SPORTS DIVER that dives twice a weekend is a far better diver than a SPORTS DIVER that dives once a weekend.

If a diver DOES NOT want to be quailified higher than his/hers wishes ,so bit ,,,,,, thats why a lot of divers are going esle where to do these TECKKIE COURSES so they can dive deeper.

ANdy

steve anderson

17-11-2003, 20:11

Forgive me for being pedantic, but surely your are being self-contradictory here.....

First, Dive leader should be fairly simple for the type of SD you are talking about. Once they pass DL, they can dive to 50M at thier hearts content. Surely that is going to be easier and considerably cheaper than doing a tekkie course.

Secondly, I think your example really illustrates why training is required. It's great to be able to clear and replace a mask and DV at 41M or even 50M - but you cannot be saying that you condone this as a safe depth at which to practice.

There is no intrinsic difference between mask clearing at 5M and 41M, it is after all the same volume of water to move. But if something goes wrong, possibly compounded by a real risk of serious narcosis - 41M is a long way to come up without a mask.

Nout wrong with it - bloody stupid in my opinion.

Training just might show these people why we practice in safe depths and not put ourslves at risk when we don't need to.

Steve

Nigel Hewitt

17-11-2003, 20:25

First, Dive leader should be fairly simple for the type of SD you are talking about. Once they pass DL, they can dive to 50M at thier hearts content. Surely that is going to be easier and considerably cheaper than doing a tekkie course.

Can we pull this back to the original question that involved BSAC divers diving outside their BSAC club because they found this restrictive. A lot of us like to dive but don't want to instruct so the question interests me.

I will happily do my share of hauling kit, towing RIBs fetching and carrying but I'm not good with students, I'm not a people person. DL offers me nothing but a depth ticket and none of the course is about depth. I have TDI to thank for that.

nigelH

John Williams

17-11-2003, 21:19

:=First, Dive leader should be fairly simple for the type of SD you are talking about. Once they pass DL, they can dive to 50M at thier hearts content. Surely that is going to be easier and considerably cheaper than doing a tekkie course.

Can we pull this back to the original question that involved BSAC divers diving outside their BSAC club because they found this restrictive. A lot of us like to dive but don't want to instruct so the question interests me.

I will happily do my share of hauling kit, towing RIBs fetching and carrying but I'm not good with students, I'm not a people person. DL offers me nothing but a depth ticket and none of the course is about depth. I have TDI to thank for that.

nigel

But Dive Leader IS more than a depth ticket. It is about taking responsibility. It's about planning, communication and involves rescue scenarios, deeper rescue assessments and above all RESPONSIBILITY.

Your TDI course covers the mechanics of deeper diving and goes into theory in greater depth. It includes redundancy and gas planning...but does it include the attitude shift that goes with the responsibility to and for others?

Many (even most) will take that shift on board through "tekkie" courses. Some will not. It is these latter "some" that should concern us.

You cannot get your Dive Leader without accepting the importance of personal, diver to diver, leader to led, and diver to marshal responsibility.

As said...if you have got these qualities/skills DL will be a formality - so jump the hoops and get it done. Prove you have them and set your DOs mind to rest.

If you have not got these qualities/skills then get them before going beyond your limits. Even if you don't recognise those limits the BSAC Incidents Report does. Your opinion of what is a safe depth can be argued with...the FACTS contained in the Incidents Report cannot.

Your DO should not sleep easy knowing that they are responsible for the safety of divers who think that they know better than the combined experience of 50 years and 40,000 members in the BSAC (as well as all the other agency info that goes into the Incident Report).

It was because of the FACTS of experienced SDs, those who had extended their depth experience without continuing DL training, continuing to dive beyond 35m and continuing to have disproportionately high rates of incidents that BSAC introduced the grade limits. They were to encourage people who wanted to go deeper to do so safely - because doing it without training was clearly unsafe.

At the risk of misquoting something I think I once read: I think there are about 4 million dives done each year in the UK. Anyone who reckons they have more experience to call upon than that - please step forward!

I don't beleive in blindly following advice...but when that advice is backed up by fact, and generated by divers better than I, and the risk of flying in it's face risks my life then I think very hard before discounting it.

John

bill bird

17-11-2003, 22:01

:=:=Hi Angie,
:=:=
:=:=The DO of any branch can issue awards beyond sports diver, they're called dive leader and advanced diver. The depth restrictions are there for a very good reason and these depths should only be exceeded after proper training. The annual incidents report will be out in a couple of weeks time. This gives a very good indication of where problems occure and why things go wrong.
:=:=
:=:=Allan
:=
:=Allan,
:=
:=I can understand what Angie is referring to. We are talking about Sport Divers who learned to dive many years ago - before we had the current depth restrictions, before the current, and the two previous (at least) training systems, and when the only recommended limit was 50 metres. These people have many dives in their logbooks beyond 35 metres, and this needs to be recognised. If we've changed the goalposts - for good reasons - and these divers were trained under the old system, and are more than competent to dive to 50 metres, then this needs to be recognised. I don't think you can ask some of these people to then sit through lectures and undergo training when they have been doing it for donkey's years. You either need to come up with some kind of dispensation, or give them the grade by dint of their experience.
:=
:=I do believe Angie's got a point.
:=
:=Regards.
:=
:=
:=Bill

Bill,

I think you've missed the point of why the depth limits were introduced.

These experienced SDs, as a group, were having accidents far more often than those who were equally (or even less experienced) but had completed DL training. Just because a group of divers is doing something that, they are clearly unprepared for (because they were having too many incidents), does not mean that they should be given dispensation to keep taking disproportionate risks. That's not good for them, the rest of us or for their training agency.

If these SDs are doing that sort of diving safely and properly then the few hoops that they have to jump through to get DL wont cause them any difficulty and can probably be completed with the minimum of fuss and without undue delay either.

If, on the other hand, they are in that group of SDs diving beyond their limits and at risk of having incidents - then getting them to pause, take stock, undergo the required training and gain the skills/knowledge to do the dives safely has to be good for everyone.

A branch DO has to think of the safety of all the branch members...I believe Allan was just pointing out that the safest way forward was to follow the advice and training schedule given by the BSAC before embarking upon dives that one is not trained for.

Experience is no substitute for training. And equally - training is no substitute for experience.
A safe diver needs both!

John

John,

I fully understand why these limits were brought in, but it was a blanket situation and while I have no problem with this applying to our new divers, the older one's, and I cannot recollect from my experience one in our branch who had an incident (I cannot speak about others), opted not to do Dive Leader, but have dived below the current 35m limit on many occassions (is it a limit or a recommendation? - Ooh! deja vu). How do you now tell them you cannot go on a branch dive to 45 metres? We need to keep these members, and I don't think the blanket helps us to do this. That's a point to consider.

Bill

matt

17-11-2003, 22:47

:=First, Dive leader should be fairly simple for the type of SD you are talking about. Once they pass DL, they can dive to 50M at thier hearts content. Surely that is going to be easier and considerably cheaper than doing a tekkie course.

Can we pull this back to the original question that involved BSAC divers diving outside their BSAC club because they found this restrictive. A lot of us like to dive but don't want to instruct so the question interests me.

I tend to agree with John (unusually) it is not just about instructing. It is about responsibility. It is abut taking control. It is about putting your buddy before yourself. All of these things are relevant to safe deeper diving.

I will happily do my share of hauling kit, towing RIBs fetching and carrying but I'm not good with students, I'm not a people person.

Have you ever been the most experienced diver in your buddy pair? Have you ever known more about a site than your buddy? Has your buddy ever looked to you to sort things out? Has a marshal ever asked you to look after a less experienced buddy? If you have been diving for any length of time then of course. Has it mattered that you are not a people person?

For the most part we dive as buddy pairs and from time to time you will have to lead a dive. You will do it better after being trained. Personally I think that learning to dive with the less experienced is an integral part of diver development.

So by all means continue to dive with other Sports Divers, but do it as a trained Dive Leader.

DL offers me nothing but a depth ticket and none of the course is about depth. I have TDI to thank for that.

I think you are wrong.

Many of the skills are relevant to depth and many are taught by tekkie agencies, though sometimes with more fashionable titles. Dive Leadership or team work, no difference as far as I can see. Whatever you call it your learning procedures to take account of differing abilities.

DL requires that you demonstrate controlled rescue skills from a deeper depth and over a greater range. Sounds pretty relevant for diving deeper to me. DL includes skills such as rescue management and O2. Again important if your about to move into a depth range where incidents likely to be far more serious.

The nect bit is not aimed at you Nigel, it is just a general comment.

Unfortunately many of the people that feel they don't need to do the DL course are the ones that fail when they take it. Too often you see experienced Sport Divers that have not practiced their skills since qualifying. It comes as no surprise that they cock them up when asked to extend them a little. Thankfully most then understand why they need to do the DL course and that skills have to be actively maintained.

For deeper diving, progressive training and practice is not a chore, it is a neccessity. People that think they have nothing more to learn probably should not be diving deeper than 35m IMVHO.

Keith L

17-11-2003, 22:48

Can we pull this back to the original question that involved BSAC divers diving outside their BSAC club because they found this restrictive. A lot of us like to dive but don't want to instruct so the question interests me.

Well... I'm A DL/CI, I did the DL course because it interested =ME= and I learnt a few things. Similar with the CI, it's a damn good course that you learn things on. Therefore I have virtually no restrictions on the type of diving I want to do, my personal limits are below the official DL limits anyway.

At the time I did this I was in a training club, I found the 'pressures' of instructing very easy to deal with, all it takes is one word - "no". Yes I have taught, I have instructed, but when it suited ME, when I want to dive for myself I just say so, being a volunteer nobody can disagree with that.

I agree with John and others, the limits are there for a reason, the incident stats are there for everybody to read. I'm sorry folks, I don't accept the excuse of "but I'll be limited to diving with OD's" as a valid excuse for not doing DL. If you're that good you'll walk it, the solution to the training problems is in your hands in the simple word "no".

Personally I don't see any need for a "DL, but not really, on the whim of the DO" type half qualification - what are you going to measure it against? Do the course, if you know it all then call it practice. But either you can or you can't, and I view the current DL grade as a good a line to draw as any.

Discuss that! :-)

Keith L

david lisk

17-11-2003, 23:08

>>::::In our branch we have many very experienced divers who, because they did not want to take their formal instruction further, dive outside the BSAC rules because they are "only" Sports divers and dive beyond 35m. Can the council please look into some kind of DO issued award that recgnises their ability to dive deeper than this limit so we can bring these poeple back into the fold? ::::::::::::

I would ask the question as to how the judgement of 'very experienced diver' is arrived at, is it simply diving deep? There is much more to DL than deep diving. Proper training in rescue management is extremely important, especially when diving in the 35-50M range.

Someone with experience should follow on from SD to DL and indeed on to AD. If they have such experience and ability they should have no problem in carrying this out.

To give an example I was able to complete between September 2000 and October 2002 CD, SD, TDI Nitrox, 02, Boat Handling, DL and Open Water Instructor. I should imagine an 'experienced' diver should have no problem completing DL.

I understand not everyone wishes to be an instructor however if divers believe they have the 'experience', wish to increase their diving depth limits and dive within BSAC rules, then they complete DL like everyone else. There must be no exception to rules under some type of 'dispensation'. As regards the comment in another post 'we need to keep these divers', if they break the rules on branch dives, I think not. Let them go and recruit new divers. It is no loss as they are no example to anyone else in the branch.

The point seems of be lost to divers who 'did not want to take their formal instruction further'(their choice) that the continuation of formal training to DL and AD complements the experience they gain. It was their decision to stop training. As has been stated before the rules are there for very good reasons.

In addition to formal training and gaining qualification grades, continual practice and improvement is most important to all divers. Simply going diving is not enough. Time (and dives) need to be set aside to practice and keep current the skills required for diving and rescue.

David

matt

17-11-2003, 23:16

Experience is no substitute for training. And equally - training is no substitute for experience.

Thats right John BUT training can be done at any depth , rather than every week in a 3 mt depth swimming pool, i recently saw 2 sports divers at 41 mts practicing mask clearing and DV retrivial......... nout wrong with that.

What is your point Andy? I did mask and reg drills at 48m on air during my Adv Trimix course, and a lift from 20m to 6m on my AD course. I found the AD course more demanding.

EXPERIENCE is EQUAL to TRAINING is some places and rightly so, BUT surely a very capable SPORTS DIVER that dives twice a weekend is a far better diver than a SPORTS DIVER that dives once a weekend.

Depends what you think a 'better diver' is. I know a few people that dive a great deal but I still think they are gung ho, naive, reckless...interestingly some people have said that about me from time to time.

If a diver DOES NOT want to be quailified higher than his/hers wishes ,so bit ,,,,,, thats why a lot of divers are going esle where to do these TECKKIE COURSES so they can dive deeper.

Now here is a thing, I have done the odd tekkie course (caving for 2004). I am not exactly a BSAC rock, I have probably broken most of the guidelines at some point. You certainly will not find the Posiedon logo running through the middle of me. But I continue to be involved in club diving and instructing BECAUSE I dive deeper.

I guess experience isn't just doing the same thing over and over.

DeepDigit

17-11-2003, 23:17

In our branch we have many very experienced divers who, because they did not want to take their formal instruction further, dive outside the BSAC rules because they are "only" Sports divers and dive beyond 35m. Can the council please look into some kind of DO issued award that recgnises their ability to dive deeper than this limit so we can bring these poeple back into the fold?

Angie
---------------------------------------------------
Angie Hi
I think you have an extremely good point and one thats been brought up on these forums before...

And met with the same inflexibility and dogma that drives members and propspects away from the club.

The attitudes so clearly articulated on this subject an many others is not of tollerance and welcoming but dogma and written in stone DO's 'do it my way or hit the highway'

It really is such a shame that without any help from outside these people will kill the club from within....

Dive Safe :-)

angiemac

18-11-2003, 08:03

=Hi Angie,

The DO of any branch can issue awards beyond sports diver, they're called dive leader and advanced diver. The depth restrictions are there for a very good reason and these depths should only be exceeded after proper training. The annual incidents report will be out in a couple of weeks time. This gives a very good indication of where problems occure and why things go wrong.

Allan

Thanks for missing the point completely Allan. We are not talking of divers who are new to the sport but divers who have dived for many years who have no interest in continuing to learn about diving theory but want to dive deeper than 35m. Incident free divers who have the experience and capability to do these dives but who now can't because someone who hadn't really thought the issues through properly barred them from doing so within the BSAC rules.

The Dive Leader and Advanced diver courses did not teach me anything new about diving deeper than 35m only more rescue skills (from a max of 20m (Ocean diver max depth)), search techniques, Oxygen admin (available to sports divers), boat handling and alike. They obviously don't teach people better diving because you tend to find the majority of deaths and deco incidents in the annual report occur in the 35m+ range - available to DL and Ad only. What it does prevent is the gaining of properly supervised experience to those divers who do not want to take formal learning further.

Why can't we have something like the Sports diver depth experience table extended to allow properly experienced divers to dive within their capabilities?

Angie.

angiemac

18-11-2003, 08:18

I would ask the question as to how the judgement of 'very experienced diver' is arrived at, is it simply diving deep? There is much more to DL than deep diving. Proper training in rescue management is extremely important, especially when diving in the 35-50M range.

The divers I have in mind are of the old school, most have been diving for over 20 years and have dived to depths up to and including 50m before the depth restrictions were put in place. All are incident free, highly trained (but not formally) divers who didn't do dive leader then because it meant having to take novices in after qualifying.

Someone with experience should follow on from SD to DL and indeed on to AD. If they have such experience and ability they should have no problem in carrying this out.

Why - if they have no interest in formal learning why force them to learn techniques which are useless to them. I'm currently in a simialr situation. I cant do advanced instructor or First class diver because I won't take a boat handler course which I'll never use afterwards.

To give an example I was able to complete between September 2000 and October 2002 CD, SD, TDI Nitrox, 02, Boat Handling, DL and Open Water Instructor. I should imagine an 'experienced' diver should have no problem completing DL.

Good for you - you are well qualified but this says nothing about your experience. I can't comment on that because I don't know you but, playing devils advocate, did you actually do any diving amongst all this learning?

I understand not everyone wishes to be an instructor however if divers believe they have the 'experience', wish to increase their diving depth limits and dive within BSAC rules, then they complete DL like everyone else. There must be no exception to rules under some type of 'dispensation'. As regards the comment in another post 'we need to keep these divers', if they break the rules on branch dives, I think not. Let them go and recruit new divers. It is no loss as they are no example to anyone else in the branch.

These people are a loss to our branch. We have at least half a dozen of these divers whose experience probably totals over 100 years of diving and probably 6000 dives, to depths of upto 65m - they know their stuff.

The point seems of be lost to divers who 'did not want to take their formal instruction further'(their choice) that the continuation of formal training to DL and AD complements the experience they gain. It was their decision to stop training. As has been stated before the rules are there for very good reasons.

No they had no choice BSAC changed the rules on them, and stopped them from doing what they were already allowed to do.

A wise man once said that rules are there for the guidance of the wise and the blind allegance of fools. Why can't we be a little more flexible and accept that properly led experience gaining dives are just as good as Dive Leader Training. I know many Dive Leaders and Advanced Divers I would not want to dive to 20m under any conditions with let alone 35m because their skills are so poor, and yet know of many Sports divers I would trust to take a freshly trained ocean diver to 40m in the right circumstances - wheres the logic and training in that?

Angie

matt

18-11-2003, 10:31

Hi Angie

Thanks for missing the point completely Allan. We are not talking of divers who are new to the sport but divers who have dived for many years who have no interest in continuing to learn about diving theory but want to dive deeper than 35m.

I have a real problem with this. These people appear to be sying 'There is nothing more I can learn. I can be no safer than I already am.' Such an atiitude assumes that diving technology, procedures and the people involved are static.

Incident free divers who have the experience and capability to do these dives but who now can't because someone who hadn't really thought the issues through properly barred them from doing so within the BSAC rules.

They are not barred. They have a choice. They can complete a course and be allowed to take part in branch dives past 35m once more. This is very different to the O2/PPO debate where BSAC divers are effectively barred from using a legitimate technique on a branch dive.

The Dive Leader and Advanced diver courses did not teach me anything new about diving deeper than 35m only more rescue skills (from a max of 20m (Ocean diver max depth)), search techniques, Oxygen admin (available to sports divers), boat handling and alike.

With respect I think you are looking at this through blinkered eyes. For instance, search techniques introduce the idea of diving with an objective other than 'look at the fish'. A successful search requires task management, spacial awareness, discipline and team work. These are skills important in deeper diving.

They obviously don't teach people better diving because you tend to find the majority of deaths and deco incidents in the annual report occur in the 35m+ range - available to DL and Ad only.

That is a gross misrepresentation of the statistics. An incident that happens further from the surface is more likely to result in death simply because you are further from safety. As an analogy, if the boat is sinking you have a much better chance of surviving if your on deck than if your in the engine room. The people that get out of the engine room are those that make the right survival choices. Training and practice develop those skills.

The question you should ask is whether divers involved in BSAC branches are more likely to both avoid incidents at depth and have the wherewithall to escape. The statistics over the last 5 years have been pretty consistant. BSAC divers involved with branches die less frequently than divers who are not involved in a club.

The deco situation is less clear. In 1995/6 the qualification requirement for decompression stops was relaxed to allow SDs to plan and make mandatory stops. Previously only DL or higher could make deco stops. In the 1998 report DCI incidents involving missed stops had pretty much doubled from 97. Through to 2002 the figure has remained 50% to 100% greater than the 1997 report.

Now some people say the increase in missed stops is a result of an increase in the depth and time of the average dive. But personally I think that DL training has a far greater impact on a diver's ability to conduct deeper and longer dives than anyone cares to admit.

What it does prevent is the gaining of properly supervised experience to those divers who do not want to take formal learning further.

I sympathise with your wish to get as many divers into the branch as possible. I completely agree with the point elsewhere that we should be encorageing Dive Leaders to take an active role in helping the less experienced. But I don't think it should be at 'any' cost.

Is it really that much to ask that the divers who are going to wield influence proove they are up to date. Or do you think that an ABLJ, single tank and buddy breathing are still appropriate techniques for 35m+ diving. Our branch hits 50 next year and we have our share of highly experienced divers who are happy doing what they learnt. I completely respect their abilities, I try to learn what I can from them. But to be honest some of the techniques they use and the disregard for contingancy scares me silly.

Why can't we have something like the Sports diver depth experience table extended to allow properly experienced divers to dive within their capabilities?

All that would proove is that they can bounce to 50m. It does nothing to assess their ability to handle anything that might go wrong. If I am going to have to assist a diver from 50m to the surface I would at least like to know he has demonstrated he can make a controlled assisted ascent further than 6m. It is not about him being good enough, it is about me knowing he is good enough. I guess I could make them do a couple lifts during the work up dives...oh that would be the DL course then.

michael smith

18-11-2003, 10:47

Hello, the issue you raise requires some serious thinking. The issue is that experienced divers in your branch are diving outside of the branch because their current qualification limits them, compared to the diving they currently do.

If they have been diving for more than twenty years, they would have completed the Snorkel Diver Course and the Third Class Diver Course. The 3rd Class Diver course was the initial aqualung course. Upon completing the pool lessons and some open water drills, completing out 10 dives and passing the theory you were qualified as 3rd Class. Dive Leading and Dive Marshalling were covered in the 2nd Class Diver course.

As these divers have not progressed to 2nd Class they could not become instructors, so the question what comes to my mind is what involvement have these divers had within their branchs.

There is also the loss of face aspect, if these divers undertake training within the branch, it is likely that those now giving the training would be those that were developed by the experinced divers. Which could be a reson why they don't want to do any further training.

So one solution would be to use the Regional Coaching Scheme, as it staffed mostly by instructors who also have a lot of experince. Get your experienced divers to invite your coach to join them on a dive.

The focus of BS-AC training is within the branch, this now starts at Sports Diver, with assistant dive marshall skills. I would urge those older divers who been on the fringe of branch activities to get help, as it always been there, to develop their abilities.

Within Southern Region we are planning to run Dive Leader & Advanced Diver training for those Southern Region Branches who have difficulties in running these courses. Like most of the other Regions we can help in devloping instructors and those that wish to go for 1st Class Diver, as well as running a number of skill development courses through the year. So there is help available.

We are all members of the same club, wherever you help. So if you need help, ask.

Regards Mike

david lisk

18-11-2003, 11:12

Angie Hi
I think you have an extremely good point and one thats been brought up on these forums before...

And met with the same inflexibility and dogma that drives members and propspects away from the club.

The attitudes so clearly articulated on this subject an many others is not of tollerance and welcoming but dogma and written in stone DO's 'do it my way or hit the highway'

It really is such a shame that without any help from outside these people will kill the club from within....

Dive Safe :-)

It is not that there is no training path to allow for diving up to 50m.

What appears to be wanted here is a ticket, based on 'experience' to avoid taking the DL course and assessment. The pressure exerted is change the rules to allow up to 50 m dives or divers might leave the club.

Consider others who have taken the qualifications seeing the training and assessment bypassed. (Might they then be discontented and leave?)

Once rules are changed to accomodate one group to avoid training and assessment, what will be the next request?

David

angiemac

18-11-2003, 12:04

With respect I think you are looking at this through blinkered eyes. For instance, search techniques introduce the idea of diving with an objective other than 'look at the fish'. A successful search requires task management, spacial awareness, discipline and team work. These are skills important in deeper diving.

These were skills that I learnt in diving before I did these courses so no the DL and Ad courses didn't teach me (personally) any thing more about diving to deeper depths.

The question you should ask is whether divers involved in BSAC branches are more likely to both avoid incidents at depth and have the wherewithall to escape. The statistics over the last 5 years have been pretty consistant. BSAC divers involved with branches die less frequently than divers who are not involved in a club.

But these divers dive within a branch but break the rules so according to your statement are in the 'less likely to die' category.

Now some people say the increase in missed stops is a result of an increase in the depth and time of the average dive. But personally I think that DL training has a far greater impact on a diver's ability to conduct deeper and longer dives than anyone cares to admit.

I was doing, as are many of my sport diver friend now, deco before dive leader - so no skills increase there then. In fact we now teach in the Sports diver course a practice deco stop as we acknowledge that Sports divers do deco.

Is it really that much to ask that the divers who are going to wield influence proove they are up to date. Or do you think that an ABLJ, single tank and buddy breathing are still appropriate techniques for 35m+ diving. Our branch hits 50 next year and we have our share of highly experienced divers who are happy doing what they learnt. I completely respect their abilities, I try to learn what I can from them. But to be honest some of the techniques they use and the disregard for contingancy scares me silly.

I passed my Ad Diver back in 1995 - what proof is there that my skills are current?

:=Why can't we have something like the Sports diver depth experience table extended to allow properly experienced divers to dive within their capabilities?

All that would proove is that they can bounce to 50m. It does nothing to assess their ability to handle anything that might go wrong. If I am going to have to assist a diver from 50m to the surface I would at least like to know he has demonstrated he can make a controlled assisted ascent further than 6m. It is not about him being good enough, it is about me knowing he is good enough. I guess I could make them do a couple lifts during the work up dives...oh that would be the DL course then.

But thats what we do with Sports divers today. In the current logbook there is a table of depth experience for 20,25,30 and 35m. According to you all that shows is that your newly trained sports diver bounced to 35m. If we accept this is an accurate representation of a sports divers ability to 35m why not extend it to 50m - using properly trained instructors to so them how it's done.

Angie.

Keith L

18-11-2003, 12:06

The divers I have in mind are of the old school...divers who didn't do dive leader then because it meant having to take novices in after qualifying.

That is not a valid excuse IMHO, include and optional element of your DL course on the use of the word "NO". Problem solved in seconds.

We have at least half a dozen of these divers whose experience probably totals over 100 years of diving and probably 6000 dives, to depths of upto 65m - they know their stuff.

Are they so good that they are beyond experience dives? Are they so good that they don't do work up dives for major dive trips? If they do either of those things then run your DL course as part of that, they know their stuff so it will be a formality.

I don't like the concept of these 'half grades' awarded on a whim and an opinion, there is a perfectly good and simple training route in place to allow them to progress officially.

Keith L

angiemac

18-11-2003, 12:15

:=Angie Hi
:=I think you have an extremely good point and one thats been brought up on these forums before...
:=
:=And met with the same inflexibility and dogma that drives members and propspects away from the club.
:=
:=The attitudes so clearly articulated on this subject an many others is not of tollerance and welcoming but dogma and written in stone DO's 'do it my way or hit the highway'
:=
:=It really is such a shame that without any help from outside these people will kill the club from within....
:=
:=Dive Safe :-)

It is not that there is no training path to allow for diving up to 50m.

What appears to be wanted here is a ticket, based on 'experience' to avoid taking the DL course and assessment. The pressure exerted is change the rules to allow up to 50 m dives or divers might leave the club.

Consider others who have taken the qualifications seeing the training and assessment bypassed. (Might they then be discontented and leave?)

Once rules are changed to accomodate one group to avoid training and assessment, what will be the next request?

David

Hi David,

So far I think your's has been the most logical argument.

In any system there are the academic ones and the practical ones. I'm just trying to see some justice for the practical ones. We've done it in our school (not diving) with the introduction of more course work to help those who don't handle the pressure of exams well - why not do it in diving as well. I'm not suggesting it be the accepted norm, but a practical alternative, with strict critrea, that allows people who will never take their diving further than Sports diver the academic route, but who will dive deeper than the 35m allowed any way.

I'm trying to add safety to the system not detract from it. Surely it is better to have something in place to help guide these people with supervised deeper dives rather than them going off and doing it without that guidance?

PeteM

18-11-2003, 12:33

:=The divers I have in mind are of the old school...divers who didn't do dive leader then because it meant having to take novices in after qualifying.

That is not a valid excuse IMHO, include and optional element of your DL course on the use of the word "NO". Problem solved in seconds.

:= We have at least half a dozen of these divers whose experience probably totals over 100 years of diving and probably 6000 dives, to depths of upto 65m - they know their stuff.

Are they so good that they are beyond experience dives? Are they so good that they don't do work up dives for major dive trips? If they do either of those things then run your DL course as part of that, they know their stuff so it will be a formality.

I don't like the concept of these 'half grades' awarded on a whim and an opinion, there is a perfectly good and simple training route in place to allow them to progress officially.

The problem is a lot of these people don't have a half grade - they were either second or third class divers with a 50m limit (can not remember which but it effects a guy in our club). When DL and SD were introduced there were rules applied as to which qualification they got transfered to, I think it depended on whether they had done a specific SDC. the guy in our club had not done the course and was transfered to SD. So now we have a qualified diver who is not allowed to use his qualification through no fault of his own.

Is that reasonable/fair?

TBH I agree someone who has qualified as an SD should abide by the limits of that qualification but as in most things its not that black and white

Pete

Dave

18-11-2003, 13:27

Personally I don't see any need for a "DL, but not really, on the whim of the DO" type half qualification - what are you going to measure it against?

Measure it against the qualifications they have. If someone has done, say TDI Advanced Nitrox and Deco Procedures, they could well be certified to 55m. All it needs is an additional box or 2 in the depth allowance for SD for 40,45and 50m which are granted based on evidence of alternative training meeting this depth level. This would work fine unless you enter the ideas of BSAC insularity and pretending such qualifications do not exist.

What sensible reason is there for BSAC to ignore such qualifications as far as depth progression go? If a SD has a qualification to a certain depth why try to restrict him and send him elasewhere. The DL course does involve leading "novices" which not all are cut out for but this doesnt justify limiting them imo

Dave

Dave

Bill Bird

18-11-2003, 13:27

:=:=The divers I have in mind are of the old school...divers who didn't do dive leader then because it meant having to take novices in after qualifying.
:=
:=That is not a valid excuse IMHO, include and optional element of your DL course on the use of the word "NO". Problem solved in seconds.
:=
:=:= We have at least half a dozen of these divers whose experience probably totals over 100 years of diving and probably 6000 dives, to depths of upto 65m - they know their stuff.
:=
:=Are they so good that they are beyond experience dives? Are they so good that they don't do work up dives for major dive trips? If they do either of those things then run your DL course as part of that, they know their stuff so it will be a formality.
:=
:=I don't like the concept of these 'half grades' awarded on a whim and an opinion, there is a perfectly good and simple training route in place to allow them to progress officially.

The problem is a lot of these people don't have a half grade - they were either second or third class divers with a 50m limit (can not remember which but it effects a guy in our club). When DL and SD were introduced there were rules applied as to which qualification they got transfered to, I think it depended on whether they had done a specific SDC. the guy in our club had not done the course and was transfered to SD. So now we have a qualified diver who is not allowed to use his qualification through no fault of his own.

Is that reasonable/fair?

TBH I agree someone who has qualified as an SD should abide by the limits of that qualification but as in most things its not that black and white

Pete

I still think the issue is that the goalposts changed, and it's left an element of the membership in a position where they could do the 50 metre dives beforehand and now technically cannot (at least within branch). That cannot be right either. If this was applied to other circumstances, how would you feel if somebody came along 20 years after passing your A levels and told you that they were now only worth an O level - but it would be an A level if you studied some further modules, or you'd passed your driving test in 1970 have been driving for 33 years, and someone suddenly tells you that your licence is invalid because you didn't pass a written test and needed an additional 20 hours training before it was revalid? The principle is the same. The size of the problem may not be that big, but may still require a creative solution.

Bill

david lisk

18-11-2003, 13:37

Hi David,

So far I think your's has been the most logical argument.

In any system there are the academic ones and the practical ones. I'm just trying to see some justice for the practical ones. We've done it in our school (not diving) with the introduction of more course work to help those who don't handle the pressure of exams well - why not do it in diving as well. I'm not suggesting it be the accepted norm, but a practical alternative, with strict critrea, that allows people who will never take their diving further than Sports diver the academic route, but who will dive deeper than the 35m allowed any way.

I'm trying to add safety to the system not detract from it. Surely it is better to have something in place to help guide these people with supervised deeper dives rather than them going off and doing it without that guidance?

Angie,

I note with interest your educational background in schools. I make my arguments also from an educational background (Further and Higher Education).

While I agree that practical experience is very important there is also a need for the acadamic. For example in courses we offer in health and safety the knowledge requirement is mandatory (as are the practical requirements) if certification is to be issued.

I do make comparisons between diving training and assessment requirements, and training and assessments I am involved with ,carried out for health and safety officers, engineers, gas equipment installers etc.

In courses we offer at the Institute individuals no matter what their experience and background wishing to gain the appropriate awards must complete all the requirements, and when the rules change they must update and re-qualify when necessary.

I still believe it is a very weak argument to put forward that a very experienced sports diver should not complete dive leader (with includes the rescue management training necessary and certifies it has been completed and assessed to the required standard), rather than some sort of supervised in between training plan.

It is also not an argument that they will do it anyway [35m+ diving]. They could also go cave diving [without certification]as well, where are the lines drawn.

Add safety to the system by sticking to what I believe is an excellent training and assessment system as currently employed by the BSAC. You never stop learning and can always gain from further practice, training and assessment along with contact with other divers with different experience and backgrounds.

I have been fortunate in my diving, to not only being taught by excellent instructors and to have the opportunity to undertake training and assessment, but also to participate in a very wide range of diving experiences.

David

DeepDigit

18-11-2003, 17:19

In the current logbook there is a table of depth experience for 20,25,30 and 35m. According to you all that shows is that your newly trained sports diver bounced to 35m. If we accept this is an accurate representation of a sports divers ability to 35m why not extend it to 50m - using properly trained instructors to so them how it's done.

Angie.
--------------------------------------------------------
This is the bit I think I take issue with - theres an assumption that 'Instructor' = 'Has done it all', many instructors I have known both BSAC and PADI have not done a significant amount of deep diving, if any in some cases.

Its not a requirement to be able to teach at depth at least up to OWI... So why depend on 'Instructors' to mentor these people, some of whom have probably been diving longer and deeper than the instructor. - being an instructor doesn't necessarily make a better diver..

Leave this stuff to the techie groups who specialise in it - and recognise the training and experience that they have and welcome them on branch dives.

Dive Safe :-)

janos

18-11-2003, 18:58

or you'd passed your driving test in 1970 have been driving for 33 years, and someone suddenly tells you that your licence is invalid because you didn't pass a written test and needed an additional 20 hours training before it was revalid? The principle is the same. The size of the problem may not be that big, but may still require a creative solution.

I'd be annoyed if I had to do 20 hours training, but if someone said they'd sit in the car and assess the standard of my driving, I'd have no problem with that (just hope the missus isn't reading this)

Janos

matt

18-11-2003, 20:12

[snip]
These were skills that I learnt in diving before I did these courses so no the DL and Ad courses didn't teach me (personally) any thing more about diving to deeper depths.

That was just one example of how a skill which is not obviously about deep diving develops skills essential to deep diving. I actually find it hard to believe that during the entire DL and AD courses you did not learn or improve a single thing that was relevant to deep diving. Heck I sit in on lectures now and still learn useful stuff. Admittedly if you attend a course having decided you are not going to learn anything, then you probably won't.

[snip]

But these divers dive within a branch but break the rules so according to your statement are in the 'less likely to die' category.

Absolutely. I was objecting to your tabloidesque statement;
"They obviously don't teach people better diving because you tend to find the majority of deaths and deco incidents in the annual report occur in the 35m+ range - available to DL and Ad only."
That strikes me as a classic 'It happened to me - I failed to monitor my guage and ran out of air so _obviously_ I need a twinset' The use of the closing word obviously does not make the statement any less ridiculous.

I went on to indicate that in the case of relaxing deco standards I think there is a demonstrable link between the ammount of training people have recieved and their safety on adventurous dives. Quite possibly because training courses force you to practice skills which you would otherwise avoid.

Virtually every incident that results in death is founded on a flaw in core skills. Being in BSAC may put you in the lower risk group but you still need to take active steps to avoid being in the tragic mistake group. Continual training and practice is a fundamental element of safer adventurous diving. In fact my belief is so strong that I am actively involved in instructing BECAUSE I dive deep and long.

[snip]

I was doing (deco), as are many of my sport diver friend now, deco before dive leader - so no skills increase there then.

I am no saint either. When I passed SD I had about 25 dives and a 20m dive was an adventure. It was some 100 dives later that I felt I might know enough to move outside the limits of my training. During the following winter I took the DL course, quite simply because if I was good enough I would pass and if I could not pass I should not be doing this sort of diving.

In fact we now teach in the Sports diver course a practice deco stop as we acknowledge that Sports divers do deco.

I hold an Adv Trimix ticket and spend a great deal of time on decompression stops. I have to say that I completely disagree with the decision to legitimise deco stops for SDs. With the 25ish dives you can expect from your average SD trainee they simply do not have the buoyancy control and awareness required to guarantee completion of a stop. Sure they can do it once under assessment but safe deco diving requires that they do it every time, even when things are imperfect and going wrong. Things have got better as more and more Club / Ocean divers make routine safety stops but I still strongly advise that newly qualified SDs venturing into the 30m range get a Nitrox ticket and avoid deco diving for a while. The number of divers missing stops and the disproportionate burden they place on the emergency services is a real issue down here (Portsmouth).

Sure I did deco stops as a SD but I knew it was against the rules and was damned careful about it as a result.

I passed my Ad Diver back in 1995 - what proof is there that my skills are current?

We appear to be talking about divers who last took a lesson 20 years ago. Maybe in another 10 years time there will be a method to ensure that a 1995 AD has had some training in the interrim.

But thats what we do with Sports divers today. In the current logbook there is a table of depth experience for 20,25,30 and 35m. According to you all that shows is that your newly trained sports diver bounced to 35m.

I did not use the phrase 'newly trained' I would expect it to be sometime and many dives before a newly trained SD gets to tick the 35m dive box. Thats the point of the ladder, it shows that the qualification is a starting point, not the end point. As a newly qualified SD your training is easily sufficient for 20m dives. As an experienced SD at 35m the error margins are far tighter, SD training is barely adequate. If you go deeper the error margin decreases further and IMVHO SD training definately isn't adequate.

If we accept this is an accurate representation of a sports divers ability to 35m why not extend it to 50m - using properly trained instructors to so them how it's done.

When we complete assessments it is to 'an acceptable standard' The 'acceptable standard' required to pass Sport Diver is _just_ sufficient so that with addiditonal experience they have a hope in hell of dealing with a problem and extricateing themselves + buddy from 35m. Diving beyond 35m increases risk and reduces the error margin further. Additional training is required and that training is the DL course.

Finally I dislike your idea of instructors 'approving' deeper dives. Unlike dive leadership I can see nothing in the instructor courses that in any way can be related to deeper diving. In fact during the summer months I dislike taking Sports and Ocean diver lessons because I have my offshore head on, I expect to be diveing with peers not dependants.

The BSAC deep diving guidelines are clear. You make a deep dive with someone you know and trust after working up with them. Why not take that opportunity to complete the DL course.

matt

18-11-2003, 20:56

What sensible reason is there for BSAC to ignore such qualifications as far as depth progression go? If a SD has a qualification to a certain depth why try to restrict him and send him elasewhere.

Where else exactly is the diver you describe going to go. Presumably he is coming to BSAC for the club experience. What other club is going to allow him to dive to 50m without a crossover procedure?

The DL course does involve leading "novices" which not all are cut out for but this doesnt justify limiting them imo

Maybe they can make that decision once they know what is involved. Personally I feel that if you can not accompany a novice in 15m you should not be accompanying anyone in 50m. We are not talking about instructing here, it is basic dive leadership.

Further we expect BSAC trained divers to have demonstrated rescue skills in excess of those required by other agencies, before we deem them fit to go past 35m. It would not be fair on prospective buddies to allow other to bypass the rescue elements.

Nigel Hewitt

18-11-2003, 21:23

What sensible reason is there for BSAC to ignore such qualifications as far as depth progression go? If a SD has a qualification to a certain depth why try to restrict him and send him elasewhere. The DL course does involve leading "novices" which not all are cut out for but this doesnt justify limiting them imo

Agreed. Harping back to the original question: the SDs described here are not finding BSAC restrictive because they are diving outside of the club enviroment. Diving just as they always did and, apparantly, diving safely.

Is this a case of "it doesn't matter if we loose them" because they are not doing it our (new) way? I am fortunate in having a branch that tolerates my outside qualifications (and my persistant seasickness which is probably far more annoying) but if we walk away from everybody who wants to move into more complex diving we make ourselves a club for teachers and trainees but not divers. If the divers wonder if it's worth renewing, clubs with boats in the water are expensive, where does that leave the rest of us?

nigelH

Dave

19-11-2003, 07:26

Where else exactly is the diver you describe going to go. Presumably he is coming to BSAC for the club experience. What other club is going to allow him to dive to 50m without a crossover procedure?

Where he is going to go is away from the club. Why wouldn't a club allow someone with say, TDI Decompression Procedures and TDI Advanced Nitrox, do dives to 50m which is within the certification limit of 55m ( depending of country of issue ). Or suppose this SD has an Advanced Trimix qualification and has been diving on it for quite a while? Is this person likely to be peeved that the club thinks he is only capable of diving to 35m

I am also not talking just about crossovers into a branch but people who are quite well certified and trained to dive to these depths through other courses undertaken

Maybe they can make that decision once they know what is involved. Personally I feel that if you can not accompany a novice in 15m you should not be accompanying anyone in 50m. We are not talking about instructing here, it is basic dive leadership.

There is a huge difference between hand holding a complete novice and leading dives with other experienced divers. A lot of people have no desire whatsoever to take such inexperienced people in and I cannot see how this element makes any difference to their skills for deep diving

:-It would not be fair on prospective buddies to allow other to bypass the rescue elements.

Where is the unfairness? other than a "I had to do the course to be able to do branch dives to 50m, why should you get off it"

Dave

John Williams

19-11-2003, 07:39

:I still think the issue is that the goalposts changed,

Exactly! However the goalposts were in the wrong place before. They are in the right place now!

: and it's left an element of the membership in a position where they could do the 50 metre dives beforehand and now technically cannot (at least within branch)

That?s right Bill. But, as mentioned, the goalposts were in the wrong place before and people were paying a very high price, in terms of incidents that they were not trained to avoid/cope with because the BSAC put the goalposts in the wrong place. They are in the right place now and the incidence rate is falling as divers get themselves properly trained to dive to these depths. Can you help the BSAC to protect those members who have not got the message by persuading them to do the training the stats show that they need to stay safe?

: That cannot be right either.

It wasn?t?but it is now!

:If this was applied to other circumstances, how would you feel if somebody came along 20 years after passing your A levels and told you that they were now only worth an O level - but it would be an A level if you studied some further modules,

To be honest I?d expect someone to look at a 20year old A level and ask ?What have you done since then??, ?How have you kept your knowledge/skills up-to-date??, ?What developmental training have you done since then?? A 20 year old qualification shows what could be achieved if someone puts their mind to it. It does not show that they are up-to-date today. I have a degree in Marine Biology (with Honours) ? but it?s nearly 20 years old and I have trouble recognising a fish these days ;-)

:or you'd passed your driving test in 1970 have been driving for 33 years, and someone suddenly tells you that your licence is invalid because you didn't pass a written test and needed an additional 20 hours training before it was revalid?

Same deal really. Driving conditions today are VERY different from 33 years ago. Most of us would benefit from some refresher training. That?s why the Police Drivers have to be continually re-assessed. It?s why I am undergoing Advanced Driver training and afterwards will ask other Advanced Drivers to asses my performance whenever I get the opportunity.

:The principle is the same.

Exactly Bill! Refresher training is good. If experience shows that goal posts were in the wrong place then move them. Keep all skills/knowledge constantly refreshed and up-to-date to stay safe.

:The size of the problem may not be that big, but may still require a creative solution.

I agree! Perhaps the creative solution here is to find a way to persuade the old guard to bite the bullet and get the training.
Since you used examples here?s a couple for you to throw back at them:
20 years ago who knew that 02 was so important to divers? It?s part of mainstream training now and all agree that it should be. When I qualified as an AD/CI I?d never heard of O2 in a diving first aid/mixed gas context. (but now I?m an O2 Instructor and a Nitrox Instructor and teaching the SDCs keeps my skills/knowledge fresh)

To use your car analogy (somewhat loosely). If engineering was at acceptable standards 20 years ago why do we all need Traction control, ABS, Air Con, Fog lights, electric windows, lower emissions, a CD player. 20 years ago half-decent brakes were sufficient (no need for Traction control and ABS). We were lucky to get a heater, fog lights were for executives, electric windows were unheard of (except perhaps in a Roller). No-one knew what an emission was and CDs had not been invented. If any of your ?old guard? have any of these developments then they already buy the ?development is good? argument and should respond to your persuasion.

HTH

John

Dave

19-11-2003, 08:25

:or you'd passed your driving test in 1970 have been driving for 33 years, and someone suddenly tells you that your licence is invalid because you didn't pass a written test and needed an additional 20 hours training before it was revalid?

Same deal really. Driving conditions today are VERY different from 33 years ago. Most of us would benefit from some refresher training. That?s why the Police Drivers have to be continually re-assessed. It?s why I am undergoing Advanced Driver training and afterwards will ask other Advanced Drivers to asses my performance whenever I get the opportunity.

So you would have no issues if, say, having an Advanced driving certificate, you were to go to the USA for a holiday , planning to drive from Los Angeles to Phoenix and you arrived there and found that the US no longer fully accepted UK driving licences , irregardless of the fact that you had been driving for 20 years and that you can only drive a sub-compact that has been speed limited to 40 mph and not allowed on freeways or interstate highways?

This is a similar analogy to someone qualified with another agency to 50 m who has regularly done these sorts of dives, coming to BSAC and being told 35m is ya limit...unless you get trained to do 50m by doing DL... who cares that you are already qualified for it and have more experience in it than the instructor, perhaps even being an advanced trimix diver yourself?

To use your car analogy (somewhat loosely). If engineering was at acceptable standards 20 years ago why do we all need Traction control, ABS, Air Con, Fog lights, electric windows, lower emissions, a CD player.

I would love to know how you "need" a CD Player, AC and electric windows. I manage quite happily without either CD or AC. This is quite different; this is change in manufacturing ( which has happened in diving ). Have you needed to resit for your driving test to use cars with ABS ?

Dave

angiemac

19-11-2003, 09:24

Exactly! However the goalposts were in the wrong place before. They are in the right place now!

Not sure I agree with you there

To be honest I?d expect someone to look at a 20year old A level and ask ?What have you done since then??, ?How have you kept your knowledge/skills up-to-date??, ?What developmental training have you done since then?? A 20 year old qualification shows what could be achieved if someone puts their mind to it. It does not show that they are up-to-date today. I have a degree in Marine Biology (with Honours) ? but it?s nearly 20 years old and I have trouble recognising a fish these days ;-)

Surely you would accept 'on the job training' just as much as a new additional qualification?

Exactly Bill! Refresher training is good. If experience shows that goal posts were in the wrong place then move them. Keep all skills/knowledge constantly refreshed and up-to-date to stay safe.

Refresher training = on the job training? Not necessarily the next course up?

Angie.

Bill Bird

19-11-2003, 10:40

John,

It's a very structured and well thought out argument - but I don't agree with it!

I still think you can't set goalposts and then move them in this manner - even if there is a conviction that they are now in the right place - without giving some thought to how you deal with those who could dive beyond the current limits before and can't now! Trying to encourage them to undertake training to go to the next qualification level to re-qualify to be able to dive to 50 metres is going to be a tricky and holding the stick over them to do this ("if you don't do it, then you won't be able to dive to these depths") is not going to be the answer. Your approach will work with some but not with others.

We talk about retention of our membership. People voice their concerns over this on other threads. If we want to keep these people (and we invariably do) then we need to be flexible and approach their situation with some sympathy and understanding.

Cheers.

Bill

matt

19-11-2003, 11:20

:=
:=Where else exactly is the diver you describe going to go. Presumably he is coming to BSAC for the club experience. What other club is going to allow him to dive to 50m without a crossover procedure?

Where he is going to go is away from the club. Why wouldn't a club allow someone with say, TDI Decompression Procedures and TDI Advanced Nitrox, do dives to 50m which is within the certification limit of 55m ( depending of country of issue ).

Probably for the same reasons that the respected teckie groups require new members to dive as support before becoming part of the bottom team. Even if you took your regular buddy into a club environment it is sensible to level the ground between what you may have been doing and how your new group do things.

Or suppose this SD has an Advanced Trimix qualification and has been diving on it for quite a while? Is this person likely to be peeved that the club thinks he is only capable of diving to 35m

Well I would not present it in quite that way. It comes down to the diver having the skills that other members will expect a diver of that level to have. What is under question is not this divers ability to dive deeper than 35m but his ability to do so safely as part of a larger consenting group.

I am also not talking just about crossovers into a branch but people who are quite well certified and trained to dive to these depths through other courses undertaken

But why are these people coming to / in BSAC unless it is for the club experience. If they want to take part in a club they should expect to meet the club's requirements, which reflect the needs and wishes of the group.

:=Maybe they can make that decision once they know what is involved. Personally I feel that if you can not accompany a novice in 15m you should not be accompanying anyone in 50m. We are not talking about instructing here, it is basic dive leadership.

There is a huge difference between hand holding a complete novice and leading dives with other experienced divers. A lot of people have no desire whatsoever to take such inexperienced people in and I cannot see how this element makes any difference to their skills for deep diving

I have no desire to perform AV for real but I still practice regularly for the benefit of those I am diving with, a little aside possibly.

Anyhow, taking the Dive Leader course does not require you to dive with a Novice ever. It does require you to dive with another experienced diver who is briefed to act as a Novice.

So what does that have to do with deeper diving in a club?

The lead a Novice assement will generally require;
1. An effective brief.
2. Consideration of the other divers experience level and the problems that may present.
3. Clear and obvious signals.
4. You show clearly that you are in control.
5. You show an awareness of a developing problem and the ability to cope with it promptly and appropriately.

Have a look at the incident reports over the last five years...Now tell me which of the above has not been the major factor in a deep diving incident?

The Lead a Novice assessment also requires you to effectively critique a divers performance. Maybe if more divers learnt how to do this they wouldn't end up past their own limits, depth or otherwise.

:-It would not be fair on prospective buddies to allow other to bypass the rescue elements.

Where is the unfairness? other than a "I had to do the course to be able to do branch dives to 50m, why should you get off it"

If I have rescue / rescue management skills and no one else does it is unfair on me. There is no one to return the favour should I need rescueing. The need for these skills when making deeper dives is pretty clear. As is the need to assess the inwater elements to a higher standard than that required for SD.

Club membership is a two way street. You have a responsibility to those around you which may mean doing the odd thing you would rather not. If you are not willing to take up that responsibility then why join a club?

jens hucke

20-11-2003, 12:45

:= I know many Dive Leaders and Advanced Divers I would not want to dive to 20m under any conditions with let alone 35m because their skills are so poor, and yet know of many Sports divers I would trust to take a freshly trained ocean diver to 40m in the right circumstances - wheres the logic and training in that?

Angie

Dear Angie,

I was quite happy reading passively the thread until those comments, so sorry for taking issue with this part of your post.

I fail to see any logic in anyone taking a freshly trained Ocean Diver to 40 metres in any circumstances. Not only is it against their OD grade, but the short Nodeco time and high air consumption makes it totally unworthwhile compaired to the risk involved. If a SD thinks this is OK, then they have demonstarted their need to do the DL course, nothing more. Such a plan shows no leadership, no planning, no regards for their buddy's needs, no regards for safety issues...
As DO I would offer a club fee refund to any diver who after a quick chat is still proposing such a dive, and wish them good luck elsewhere.

As to the comment that some DLs and ADs skills are poor, that might be true, but it isn't reason to encourage further poor practices by others.

Again, I am sorry for jumping in like that, but your example completely destroys the argument you set out to prove, and really freaked me out, hence maybe I am over reacting.

I did close to a hundred dives this year, a third of them in the 30 to 50 metres range, and their is no way I would ever ever ever want to see a freshly qualified OD down there.

kind regards,
jens

edward haynes

20-11-2003, 17:39

Angie

I am making the assumption you are the Branch Diving Officer!

This is most likely not what you want to read.

An extract from the BOH "4.5.1 What is a Branch Dive?"

Non-Authorised Dives:
Occasionally members insist on going ahead with plans for dives that the Branch Diving Officer considers unwise, unsafe or beyond the experience of someone in the party. In these circumstances the Branch Diving Officer's reservations must be expressed in writing to all members involved, and a copy kept in the Branch records. Inclusion as part of the Branch Diving Officer's report at the next Committee Meeting will ensure there is a record in the Minutes (Section 3.3.4). Where the advice of the Branch Diving Officer is ignored or disregarded the Branch Diving Officer should take disciplinary action against the individuals. Note: The act of DOING NOTHING could compromise the Branch Diving Officer's defence if a claim was made. This will help safeguard the Branch Diving Officer and the Branch Committee in the event of an accident and any subsequent legal proceedings that may follow, in that it will show that they made reasonable efforts to forewarn, prevent and discourage those involved.
[end of extract]

So by allowing your "experienced" divers to dive outside BSAC SDP you could be opening yourself up to some liability.

Ask yourself this question: Can you provide evidence that these divers have been adequately trained in the use of a DSMB, if there was an incident where it's use was a significant factor?

Edward

Andy Nye

20-11-2003, 18:14

I'm currently in a simialr situation. I cant do advanced instructor or First class diver because I won't take a boat handler course which I'll never use afterwards.

Angie ,

Surely if you wanted to be a AI and FCD that much , then a 2 day course that doesn't mean much is worth doing .

You don't have to drive the boat after the course, just say I DON'T HAVE THE EXPERIENCE.......

ATB

Andy

John Williams

20-11-2003, 20:22

:It's a very structured and well thought out argument - but I don't agree with it!

Thank you for engaging in debate.

:I still think you can't set goalposts and then move them in this manner - even if there is a conviction that they are now in the right place - without giving some thought to how you deal with those who could dive beyond the current limits before and can't now!

Could you please help me to understand the justification for allowing people to continue to do something that the statistics prove is dangerous.

The BSAC has a duty of care to make sound recommendations based upon the best information available.

When the blanket 50m limit was set it was set as the maximum depth limit for Recreational Diving ? regardless of grade (I notice that no-one has complained that those who qualified as Novice Divers are limited to 20m...IIRC a Novice was not subject to anything shallower than the blanket 50m). No-one has complained that trainee SDs should not venture deeper than 20m until AFTER they gain the SD award (though I know a few ?nearly SDs who dive beyond this limit).

In any case please help me to formulate a reasoned argument that defies the experience/stats that show SDs (those without completed DL training) diving to 35m+ have significantly more accidents and show significantly less ability to deal with such incidents than do DLs (those with completed DL training).
The stats take no account of ?other agency? training ? so the presence/absence of this training cannot be considered to be a factor.

Under what circumstances do you think the BSAC could show that it still executes it?s ?Duty of Care? and yet still allows this group of divers to continue diving to depths that they are clearly not trained to deal with?

Can you suggest what might happen to everyone?s diving insurance premium if this is the route the BSAC followed?

:Trying to encourage them to undertake training to go to the next qualification level to re-qualify to be able to dive to 50 metres is going to be a tricky

Who said it would be easy? Taking something away from people once they have got used to it is ALWAYS difficult. Perhaps this is where the creative thinking must be employed?

:and holding the stick over them to do this ("if you don't do it, then you won't be able to dive to these depths") is not going to be the answer. Your approach will work with some but not with others.

If it saves lives?

So how about:
? the combined EXPERIENCE of the BSAC, after careful analysis, has shown that divers who have not completed DL training ? regardless of their own personal experience levels ? and diving to beyond 35m have significantly more incidents and are significantly less able to deal with them effectively and therefore return to the surface safely. With this in mind the BSAC has recommended that divers without this level of training cease diving to these depths until they have completed the training that has been shown to significantly reduce their risk.

If divers choose to ignore this recommendation then we must, respectfully, ask them not to do so under the banner of the BSAC ? it is not fair on those divers who follow recommendations and therefore reduce their risk to expect them to pay the increased insurance premiums that this increased risk incurs.
Equally it is not fair to expect divers following the recommendations of the BSAC, and therefore doing everything to reduce risks to ?bail out? their less qualified buddies at these depths when experience has shown that the favour cannot be returned.
Nor is it fair to risk the exemplary safety record of the BSAC by allowing these risky practices to continue under it?s banner and in it?s name?

:We talk about retention of our membership. People voice their concerns over this on other threads. If we want to keep these people (and we invariably do) then we need to be flexible and approach their situation with some sympathy and understanding.

Cuts both ways! You cannot buy into the resources and systems of a club without expecting to follow the rules of the club. (let?s not get into the rules vs recommendations debate ? the coroner is the only person whose opinion counts and, believe me, they see no differentiation).

However, I agree with you. Let?s make it as easy as possible for these people to complete all the elements of DL training (without cutting corners or standards). Let?s lay off OD/SD training for a while and set aside time to devote to these valued members and provide them with pain free opportunity to do the training/assessments. There is nothing in DL that cannot be tagged painlessly into a typical branch programme.

So ...please help me to understand any other appraoch than moving goalposts that were clearly in the wrong place and imposing the correct limits in the correct place.

John

Nigel Hewitt

20-11-2003, 22:45

**clip from BOH**

Non-Authorised Dives:
Occasionally members insist on going ahead with plans for dives that the Branch Diving Officer considers unwise, unsafe or beyond the experience of someone in the party. In these circumstances the Branch Diving Officer's reservations must be expressed in writing to all members involved, and a copy kept in the Branch records.

But what if the DO knows they have a tech agency card to cover the dive and the experience but no BSAC qualification? That, I believe, is the point at question. Nobody is talking about being asked to approve some newbie getting narked out of his skull at 55m and donating his reg to a passing fish. We don't want to make people 'out grow' BSAC just because they don't feel happy with students. There is a world of difference between diving with a novice and any other sort of dive. Diving with a novice is diving solo and I really feel iffy about diving solo.

nigelH

john kendall

21-11-2003, 00:37

**clip from BOH**

:=Non-Authorised Dives:
:=Occasionally members insist on going ahead with plans for dives that the Branch Diving Officer considers unwise, unsafe or beyond the experience of someone in the party. In these circumstances the Branch Diving Officer's reservations must be expressed in writing to all members involved, and a copy kept in the Branch records.

But what if the DO knows they have a tech agency card to cover the dive and the experience but no BSAC qualification? That, I believe, is the point at question. Nobody is talking about being asked to approve some newbie getting narked out of his skull at 55m and donating his reg to a passing fish. We don't want to make people 'out grow' BSAC just because they don't feel happy with students. There is a world of difference between diving with a novice and any other sort of dive. Diving with a novice is diving solo and I really feel iffy about diving solo.

Nigel,

Although I agree totally with you, the question at hand is not the one you have answered. The issue here is BSAC qualified divers, diving beyond what their current BSAC quals allow. No other agencies are involved in this one.

I have to say though, I agree that the DL course doesn't teach much that helps in diving deeper. I have not yet done a BSAC course that I would consider makes me a safe diver at 50m. The TDI Trimix course I have done, now that is a different matter. My personal belief is that noone can truely justify diving deeper than 40m on Air, the narcosis level is just too high for it to be safe, and having seen Air divers Sub 40, I discount anyone who says they are safe at those depths on air.

John