Clarification statement on Alternative Supply training and going diving [Archive]

JimW

22-03-2010, 11:15

Following its release at the end of 2009, there has been much on and offline debate regarding BSAC’s policy on the various techniques and configurations for Alternative Supply while both diving and teaching diving.

BSAC acknowledges that there have been some communication issues in relation to the initial statement and our subsequent response which caused further confusion and misinterpretation. We apologise for the delay in fully responding and would like to reassure you that lessons have been learnt.

However, as National Diving Officer, it has been essential for me to ensure that there is now clarity on BSAC’s policy and to dispel any further confusion or misinterpretation. As a result, a significant amount of work has gone on behind the scenes into producing a definitive clarification statement on this issue.

Having taken time to review the initial statement, conduct further incident report research and seek legal and insurer’s advice in relation to liability, I can now make available the full current policy and recommendations of BSAC. This is not a new statement but clarification on BSAC’s existing position on Alternative Supply techniques in relation to the current BSAC Diver Training Programme and BSAC Diving.

You can view the full document at www.bsac.com/alternativesupply
but, in summary:

• When instructing the BSAC Diver Training Programme, an instructor must follow the prescribed techniques in which the instructor has been judged as competent to teach. This applies for all skills.

• BSAC Technical Instructors are trained and provided with specific guidance within BSAC Mixed Gas Courses on the use and teaching of alternative techniques that vary from those in the BSAC Diver Training Programme and that are relevant to specific equipment configurations adopted for BSAC technical courses.

• Other than when instructing BSAC courses, there is no restriction on diving alternative systems provided that sufficient actions have been taken that would reasonably be expected to meet their duty of care towards a buddy. BSAC recommends that both members of a diving buddy pair have each been trained and qualified in any method they plan to use.

• BSAC will not support individual divers introducing their own methods that are outside any of those prescribed by the principal training agencies.

The National Diving Committee (NDC) would like to thank everyone who has positively contributed to this subject over recent months. We also recognise and acknowledge that not everybody will agree with BSAC’s current position in relation to this issue.

However, the NDC has a responsibility to the BSAC membership to provide recommendations and training which are carefully considered and researched before incorporated into the training syllabi. An integral element of this responsibility is the continual review of training requirements in the light of analysis of incident data and of evolution in equipment and techniques.

With regards to sharing gas with another diver, this review to date has not identified any evidence leading to concerns over the Alternative Supply techniques currently recommended by BSAC. This includes the recommended technique to teach divers in distress to locate and take an alternative source from the donor. Nevertheless this review is an on-going process and constructive input is welcomed.

If you have further feedback or ideas to support this review process you can submit them to BSAC working group at feedback@bsac.com

Jeff Reed, BSAC National Diving Officer

SoggyBottoms

22-03-2010, 11:41

Thanks Jim,

this will take some consideration before the avalanche of responses begin.

One thing caught my eye

"BSAC does recognise the value of the underlying philosophy of ‘Hogarthian Style’ i.e having a streamlined kit configuration and carrying only equipment appropriate to the particular dive"

Look particularly pointed....

SB

Ron MacRae

22-03-2010, 12:06

One thing caught my eye

"BSAC does recognise the value of the underlying philosophy of ‘Hogarthian Style’ i.e having a streamlined kit configuration and carrying only equipment appropriate to the particular dive"

Look particularly pointed....

SB

I thought the statement was OK. I think your reading more into the words than is actually there. I'm just about to re-read it but on first read through it seemed OK.

Ron.

neil_richardson

22-03-2010, 12:17

Must admit i think this is the key point of it all:

"Q: Can I dive and instruct whilst configured for the use of the Hogarthian Technique on BSAC Skill Development Courses (SDC)?

When directly involved in the instruction or assessment of life support skills, for example; Alternative Supply, teaching skills and drills involving DSMB, lifting exercises or diving with an Ocean Diver, then you are expected to conform within the assessed competency and level of your BSAC instructor qualification(s). When you are engaged in dive leading with a BSAC Sports Diver or higher, i.e. diving to further the student’s experience, then it is possible for you to use the Hogarthian Technique subject to you discharging your duty of care, demonstrating the operational process and having reached agreement and understanding with your buddy and the Dive Manager."

Vic

22-03-2010, 13:06

Oh dear. We appear to have lost the plot.

We ... would like to reassure you that lessons have been learnt.

I think this bit is easily disproven.

As a result, a significant amount of work has gone on behind the scenes into producing a definitive clarification statement on this issue.

And, as we'll see in a moment, a "definitive clarifation" has not emerged.

When instructing the BSAC Diver Training Programme, an instructor must follow the prescribed techniques in which the instructor has been judged as competent to teach.

That is not what the statement says; it clearly states
BSAC insists that BSAC instructors only teach the methods within the BSAC Diver Training Programme current at the time of training delivery.

In other words, there is now a prohibition on teaching anything that is not within the course. This is a new addition - historically, instructors have been permitted to teach skills that were not in the course, so long as they did not require such skills for qualification. This is no longer the case, as we see above; this is a dumbing-down of the BSAC tradition.

BSAC Technical Instructors are trained and provided with specific guidance within BSAC Mixed Gas Courses on the use and teaching of alternative techniques that vary from those in the BSAC Diver Training Programme

So by this, we *accept* that advanced training may lead to different techniques - yet we specifically exclude one that will help such divers. This is certainly beginning to look like a position seeking justification...

Other than when instructing BSAC courses, there is no restriction on diving alternative systems provided that sufficient actions have been taken that would reasonably be expected to meet their duty of care towards a buddy.

Well, that much at least is an improvement on earlier positions. Small mercies, and all that...

BSAC will not support individual divers introducing their own methods that are outside any of those prescribed by the principal training agencies.

Oh look - some clarity. Any techniques need to be "prescribed" - but since most agencies are deliberately non-prescriptive[1], that's close to being a null set. But that aside, we don't define which are the "principal" training adgencies...

We also recognise and acknowledge that not everybody will agree with BSAC’s current position in relation to this issue.

Another point on which this missive is entirely correct. Well, there had to be something...

However, the NDC has a responsibility to the BSAC membership to provide recommendations and training which are carefully considered and researched before incorporated into the training syllabi.

Yes - but this clearly has *not* been "carefully considered and researched" - and no-one is trying to incorporate it into any syllabus anyway. We're just trying to remove the proscription...

From the linked document :-
There are some indications in incident reports supported by anecdotal comments from a few commentators suggesting that, in a panic situation, an out-of-gas diver will first grab and take a buddy’s primary regulator from his mouth. Without having substantiated details in incident reports it is considered, for the time being, that such action is arising due to incorrect training at the point of delivery (wherever that may be occurring), incorrect equipment configuration (e.g. the AS is zipped in a BCD pocket and inaccessible), or a hangover from the days where some divers were taught and regularly practiced buddy breathing from a single regulator and they instinctively revert to this learned behaviour in a stressful situation."

So - one of the most important facets of the primary donation system, and they've simply assumed its reason for happening, without bothering to test that assumption in any way. So much for Academic Rigour.

On behalf of BSAC, NDC carried out studies in open water to examine Long Hose Wrapping and Primary Donate. Through our studies, and by reproducing documented incidents, there was judged to be sufficient concerns for BSAC, BSAC Technical and the National Diving Committee to issue policy statements and clarifications on the position of BSAC divers and BSAC training methods.

But I notice we're still not permitted to know what those studies *were*. It is clear to me that they were not assessments of the Hog Wrap, since the resulting conclusions simply cannot be supported by a proper wrap. But I'm largely in thge dark as to what they really were...

The Alternative Supply should be stowed in such a way that in an emergency situation it is clearly identifiable and freely accessible to the buddy, i.e. attached by a quick release mechanism to dive kit and not obscured by other equipment or the kit itself. Stowage refers specifically to the secondary regulator and not the regulator being held in the donor’s mouth. Ease of identification can be enhanced by the use of coloured hoses or second-stage regulators.

I'm unsure about this bit; it *appears* to have added a proscription of primary donation from a non-hog-wrapped regulator that previously was not there - but several things could be read into the capitalisation of "Alternative Supply".

BSAC advises that divers holding recognised qualifications utilising techniques that differ from the BSAC Diver Training Programme may dive on branch, regional or expedition dives

So now we've excluded those with the knowledge of this simple idea but no paperwork. Another retrograde step; BSAC used to be about inclusive learning, now it's aimed solely at the paper chase.

In the past 12 years, using the current training techniques, there were only three reported incidents where the out-of-gas buddy has deliberately snatched their buddy’s regulator from their buddy’s mouth

Well I personally know of more instances than that; they are unlikely to be reported as Incidents because they aren't. A hog-wrapped regulator being taken is such a non-event, it barely even gives cause for beer to be bought after the dive. It's like breaking a fin strap - you just wouldn't borther with all the paperwork unless something else happened...

The reliance on a buddy in such an out-of-gas situation is SECONDARY to this self-reliance

Not in the courses I've done, it isn't. Fixing your own rig and using your buddy's are two tools to get you out of a problem. There is no "SECONDARY" about it; the more appropriate tool is the better.

Another consideration is that Hogarthian Wrapping requires all stage cylinders to be attached on the left hand side of the body

No it doesn't. See what I mean about TPTB not knowing what a hog wrap actually *is*?

DIR requires all stages to be carried on the left - but this isn't about DIR[2]. It's about hog-wrapping, and the two are very far from synonymous.

I can't be bothered to go any further through this nonsense; it's another mass of verbiage that could be summarised as "we know better than you do, so shut up and do what you're told".

Vic.

[1] BSAC appears to have become the only major exception to this; whereas previously we had "what works, works", now we have "BSAC insists that BSAC instructors only teach the methods within the BSAC Diver Training Programme"
[2] Or at least, it shouldn't be. I have my concerns...

Ron MacRae

22-03-2010, 13:11

MattS

22-03-2010, 13:36

Better.

The proof reading still leaves something to be desired
BSAC Position - Technical Diving
b. The BSAC incident reports highlight that the donor is at an increased risk of inhaling water whilst accepting a donated regulator, however, incidents involving Technical Divers in out-of-gas scenarios are relatively few (i.e. less than 0.1 %). BSAC believes this is likely to be due to the higher level of training, self reliance, practice and experience held by Technical Divers.The donor is not going to be accepting a donated regulator.

Interpretation that has no place in policy IMO
BSAC Position - Technical Diving
e. Any reliance on the buddy donating, or allowing the out-of-gas diver to 'take' a decompression regulator will destabilise BOTH divers, double the amount of gas switching required and cause BOTH to break their decompression schedule.There is no 'will' about it and it 'may not' cause the stops to be broken. O/C bailout could (should) include the donor reverting to backgas reserve and/or utilising a leaner decompression gas, when more than one decompression cylinder is being carried.

Just plain wrong; indicating that the NDO and NDC are still not quite understanding what a Hog Wrap is, which compromises their authority to pass comment.
BSAC Position - Technical Diving
Another consideration is that Hogarthian Wrapping requires all stage cylinders to be attached on the left hand side of the body, to allow for ease and consistency of deployment of the primary regulator.

Howard Payne

22-03-2010, 15:22

d. The BSAC recommends that in the case of out-of-gas during the decompression phase of a dive, the response should be one of self-sufficiency. The out-of-gas diver should NOT rely on donation of gas from a buddy but switch to their own backup or travel gas as an appropriate breathable gas and they must have a bailout plan that accommodates this. A buddy should NOT be expected to donate their own decompression gas until such time as they have completed their own decompression requirements, unless their decompression gas configuration carries a second regulator specifically for this purpose.

It respectfully feels to me like there is a lot of work left to do on this front.

This seems to be suggesting that OOG emergencies whilst on deco should be handled differently to OOG emergencies on backgas? Will we have a different protocol for when people are on stage bottles as well?

The idea that someone who's just breathed in and got nothing, or had a catastrophic equipment failure, will have the presence of mind to recall which gas source he's on and then select from a number of different OOG protocols is bordering on farcical IMO.

Get onto a safe, breathable, working source of gas - IE your buddies, then sort the problem out if it's fixable, and then where feasible, return to your own gas supply for as long as is possible whilst heading for home. People who aren't capable of handling this, just shouldn't be doing this kind of diving IMO

Technical diving is almost universally thought to be "self sufficiency in a team environment". This latest clarification seems to be moving BSAC's more experienced divers away from this thinking and towards "Solo"

That's an extremely worrying development for me, and IMO, it highly indicative of CCR divers trying to impose a CCR mindset on OC Technical diving.

Having witnessed and been involved in a few hairy diving moments, including one in an overhead environment, a major incident hugely erodes a diver's ability to think and act rationally. The clear thinking and assistance of team members who haven't been compromised is pivotal in helping the diver to make the right call and get home safe IME

Wayne Murray

22-03-2010, 15:36

I'm happy to agree that if I lose my deco I *should* go onto my back gas, but ...

I'm panicing, maybe I've had a CO2 hit, who knows. Anyway, there I am very unhappy with no gas and not thinking entirely straight. My buddy is right there in front of me and I can see lots of cylinders, lots of hoses and 4 regulators. Thinks.... which one shall I go for?

Steve Summers

22-03-2010, 15:40

So almost 4 months of silence while writing a definitive clarification which is basically wordy BS to support a flawed edict. This clarifies nothing except to show that the NDO/NDC have allowed personal prejudice to influence policy, and haven't the bottle to admit they made a mistake.

This NDO has changed the face and ethos of BSAC, and if anyone thinks its just dramatic hot air from me about hog looping, read the full statement. You cannot now teach anything that is not in the DTP and is not approved in writing by Jeff Reed. Forget about hog looping, gone are the days of passing anything on to your club members because Jeff Reed and the NDC know better.

A very sad day for BSAC and a kick in the teeth for everyone who was expecting as Andy Moll said on numerous occasions ''an informed debate''

TrevorB

22-03-2010, 15:45

Vic
you have obviously spent time on this new clarification document and are steamed up.

Although I am an AD OWI and DO I spend most of my time in the water training Ocean Divers and I would like to buffer them from primary donate for both hog and Air 2

Once they start Sports Diver training and get introduced to more complex kit I think there is a place for primary donate with divers carrying deco gases below their MOD

What I cannot get my head around is allowing Air 2 where primary donation takes place leaving the donate diver with his direct feed in his mouth

I think I would prefer the hog and necklace DV

I would have preferred a document which is a little more straight forward and a perhaps a "when I’m wrong I say I’m wrong" approach to quote the movie
rather than current document, trying to justify a previous stance

Vic

22-03-2010, 15:50

That's an extremely worrying development for me

Agreed.

IMO, it highly indicative of CCR divers trying to impose a CCR mindset on OC Technical diving.

I think you're mis-characterising the problem; this isn't CC vs. OC. This is simply one set of divers attempting to hold supremacy over another set.

That's always going to cause problems, but it is especially troublesome when, as here, the first set have quite clearly failed to understand the configuration they are trying to ban.

I had high hopes that we were going to see some sort of resolution here, but once again, I am disappointed. This is supposed to be a simple statement of policy; how anyone expects to spread that out in 5600 words[1] and not introduce ambiguity and inconsistency is beyond me. We've seen concise statements both here and on YD that would have stopped the argument in its tracks; instead, we chose to spend several months producing yet another argument.

Does anyone know why, exactly, BSAC is so determined to prolong the agony?

Vic.

[1] 3631 in the original statement and 1969 in the FAQs.

Vic

22-03-2010, 16:01

I spend most of my time in the water training Ocean Divers and I would like to buffer them from primary donate for both hog and Air 2

That's a perfectly understandable position to take; so how's about this: "Do not teach hog-loopinng or the use of Air2 (or similar) to anyone below the grade of Sport Diver".

That achieves what you want, what I want, what pretty much everyone claims to want. It is hard to find any ambiguity in it, and no-one is going to forget the fairly simple message contained therein.

But instead of somehing like that, we had to hire in Leo Tolstoy to produce something which doesn't seem to say anything that anyone said they wanted it to say[1]...

I would have preferred a document which is a little more straight forward and a perhaps a "when I’m wrong I say I’m wrong" approach to quote the movie
rather than current document, trying to justify a previous stance

Absolutely agreed.

But what worries me most is the deliberate and explicit move from being an inclusive group with minimum standards to being a prescriptive and proscriptive organisation with no room for anything not laid down as BSAC Lore. That's not an organisation I want anything to do with.

Vic.

[1] I am especially worried that the document keeps referring to procedures "prescribed" by other agencies - yet most other agencies prescribe almost nothing. GUE is the only really prescriptive one[2] - does that count as one of the agencies we can use for reference?
[2] Aside from BSAC now :-(

Woz

22-03-2010, 16:35

That's a perfectly understandable position to take; so how's about this: "Do not teach hog-loopinng or the use of Air2 (or similar) to anyone below the grade of Sport Diver".Change that to "Do not teach primary donate within the DTP" and that's what the clarification says.

Howard Payne

22-03-2010, 16:38

I think you're mis-characterising the problem; this isn't CC vs. OC. This is simply one set of divers attempting to hold supremacy over another set

I appreciate your POV Vic - but I stand by what I said. The CCR divers mindset is that if you primary gas source (ie CCR) fails - bail to your own OC redundant gas source.

Vic

22-03-2010, 16:39

Change that to "Do not teach primary donate within the DTP" and that's what the clarification says.

That's not the case.

It might be want the author(s) wanted it to say, but it actually says a whole bunch of things that might or might not be deliberate.

Purpose aside, such things remain said. We are left with a very strange, unclear position where a simple and clear one would have been not just possible, but achievable with very much less effort expended on all sides.

Does someone in NDC have a personal goal of avoiding clarity wherever possible?

Vic.

Vic

22-03-2010, 16:41

The CCR divers mindset is that if you primary gas source (ie CCR) fails - bail to your own OC redundant gas source.

Speaking as a CCR diver, I disagree.

The mindset is "If your unit fails - find something to breathe". That might be your own gas, it might be someone else's gas, it might even be your own (failed) unit in a limp-home configuration.

But what is very clear is this: diving a CCR is no reason to start dictating what other divers shall or shall not use.

Vic.

Steve in Sharm

22-03-2010, 17:26

Change that to "Do not teach primary donate within the DTP" and that's what the clarification says.

I hope it doesn't (I'm still wading through it), cos you can, and still do, have instructors on Air2 teaching exactly this - and Air2 aint banned.

Nick Argue

22-03-2010, 17:36

I hope it doesn't (I'm still wading through it), cos you can, and still do, have instructors on Air2 teaching exactly this - and Air2 aint banned.

It's a good point Steve; if I understand the FAQ's an Air2 doesn't satisfy the "What is BSAC policy for the use of an Alternative Supply" and it involves primary donate so I can't see how you could use it as an Instructor

Woz

22-03-2010, 17:38

I hope it doesn't (I'm still wading through it), cos you can, and still do, have instructors on Air2 teaching exactly this - and Air2 aint banned.I think this is where a bit of clarification is needed. Cos I'm a bit confused as well.

I think in a couple of very specific cases, Air2 and indie twins, you can teach primary donate as part of safe use of the kit as part of the core DTP. It's mentioned in the SD theory lessons so I can't see why not.

However you can't hog loop while doing this. I think :)

Woz

22-03-2010, 17:41

DTP about Air2:

Where a diver's buddy suffers a breathing gas supply failure... *snip* ...the diver's primary regulator will have to be given to the buddy... *snip* ...in the stress of the moment it will be anything but and should be avoided if at all possible.

So not an outright ban on it, but it's certainly a "not recommended" system.

Richard Whitcombe

22-03-2010, 17:46

a) The most common failure mode of a regulator was free-flow whilst filling a DSMB or lifting bag (i.e. 31 % of the total recorded incidents involving AS). Divers should consider using a crack bottle or air gun to minimise the risk of free-flow.

Yet they still recommend in the actual syllabus using an alternate to inflate a DSMB and not exhaust bubbles despite the admitted freeflow risk?!

e) We found no evidence that the Alternative Supply techniques currently taught within the BSAC Diver Training Programme are endangering or causing issues for trained divers.

Surely that isnt the issue here, what they should look for is evidence as to whether primary donate via a hog loop is causing issues for trained divers. Otherwise where is the justification for outright banning something not found to be unsafe?

f) There was significant evidence that demonstrated that the training and use of the Alternative Supply technique continues to save lives. In the past 12 years, from over 5,200 recorded incidents, 275 have involved out of gas scenarios that have resulted in positive resolution.

So sharing air saves lives? No ****! It needed a study to show this? Again though, how many of those had hog looped and how many went wrong because of it.

BSAC are doing this the wrong way round. They've made their mind up and trying to find arguments to say "use our way" when what they should be doing is finding evidence to show the way they specifically banned is dangerous!

a) The BSAC ideal is to have one common system that allows for reliable and safe gas sharing within a buddy pair. The common system therefore deals with divers using either similar or dissimilar equipment (dissimilar may for example mean an Open Circuit diver paired with a Rebreather diver).

But they in no way have one! There are MANY different octopus locations. Left,right, high, low, neck, side, middle, anywhere in between. There are many different release mechanisms, velcro, magnet, looped hose, surgical tubing, the odd "scum ball" type things and so on. This is before we get into Air-II which it seems they still think is fine! What about the constantly harped on rebreather divers - they have an octopus. Ive never seen one stow a standard position octopus from his bailout clipped to his wing purely for an OOG diver - its always bungeed to the tank. Flattens their consistency argument again.

They keep harping on about a common system but at the same time claiming they aren't prescriptive. You can't be both at the same time! They need to make their mind up. Do they want to be GUE style prescriptive OR "anything goes if its safe". This halfway house has no basis in logic at all.

e) The BSAC incident reports for the past 12 years do not highlight any increased risk for a diver using an independent twin cylinder configuration when directly compared to manifolded twin set incidents.

I fail to see any relevence at all in this hog loop so-called clarification!

h) On behalf of BSAC, NDC carried out studies in open water to examine Long Hose Wrapping and Primary Donate. Through our studies, and by reproducing documented incidents, there was judged to be sufficient concerns for BSAC, BSAC Technical and the National Diving Committee to issue policy statements and clarifications on the position of BSAC divers and BSAC training methods.

This is the REAL flaw. They seem to have carried out a closed, non reviewed, non-specified test and decided on something. They supply absolutely no documentary evidence about the alleged findings, the methodology, the review methods or anything else that would be expected in a legitimate test. Its sounding like "me and a few mates went to a pool to prove how dangerous that DIR strangle hose is" type of "test".

If there is REAL evidence then why is it not disclosed, in detail and put up for scrutiny by all? We have no idea if the people doing the tests were properly trained in hog loop use, if they were impartial, if the study itself was designed properly or anything else.

They also havent mentioned anything about why all other agencies allow hog looping and how none of them have uncovered these fatal flaws at all despite the system being around for near 20 years with millions of man-dives on it.

• The Alternative Supply should be stowed in such a way that in an emergency situation it is clearly identifiable and freely accessible to the buddy, i.e. attached by a quick release mechanism to dive kit and not obscured by other equipment or the kit itself. Stowage refers specifically to the secondary regulator and not the regulator being held in the donor’s mouth. Ease of identification can be enhanced by the use of coloured hoses or second-stage regulators.

So they ARENT specifying a particular place, a particular release mechanism or ANY sort of common standard at all. They just ban it from the mouth. Again, are they trying to be prescriptive or not?

Under no circumstances whatsoever does the above infer BSAC accepts the introduction of techniques by individual divers that differ from those prescribed by the main training agencies.

But all the main training agencies allow primary donate and hog loop so what "main training agencies" are they dreaming up here?

However, certain equipment configurations (including a popular configuration dived by our members, independent twins) require the diver to breathe from both second stages at different stages of the dive. Unless both regulators have a hose length or configuration (e.g. side exhaust or swivel connection) that allows either to be used comfortably by a buddy, then it may be necessary at certain stages of the dive to donate the primary regulator. BSAC’s preference is to completely avoid primary donation, but an appropriate technique should be available within our technical courses to meet the demands of such configurations.

OK so loads of BSAC divers strap 2 x 12s onto their buddy commandos and jump in. OK so now BSAC have a problem, so in the interests of consistency its now "primary donate is not allowed. Except when we need to allow it to not annoy the indie brigade.

Again, no mention of banning Air-II.

Another consideration is that Hogarthian Wrapping requires all stage cylinders to be attached on the left hand side of the body, to allow for ease and consistency of deployment of the primary regulator.

As others have said, this is not the case. Its a statement that is just 100% incorrect and i cant believe people so called experts on this allowed it to be released.

BSAC allows our members the flexibility to dive using the ‘rich is right’ principle

Allows them to use it if they want. Am i right in thinking you can use "all left" if you want as well? In which case why are they quite happy for freedom on tank positioning yet completely ban a proven effective air sharing method.
Again are they trying to be prescriptive or not?! So far it seems you can wear what you want, do what you want, dive with whatever crazy kit configuration you think but not hog loop despite the fact they cant find any evidence to show its unsafe.

a technique used by the majority of our closed circuit rebreather divers (i.e. 1 in 10 divers today)

1 in 10 divers today is a CCR diver? Really? REALLY? Where did they dream this one up. In 2,500 dives ive still never dived with a CCR diver, ive seen them at quarries, occasionally on boats but thats it. They cant honestly claim you can go to stoney, chepstow, the scylla or anywhere and 10% of every diver you see is CCR.

This is looking like the CCR minority trying to force their own configuration onto everyone regardless of whether its suitable or not.

BSAC Technical Courses are deliberately written for maximum consistency with the core BSAC Diver Training Programme

So consistency, no fixed place for an AAS, no fixed release mechanism yet for tech courses they allow 2 long bungeed hoses, alternating regulators and other things yet not hog looping?

When instructing the BSAC Diver Training Programme, an instructor must follow the prescribed techniques in which the instructor has been judged as competent to teach. This applies for all skills.

This is dangerous. This one line has changed from an agency where you could shove non assessed "extras" in to benefit the student into something where you HAVE to teach the bare minimums and not a single thing more. This sets them apart from all the other main training agencies who do allow extras to be taught (provided its not assessed). BSAC just became a "minimum standard only" agency.

BSAC will not support individual divers introducing their own methods that are outside any of those prescribed by the principal training agencies.

By that logic hog looping is fine as all the principal training agencies allow it.

This document is not a clarification, it just highlights how ridiculous the decision is. It shows the complete lack of evidence, thought and consistency involved in the decision and just reads like a "i cant do this on my CCR so i wont let anyone do it" rant. It has absolutely no basis in fact and is in no way a justification of any sort for the policy.

Steve Summers

22-03-2010, 17:54

Of course they won't ban Air 2's, The Inspiration comes with them as standard doesn't it? why would they ban something that effects them?

Vic

22-03-2010, 17:58

This is looking like the CCR minority trying to force their own configuration onto everyone regardless of whether its suitable or not.

Once again - as a member of the CCR minority, I'd like to point out that this isn't us CCR divers trying to push anything onto anyone. It's NDO & NDC. Please don't blame the rest of us for their bizarreness.

BSAC will not support individual divers introducing their own methods that are outside any of those prescribed by the principal training agencies.

By that logic hog looping is fine as all the principal training agencies allow it.

This document is not a clarification, it just highlights how ridiculous the decision is. It shows the complete lack of evidence, thought and consistency involved in the decision and just reads like a "i cant do this on my CCR so i wont let anyone do it" rant.

Perhaps this might be a good time to point out that the current popularity in CCRs is down to the development of one unit in particular. That was initially built by a BSAC member who was introducing his "own methods ... outside any of those prescribed by the principal training agencies"...

Vic.

Hickdive

22-03-2010, 18:16

"BSAC Technical Courses are deliberately written for maximum consistency with the core BSAC Diver Training Programme "

If this is genuinely a problem can we expect to see GUE re-writing DIR-F to ensure consistency with PADI OW and AOWD? It seems to me that, outside of BSAC, divers can flit from course to course and provider to provider without suffering disaster but, within BSAC, the intermingling of skill groups is akin to blasphemy.

Technical courses, by their very nature, will always deviate from entry-level courses. Deliberately 'dumbing-down' your technical courses just to make them fit in with the lower diving grades doesn't strike me as a wise move.

Richard Whitcombe

22-03-2010, 18:52

Just noticed this bit:

When directly involved in the instruction or assessment of life support skills, for example; Alternative Supply, teaching skills and drills involving DSMB, lifting exercises or diving with an Ocean Dive

Does this mean that a hog looping diver cannot even DIVE with an ocean diver (who is a qualified diver!) outside the standards of any course?! That's going to screw a lot of people at a lot of club when pairing an experienced dive leader (more likely to loop) with an inexperienced OD. Are there many recorded incidents of ODs head exploding when confronted by this horribly confusing configuration ? Are BSAC OD trainees somehow thicker and easier to confuse than the rest of the planet which is why BSAC decided to introduce that?

If the above is true it could lead to an amusing holiday diving situation where an ocean diver comes to dive with me and i have to say "no sorry. i hog loop. Im not allowed to dive with you, BSAC say so".

Tony Dwyer

22-03-2010, 18:56

Of course they won't ban Air 2's, The Inspiration comes with them as standard doesn't it? why would they ban something that effects them?

No, that would be the 'Autoair' :)

Nigel Hewitt

22-03-2010, 19:12

Technical courses, by their very nature, will always deviate from entry-level courses. Deliberately 'dumbing-down' your technical courses just to make them fit in with the lower diving grades doesn't strike me as a wise move.
I think the problem is more that BSAC divers tend to club dive using their personal take on equipment on whatever the club boat is over this afternoon. Hence a diver who is developing a problem might end up in the company of more divers than just his buddy. Now if I didn't buddy check with him but he happens to be facing me when he suddenly gets a mouth full of seawater he needs something now and he needs it simple.

I won't dumb down my rig on an 80 meter dive but I will do so on a '20 meters to the sand' jaunt with less experienced divers about. I might have a hypoxic diluent in the CCR but the bailout is 'other diver' friendly and is roughly where he will expect it. If that's what BSAC thinks we should teach I'm easy (provided the TO doesn't give me OT4 to lecture).

I like the new document. Yes it really did need proof reading but it is less woolly and spells out what it is trying to accomplish. I may disagree with some of the details but that's predictable knowing me and at least I am now clear what I am disagreeing with.

Hickdive

22-03-2010, 19:37

You may well wish to dumb-down your technical rig for a less complex dive with less experienced and qualified buddies.

However, that is rather different to dumbing down the underlying technical training simply to allow for the fact that the entry level courses don't show you the techniques of technical diving.

I'm afraid this latest 'clarification' is nothing of the sort. Divers are already debating what it means and the implications of what they think it means.

Howard Payne

22-03-2010, 19:45

I won't dumb down my rig on an 80 meter dive but I will do so on a '20 meters to the sand' jaunt with less experienced divers about. I might have a hypoxic diluent in the CCR but the bailout is 'other diver' friendly and is roughly where he will expect it

Pretty much sums up the thinking of most of the NDC I reckon? :D

SimonF

22-03-2010, 20:42

As a brief aside, thought this was going to be in the public section (http://www.bsacforum.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=131358&postcount=25) or was it felt that posting the doc and faqs on the main website were sufficient?

Does make a few elements a bit clearer, but extremely disappointed with "b. BSAC insists that BSAC instructors only teach the methods within the BSAC Diver Training Programme current at the time of training delivery. "

As has been noted, we seem to have gone from "what works works" to "do as I say, no more no less"

Very mixed feelings over this one......

Richard Whitcombe

22-03-2010, 21:12

As a brief aside, thought this was going to be in the public section (http://www.bsacforum.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=131358&postcount=25) or was it felt that posting the doc and faqs on the main website were sufficient?

Strikes me as an attempt to cover up the mess from public eyes. Not only is it "members only" its in the instructors only section so restricting the people who see it even further.

This should be in the general diving forum - its not only instructors that hog loop! Its also highly relevant for anyone thinking of joining (or not) BSAC or doing any of its courses!

SoggyBottoms

22-03-2010, 21:22

and I note one of the mods has proposed closing the public discussion

To be fair that one is over 1500 posts long; but should this new thread now be moved into public?

SB

SimonF

22-03-2010, 21:24

This should be in the general diving forum - its not only instructors that hog loop! Its also highly relevant for anyone thinking of joining (or not) BSAC or doing any of its courses!

Ah, forgot that you needed to be an instructor to read this forum - just adds to it all really.

Hopefully the mods will move it to the public forum in line with Councils previously stated wishes (AIUI).

Calling MattS....

Janos

22-03-2010, 21:43

and I note one of the mods has proposed closing the public discussion

To be fair that one is over 1500 posts long; but should this new thread now be moved into public?

You're right - I closed the long thread purely because of the length. I've also moved this into the public forum as per Andy's post.

Janos

SimonF

22-03-2010, 21:54

You're right - I closed the long thread purely because of the length. I've also moved this into the public forum as per Andy's post.

Janos
Good man (on both counts).

neil_richardson

22-03-2010, 23:13

Hickdive

22-03-2010, 23:43

northern_diver

23-03-2010, 00:53

Am i the only one here thats getting confused NOT by the statement, but by other peoples interpretaitons and snippets??

I read this very much that:

BSAC's insurance liability dictates that someone under instruction should have a reg in their mouth, and should not expect to have a reg ripped out there mouth. This being legal and a restrictive in order to prevent people in the water without a reg in their mouth, and the possibility of an instructor having a drowned diver. Makes sense right?? otherwise we have the possibility of people ripping regs out left right and centre on training courses, which at the end of the day are supposed to be safe, controlled, environments.

BSAC the club says however, dive however you want, but before you go diving make sure your dive buddy and DO is happy for you to dive with your configuration. Makes sense as well, seems really quite simple to me...

Isn't this as simple a this?? or am i loosing something here??? as i must admit, i cannot really understand why the confusion!!!!!

What about reg in/out and reg regain drills, not a reg in your mouth then and the instructor with you will be sitting opposite with their octo in hand ready to shove in your face...much the same as a AS drill isnt it? I feel it is anyway.

This letter, this issue IMHO is a lot os rubbish, just BSAC sticking its nose in.

I dont really care what they say when i look at the sheer facts of the number of in-water hours, in real life conditions that is method has been used and the success's it has had. Simple facts of the matter, it works, and works as well as anything else, better in some cases (from what i've seen/heard-im not a hog looper (yet?)) so when this NDO is voted out and the next one comes in saying that they will reverse the decision and gets a massive vote hike, its be all good and back to the 'broad-church' idea we all like:)

Im sure however that BSAC-clearly the best, most brilliant, most capable and most able, are right, when all the other agencies are, well, wrong? surely they most be, or does that mean PADI/SSA/SSI/GUE/et al arent principal agencies?

Can some one spell it out to me, what happens if a BSAC member teaches this when not supposed ot or dives it, when not supposed to?...i'm guessing open for liable/loss of insurance/ kicked out of BSAC?

John

Edward

23-03-2010, 06:38

Can some one spell it out to me, what happens if a BSAC member teaches this when not supposed ot or dives it, when not supposed to?...i'm guessing open for liable/loss of insurance/ kicked out of BSAC?

John

From the poorly written document, I understand for your question.

If someone made a claim against you from an incident and you were HL'ed you would have to show written evidence of where HL is in the training programme. For example in which lesson/course is it HL taught, and who signed off your competence. Without this evidence your 3rd Party insurer MAY not pay/deal with your defence.

But I may be wrong, as the document wanders and doesn't reference source documents adequately.

Regards

Edward

Janos

23-03-2010, 07:05

Can some one spell it out to me, what happens if a BSAC member teaches this when not supposed ot or dives it, when not supposed to?...i'm guessing open for liable/loss of insurance/ kicked out of BSAC?

I understand it as saying you can dive however you want. However, if you are not trained to Primary Donate, the letter argues you may be putting yourself at risk of a claim from a buddies insurance firm if you have an incident.

Whether that claim would be successful or not is an interesting question, and one that (I guess) BSAC can't really comment on.

If you have been trained, then I think the letter says you have a good defense - ie "that's what PADI / TDI / GUE / whoever" taught me.

Janos

Hickdive

23-03-2010, 07:33

Can some one spell it out to me, what happens if a BSAC member teaches this when not supposed ot or dives it, when not supposed to?...i'm guessing open for liable/loss of insurance/ kicked out of BSAC?

John

In the event of an incident, unless you can show that you have been formally trained in the technique, then BSAC's insurers will decline to provide third-party liability cover.

This is precisely what many people said when the original edict came out and why, although it originally related to 'training', many pointed out that it was a de facto ban on using the technique throughout BSAC.

The latest clarification just confirms this.

Unless you have a piece of paper from a 'recognised' agency showing you have been trained in the use of the technique and you 'discharge your duty of care' towards an untrained buddy by demonstrating and explaining the technique then you will definitely not be covered by BSAC's insurers. Of course, precisely what you need to do whilst 'demonstrating and explaining' to meet your duties is unclear. It is also unclear how this fits in with BSAC's requirement to have all 'training' carried out by an NQI.

Essentially, by using HL on a BSAC dive you're gambling that BSAC's insurers and/or a court will concur with your view on the matter if there's an incident. Since BSAC have put their opinions on HL in the public domain, including reference to the famous 'trials', you can bet those opinions would be used to hang you in court.

Do you feel lucky?

Adrian Kelland

23-03-2010, 07:57

I've previously viewed BSAC as an enabling body, given the ethos of most of the members I have met.

This seems to have been brought to a screaming halt in that fear over insurance cover and woolly use of incidents are being used to attempt to bully members who use the hog loop method by creating FUD around the issue with another waffly document and backup FAQs.

If BSAC wished to retain the impression that it is an inclusive enabling body, it would have established an enabling method to use and train this skill within the DTP. It's not a hard skill, no worse than mask clearing, something which I have seen spook many during the first few clearances.

As it has been stated that a quick demo of the hog loop just prior to diving (I currently assume buddy check is meant) is deemed inadequate, I'm also confused as to what is an adequate level of demonstration without it being construed as instruction?

Adrian

Steve Summers

23-03-2010, 08:31

In the event of an incident, unless you can show that you have been formally trained in the technique, then BSAC's insurers will decline to provide third-party liability cover.

This is precisely what many people said when the original edict came out and why, although it originally related to 'training', many pointed out that it was a de facto ban on using the technique throughout BSAC.

The latest clarification just confirms this.

Unless you have a piece of paper from a 'recognised' agency showing you have been trained in the use of the technique and you 'discharge your duty of care' towards an untrained buddy by demonstrating and explaining the technique then you will definitely not be covered by BSAC's insurers. Of course, precisely what you need to do whilst 'demonstrating and explaining' to meet your duties is unclear. It is also unclear how this fits in with BSAC's requirement to have all 'training' carried out by an NQI.

Essentially, by using HL on a BSAC dive you're gambling that BSAC's insurers and/or a court will concur with your view on the matter if there's an incident. Since BSAC have put their opinions on HL in the public domain, including reference to the famous 'trials', you can bet those opinions would be used to hang you in court.

Do you feel lucky?

Exactly as I saw it, and still see it. As I've said before this NDO and the NDC have effectively forced their prejudice on a section of the membership leaving a potential legal minefield for us in the event of an incident by their breathtaking naivety and incompetence.

Nearly 4 months of waiting for this pathetic 'clarification' that actually makes it harder for BSAC members to HL not easier. Ironically if they are to be believed it was to stop DIR minded people teaching it to BSAC members, this ban still allows 'them' to still dive within the BSAC framework with cast iron legal protection from litigation because of their GUE training. The rest of us are in the lap of the Gods.
The only good thing to come out of it AFAIC is that people previously unperturbed by the HL fiasco are becoming more sympathetic to those affected by this backdoor ban. Also they are beginning to see the NDO/NDC for what they are, blinkered, out of touch, dogmatic, out of ideas, and unable to admit they have fundamentally changed the broad church, what works works, ethos of BSAC forever.

I think the time has come to try and arrange an EGM and a vote of no confidence in this administration.

bigjo

23-03-2010, 08:45

iainmsmith

23-03-2010, 09:06

In the event of an incident, unless you can show that you have been formally trained in the technique, then BSAC's insurers will decline to provide third-party liability cover.

This is precisely what many people said when the original edict came out and why, although it originally related to 'training', many pointed out that it was a de facto ban on using the technique throughout BSAC.

The latest clarification just confirms this.

Unless you have a piece of paper from a 'recognised' agency showing you have been trained in the use of the technique and you 'discharge your duty of care' towards an untrained buddy by demonstrating and explaining the technique then you will definitely not be covered by BSAC's insurers. Of course, precisely what you need to do whilst 'demonstrating and explaining' to meet your duties is unclear. It is also unclear how this fits in with BSAC's requirement to have all 'training' carried out by an NQI.

Essentially, by using HL on a BSAC dive you're gambling that BSAC's insurers and/or a court will concur with your view on the matter if there's an incident. Since BSAC have put their opinions on HL in the public domain, including reference to the famous 'trials', you can bet those opinions would be used to hang you in court.

Do you feel lucky?

Well...coming from a "going to make this work perspective" - I've got several tickets confirming that I am trained and competent in HL/PD. One of my fellow instructor candidates qualified as a scuba instructor by teaching surface diving with a snorkel - no underwater breathing apparatus in sight. Oxygen Admin, Rescue Management and Nitrox have been integrated into the DTP with the rationale that someone who has been assessed as competent to teach and has themselves been taught those skills must automatically have the ability to teach them.

I am qualified to use HL/PD. I have a BSAC Instructor ticket. Therefore (by BSAC's current statement), I can teach it to anyone at SD or above. I would argue that I can assess someone's competence or otherwise to use a skill and write a comment in their logbook that they are competent to use it.

That individual has now been assessed as competent to use a skill. If they are a BSAC instructor, by the same rationale used to integrate relatively specialist skills into the core DTP without the need to formally assess any instructor on their ability to teach it (or, indeed, to certify scuba instructors without any in-water assessment of scuba skills), that instructor should be able to teach it. That individual would obviously have to make their own decision as to whether they felt comfortable doing so, but I would not expect a competent lawyer to have many problems defending a decision to do so. I am, however, not a lawyer!

I'm a little busy at the moment, but my initial reading of the specific aspects of this statement and FAQ relating to HL/PD is fairly positive. My thoughts about the emphasis on "me, myself and I" are rather different, but that is a discussion I would prefer to have at another time on another thread.

Iain

bigjo

23-03-2010, 09:10

This letter, this issue IMHO is a lot os rubbish, just BSAC sticking its nose in.

John
What, sticking their nose into BSAC written training, BSAC provided insurance and BSAC corporate image?? how dare they!!!!!

garethwoodruff

23-03-2010, 09:10

Ok guys I want to test something :

would you consider the change made by the NDO, in particualr Janos's comment above about prescription a

"an alteration of substance made to rules governing diving qualification and standards"

Don't speculate, would you consider this to be the case?

I will explain a bit later...............

Gareth.

bigjo

23-03-2010, 09:27

The real surprise to me is that anyone of the pro hog camp seriously thought that BSAC would change its mind about this matter. To be honest, I think I would have been a little disappointed in them if they did.
If they believe the practice to be problematic, rightly or wrongly, they should definitely not alter their stance just because a handful of members don't like it.

bythesea

23-03-2010, 09:29

bythesea

23-03-2010, 09:31

they should definitely not alter their stance just because a handful of members don't like it.

So the handful of people who brought this in should have more of a say than the handful of people opposed to it? Thats democracy at work is it?

When you say BSAC you are referring to about six people, BSAC is them, you, me and every other member.

garethwoodruff

23-03-2010, 09:32

You need to explain now because I don't have a clue what you are on about from that sentence....

Sorry, I will explain it a bit better,

" do you consider that in issuing this instruction the NDO has made an alteration of substance to the BSAC rules governing diving qualification and standards "

bythesea

23-03-2010, 09:36

Sorry, I will explain it a bit better,

" do you consider that in issuing this instruction the NDO has made an alteration of substance to the BSAC rules governing diving qualification and standards "

I feel they would argue no as all they have done is clarify an existing position, this is what they will claim, I wouldn't know as I am not intimately familiar with the rules referred to.

MattS

23-03-2010, 09:42

The real surprise to me is that anyone of the pro hog camp seriously thought that BSAC would change its mind about this matter. To be honest, I think I would have been a little disappointed in them if they did.If you read the latest clarification, really, really carefully, the policy has been clarified as being somewhat different to that communicated to instructors 3 months ago. Exactly what that policy is, is hard to say as the clarification is wrapped in so many words; most of which seem to involve attempting to persuade the audience the NDO/NDC were right all along.

If they believe the practice to be problematic, rightly or wrongly, they should definitely not alter their stance just because a handful of members don't like it.We (well you really) are back to who the heck are 'they' and do 'they' represent BSAC? Technical is 7 people. BSAC is 30,000 people.

DarrenA

23-03-2010, 09:44

Can someone let me know if I can dive with an OD when I am HL?

Can I dive with an SD when I am HL?

What (exactly) do I need to do to enable me to dive with the above if I dive HL?

Thanks

Darren

Rich Walker

23-03-2010, 09:58

The real surprise to me is that anyone of the pro hog camp seriously thought that BSAC would change its mind about this matter. To be honest, I think I would have been a little disappointed in them if they did.
If they believe the practice to be problematic, rightly or wrongly, they should definitely not alter their stance just because a handful of members don't like it.

Wouldn't it have been prudent for the people responsible for the position to have contacted the principal body who promote the idea though? Just for balance in their research, if nothing else.

Rich

Richard Whitcombe

23-03-2010, 09:59

If they believe the practice to be problematic, rightly or wrongly, they should definitely not alter their stance just because a handful of members don't like it.

If they truly believe that and truly believe they have a case then all they have to do is put the evidence up for public scrutiny. They closed, non specific "trials" and non-specific "incidents". If the evidence is there and they feel they have a point they simply have to provide it.

Currently it just looks like they made a decision based on nothing and are scared to present any of the above as it isnt exactly persuasive fact.
It just looks like they've got something to hide.

Richard Whitcombe

23-03-2010, 10:03

Can someone let me know if I can dive with an OD when I am HL?

According to the FAQ, NO.

When directly involved in the instruction or assessment of life support skills, for example; Alternative Supply, teaching skills and drills involving DSMB, lifting exercises or diving with an Ocean Diver, then you are expected to conform within the assessed competency and level of your BSAC instructor qualification(s).

For SD and above, yes provided you abandon all insurance protection and the DM agrees. Unless you have a recognised qualification in it from another agency.

When you are engaged in dive leading with a BSAC Sports Diver or higher, i.e. diving to further the student’s experience, then it is possible for you to use the Hogarthian Technique subject to you discharging your duty of care, demonstrating the operational process and having reached agreement and understanding with your buddy and the Dive Manager.

Although it mentions "furthering their experience". Where do you draw the line between that and "just a fun dive with my mate" ?

Mark Papp

23-03-2010, 10:14

Richard Whitcombe

23-03-2010, 10:21

PADI teach hog in DSAT, but some PADI Instructors do use it on PADI
courses, but permission had to be sought from PADI HQ
Really? Since when?

As I've pointed out before, in the locked thread, that was never the case up to 2004 or whenever PADI wound me up enough to quit.

It isnt and hasnt been the case. It was never banned. All that happened is someone asked HQ to clarify it was OK and it was confirmed it was. No special permission required at all. Any PADI instructor can quite happily teach it at open water level. Unlike BSAC now, PADI is non-prescriptive for air sharing providing the performance requirements are met.

DarrenA

23-03-2010, 10:25

According to the FAQ, NO.

OK. That's a change from December yes? I could before? (all the OD's I dive with for experience will be pi$$ed)

Just to put it in perspective. I can dive AIR2 and one primary regulator (therefore diving primary donate) with an OD, or does the instruction also outlaw that?

For SD and above, yes provided you abandon all insurance protection and the DM agrees. Unless you have a recognised qualification in it from another agency.

No DM is going to agree to it are they (as its clear they carry the can) So its a carpet ban?

Although it mentions "furthering their experience". Where do you draw the line between that and "just a fun dive with my mate" ?

I dont know. That "furthering their experience" reference is from the SDC part and I am not sure it applies to "just going diving", but maybe it does.

But many thanks, the fog is clearing to reveal the mist.

Darren

Richard Whitcombe

23-03-2010, 11:10

OK. That's a change from December yes? I could before? (all the OD's I dive with for experience will be pi$$ed)

Its non-clear as its in the FAQ not the actual ruling page and buried in an "dive or instruct" heading and yes a lot of DLs in this club use HL and are the most experienced divers we have so by definition they get the ocean divers. Looks like clubs may have to start pairing up lesser experienced divers due to the ruling!

Just to put it in perspective. I can dive AIR2 and one primary regulator (therefore diving primary donate) with an OD, or does the instruction also outlaw that?

It doesnt mention AIR-II or auto-air. It mentions hog looping a lot and primary donate a bit. HL is bad, its evil, it will make ODs heads explode by the sheer complexity of it. Primary donate is evil unless its on independent twins or other "special" situation. Then you can do it as long as you dont hog loop. So yes,it looks like you could still use AutoAIr/Air-II!

No DM is going to agree to it are they (as its clear they carry the can) So its a carpet ban?

Im glad i no longer DO and really dont want to marshall any more either after this, its not worth it. It would be hypocritical for me as a DO to say "you cant do this. I do this, its accepted everywhere in the world but BSAC thinks your head will explode so you cant".
I wouldn't be able to pass on the BSAC mandate whilst standing there in my hog looped kit without looking a complete hypocrite. It would be "do as i say not what i do". No respect there.

Clearly the only option would be to buy a faded orange buddy commando, slap an Air-II on it and set an example with my "safe" equipment.

I dont know. That "furthering their experience" reference is from the SDC part and I am not sure it applies to "just going diving", but maybe it does.

But many thanks, the fog is clearing to reveal the mist.

Darren[/QUOTE]

iainmsmith

23-03-2010, 11:32

would you consider the change made by the NDO, in particualr Janos's comment above about prescription a

"an alteration of substance made to rules governing diving qualification and standards"

Don't speculate, would you consider this to be the case?

IMO, they have applied a standard (No HL diver may dive with an OD) where one did not exist before.

As SD-trainees are considered ODs (evidenced by their depth restrictions during training), I consider that both this statement and the previous restriction on any BSAC instructor teaching any BSAC member to HL/PD were a change to the "rules governing diving qualification" which previously forbad this technique only during entry-level training (as per then-NDO's, Lizzie Bird, statement at DOC)

Iain

garethwoodruff

23-03-2010, 12:05

IMO, they have applied a standard (No HL diver may dive with an OD) where one did not exist before.

As SD-trainees are considered ODs (evidenced by their depth restrictions during training), I consider that both this statement and the previous restriction on any BSAC instructor teaching any BSAC member to HL/PD were a change to the "rules governing diving qualification" which previously forbad this technique only during entry-level training (as per then-NDO's, Lizzie Bird, statement at DOC)

Iain

Thats interesting. BSAC's constitution states that :

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

Therefore if this amounts to an alteration of substance, which I must admit I consider it should have been agreed at the DO conference or similar meeting. Therefore the NDO may not have the authority to issue this instruction without prior consultation and a vote. The constitution is there to ensure that BSAC is a democratic organisation.

Interesting.

Regards,

Gareth.

ChristianG

23-03-2010, 12:24

Phew!

Now I've only (still) glanced at the new statement (a masterly, even brilliant, piece of lawyer-speak - I just wonder how much that cost) and the FAQ not at all, mainly because the whole thing soon made me want to go to sleep. Unfortunately that's what lawyer-speak tends to do to me. :rolleyes:

I have a suggestion: can we KISS this? It really, despite the statement, should have nothing at all to do with CCRs and I consider that part of the statement a classic example of obfuscation (as just one example of that black art, there are others within the document) whereas it has everything to do with "more normal" methods of breathing underwater, IOW SCUBA. Strange, that. :rolleyes:

After all, the simple, the very simple, fact is that BSAC Instructors continue to be disenfranchised from teaching Hog Looping, or even suggesting it as a useful alternative, no more, no less. The side that you carry your stage tanks has absolutely nothing, zero, zilch to do with that, never mind how correct, or not, the NDO/NDC were with that.

"If this is genuinely a problem can we expect to see GUE re-writing DIR-F to ensure consistency with PADI OW and AOWD? It seems to me that, outside of BSAC, divers can flit from course to course and provider to provider without suffering disaster but, within BSAC, the intermingling of skill groups is akin to blasphemy.
Well said Sir.

Hickdive

23-03-2010, 12:35

Phew!

Now I've only (still) glanced at the new statement (a masterly, even brilliant, piece of lawyer-speak - I just wonder how much that cost) .

Nah, I deal with statutes, deeds and lawyers all day for a living. They tend to be long-winded for the purposes of precision (which is not a synonym for concision).

The terms of this latest statement are neither precise nor concise enough to be the work of a lawyer:D

Garry Whyke

23-03-2010, 12:48

2009:- 361 dives with a hog loop. Number of strangulations:- zero.
2010:- 66 dives with hog loop so far and still no strangulations

1 strangulation = no more posts

Richard Whitcombe

23-03-2010, 13:03

2009:- 361 dives with a hog loop. Number of strangulations:- zero.
2010:- 66 dives with hog loop so far and still no strangulations

1 strangulation = no more posts

So if i vanish suddenly just assume BSAC were right and the rest of the world were wrong all along!

Hickdive

23-03-2010, 13:14

So if i vanish suddenly just assume BSAC were right and the rest of the world were wrong all along!

Pah! It's all exagerated, HL is perfectly safe. I'm wearing one as I type this at my desk and noth

Wayne Murray

23-03-2010, 13:33

Ok guys I want to test something :

"an alteration of substance made to rules governing diving qualification and standards"

Gareth.

It undoubtedly is.

After careful reading and re-reading of the posts here and my fourth run through of Jeff's document [difficult to imagine now why I thought it was clear the first time I read it!] the following seems to me entirely clear:

I have, in recent years, effectively been banned from teaching primary donate under the DTP, in as much as it is not the prescribed method. It has always been clear to me that I should teach the prescribed method, but until this point is was not clear that I was banned from teaching anything else in addition. So I accept that that has not changed and it is in fact a clarification - which is always useful, whether or not it is welcome.

What HAS changed is that I am no longer able to dive with anybody not yet qualified as a Sports Diver [e.g. a Sports Diver trainee] if I insist on maintaining a Hog Looped equipment configuration for the dive. That appears to be true whether it is a training dive, involving some skill other than AAS or DSMB, or just an experience dive.

Interestingly, one of my buddies, who dives with an autoair, and is apparently also therefore banned from teaching AAS drills with the trainee, IS nevertheless allowed to dive with them on experience dives and while completing other drills.

So we have a new ban, not on the use or teaching of a particular AAS technique, but on diving with certain sorts of buddies while maintaining a particular equipment configuration.

Also, the banned equipment configuration appears to be particularly poorly described. What is the defining characteristic of a Hog Loop and how does this differ from the configuration commonly used by single reg divers with autoairs?

Did somebody say something about lawyers having a field day!?

Steve Summers

23-03-2010, 13:52

Thats interesting. BSAC's constitution states that :

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

Therefore if this amounts to an alteration of substance, which I must admit I consider it should have been agreed at the DO conference or similar meeting. Therefore the NDO may not have the authority to issue this instruction without prior consultation and a vote. The constitution is there to ensure that BSAC is a democratic organisation.

Interesting.

Regards,

Gareth.

Many thanks for that Gareth.

Would any of the council 'lurkers' care to comment on this? Has Mr Reed overstepped his boundaries and if so will he withdraw this lastest 'clarification'? I for one would very much like to put my objections across to him and the council in such a meeting.

ChristianG

23-03-2010, 14:05

Many thanks for that Gareth.
I, too, thought Gareth's comments telling, provided he is correct and I have no means of knowing whether that is so.

TerryH

23-03-2010, 14:09

Therefore if this amounts to an alteration of substance, which I must admit I consider it should have been agreed at the DO conference or similar meeting. Therefore the NDO may not have the authority to issue this instruction without prior consultation and a vote. The constitution is there to ensure that BSAC is a democratic organisation.

It's not an alteration of substance.

It's not in the DTP, so hasnt been altered.

You can only have an alteration if it was there in the first place and even
then it would have to be of sufficient gravitas to not be considered an
operational tweak eg: signal/donate to signal/grab.

ChristianG

23-03-2010, 14:11

Just to put it in perspective. I can dive AIR2 and one primary regulator (therefore diving primary donate) with an OD, or does the instruction also outlaw that?
Chuckle. :)

I guess I would have added ... diving primary donate whether in conventional length, octopus length or, shock, horror, Long Hose Hog Wrapped form ...

ChristianG

23-03-2010, 14:15

It's not an alteration of substance.
You are the final arbiter of such an edict?

You can make such an unequivocal statement?

Really?

garethwoodruff

23-03-2010, 14:52

It's not an alteration of substance.

It's not in the DTP, so hasnt been altered.

You can only have an alteration if it was there in the first place and even
then it would have to be of sufficient gravitas to not be considered an
operational tweak eg: signal/donate to signal/grab.

Not sure I agree with that Terry. Its such a huge document. Lets be honest this should have been debated at DOC, its poor that it has not and really is not in the 'spirit' of the clubs constitution even if its open to debate either way.

Best thing that could happen now is a proposal put forwards at the next DOC for debate and in the meantime this 5000 word instruction / set of regualations given 'temporary' status with a promise of proposals put in for the DOC and voting.

garethwoodruff

23-03-2010, 14:56

You are the final arbiter of such an edict?

You can make such an unequivocal statement?

Really?

Christain,

Terry is a very expereinced BSAC instructor, he pays for membership each year, as most of us here do. He is more than entitled to his opinion on this matter. The fact I do not agree with it is irrelevant, I can respect his opinion.

You on the other hand would be appreciated if you refrained from comment as i have asked many times. Your not a BSAC member, and have no intention of joining. I think you are more then welcome on the forum and most of what you say is interesting, informed and of value, but please stay out of our internal debates.

Regards,

gareth.

Nigel Hewitt

23-03-2010, 15:01

<sigh>
We're off again.

The only thing that annoys me is the new restatement is my usual whinge:

When somebody plays the 'insurance' card in a discussion of BSAC procedures it is because they know they have already lost the real argument.

Absolutely. Every time. No exceptions.

If a BSAC official says publicly and quotable "you might not be covered" they are handing a get-out to the underwriter.
If they publicly said "this is a perfectly valid alternative" they remove that option because they are the people we can quote in our defence.

Any how... I though third party insurance was for when I mess up and somebody gets hurt. If it only covers me when I do everything right it's not insurance.

"I'm sorry but when you drove through the bus queue you were driving on the pavement which is not legal so you're not covered."

Richard Whitcombe

23-03-2010, 15:02

I dont think this is an internal debate. It affects all current members AND potential members and as such shouldnt be restricted to members.

Another reason its not an internal debate is there IS no debate - it was just forced on us with no consultation deliberately AFTER the DOC when people would have debated such a ridiculous and blurred ruling.

ChristianG

23-03-2010, 15:30

Terry is a very expereinced BSAC instructor, he pays for membership each year, as most of us here do. He is more than entitled to his opinion on this matter. The fact I do not agree with it is irrelevant, I can respect his opinion.

Gareth,

I'm well ware of who and what Terry is.

[QUOTE=garethwoodruff]You on the other hand would be appreciated if you refrained from comment as i have asked many times. Your not a BSAC member, and have no intention of joining.
Seeing as you have, on several occasions said that I'll answer it:

1) How do you know that?
2) There are certain circumstances where I would become a BSAC member, but those circumstances haven't happened yet - yet - but they seem to be getting closer and closer
3) I've, sigh, said it before and I'll say it again, I happen to like the BSAC and what it (usually) stands for. I'm on record of that, I would have thought.

Edit/: Will I do that, by that I mean "butt out"? No. It is not your right, or that of anyone, to tell me what to do on a public forum, unless I use inappropriate language, and I don't do that.

MattS

23-03-2010, 15:33

It's not an alteration of substance.

It's not in the DTP, so hasnt been altered.The DTP, by way of the NDO's amendment, now distinguishes 'Hogarthian Wrapping' where it was not distinguished before. In doing so, a whole bunch of BSAC members are now concerned at the validity of their insurance cover, where there was no concern before. Further, in making this distinction, holders of BSAC OD and SD qualifications are no longer able to dive or receive lessons in circumstances which they were previously allowed to do so. Please explain how these are not material differences?

You can only have an alteration if it was there in the first place and even then it would have to be of sufficient gravitas to not be considered an
operational tweak eg: signal/donate to signal/grab.Speaking personally, the BSAC NDO[1] is telling me my insurance cover is reduced, I can no longer instruct in circumstances I used to be able to instruct in. The only grey area I can see is the question of an FAQ having any authority.

[1]Sadly I do not consider that he is speaking for BSAC.

MattS

23-03-2010, 15:44

With sincere and due respect, I would like to remind you both of the little thread we had last week discussing moderation policy.

I take the view that a Council member instructed the moderators to post this thread in the public forum and that members of the public are entitled to post their opinions to it, provided they remain on topic. Further, I take the view that discussing what one person thinks of another persons opinion, with the possible exception of the NDO, can be considered as being outside the scope of this thread.

TerryH

23-03-2010, 16:02

The DTP, by way of the NDO's amendment, now distinguishes 'Hogarthian Wrapping' where it was not distinguished before. In doing so, a whole bunch of BSAC members are now concerned at the validity of their insurance cover, where there was no concern before. Further, in making this distinction, holders of BSAC OD and SD qualifications are no longer able to dive or receive lessons in circumstances which they were previously allowed to do so. Please explain how these are not material differences?.

Because it's not an "alteration of substance".

Hog wasnt in the DTP, wasnt part of any SDP. If you used it or didnt,
BSAC had no official position and you cant alter what you dont have.

That has now changed and BSAC now DOES have an official position,
which I read as: if the current situation needs to be changed and we
insist on applying this, then it WILL be a "alteration of substance".

But ............

Even then it depends on the interpretion of "substance" and i'd suspect
percentages would come into play. You wouldnt call a meet for a change
that affected 0.0001% of BSAC, just depends what % you use.

ChristianG

23-03-2010, 16:20

Originally Posted by MattS
The DTP, by way of the NDO's amendment, now distinguishes 'Hogarthian Wrapping' where it was not distinguished before. In doing so, a whole bunch of BSAC members are now concerned at the validity of their insurance cover, where there was no concern before. Further, in making this distinction, holders of BSAC OD and SD qualifications are no longer able to dive or receive lessons in circumstances which they were previously allowed to do so. Please explain how these are not material differences?.
Because it's not an "alteration of substance"..

Pray tell, define "alteration of substance"? No doubt there is something within the BSACs internals that allows you to do just that?

Wayne Murray

23-03-2010, 17:10

Would it be substantive if it was a decree that neoprene dry suits are fundamantally dangerous [since they alter their intinsic buoyancy with depth] and we don't want to encourage their use amongst new divers. Consequently, nobody may dive with somebody not yet qualified as a Sports Diver while wearing a neoprene dry suit?

Personally, it feels pretty sustantive. Up to this point I'd assumed that it simply impinged on the training that I can do without significant change to my kit, but my other half has just reminded me that since she is a PADI crossover, and therefore an Ocean Diver, we are now effectively banned from diving together unless I 'mend my ways'.

Woz

23-03-2010, 17:11

Wayne Murray

23-03-2010, 17:27

Yep, she can dive PADI and I can dive my original PADI or I could dive my TDI Tx or .... Lot of possibilities. It seems the only thing we can't dive is BSAC.

Now then, what was FAQ 16? Oh yes...

Q: I am a diver who subscribes to the Hogarthian style of diving. Am I welcome in a BSAC branch?

Of course! We welcome all divers ...

Wayne Murray

23-03-2010, 17:36

As for the suit- you're just making stuff up now!

Really! I've heard folk say how bad neoprene is for exactly that reason.

Seriously, the distinction between neoprene and membrane suits strikes me as rather similar to the distinction between Hog Loops and Autoairs. i.e. there is a lot of grey.

Steve in Sharm

23-03-2010, 18:38

Christain,

Terry is a very expereinced BSAC instructor, he pays for membership each year, as most of us here do. He is more than entitled to his opinion on this matter. The fact I do not agree with it is irrelevant, I can respect his opinion.

You on the other hand would be appreciated if you refrained from comment as i have asked many times. Your not a BSAC member, and have no intention of joining. I think you are more then welcome on the forum and most of what you say is interesting, informed and of value, but please stay out of our internal debates.

Regards,

gareth.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, so very very wrong (ok CG I know my English isn't correct here - just trying to get a point across).

There are many people on this and other forums who are contributing to this thread with their views from whatever agency/area of the world they populate.

Your continued insistence that CG does not join in is unwarranted unless you pick on the others as well.

Regards

Steve

northern_diver

23-03-2010, 18:44

modern hyper-compressed suits:D

John

Steve in Sharm

23-03-2010, 18:44

Adrian Kelland

23-03-2010, 18:51

Edit/: Will I do that, by that I mean "butt out"? No. It is not your right, or that of anyone, to tell me what to do on a public forum, unless I use inappropriate language, and I don't do that.
Or otherwise breach the Acceptable Usage Policy (http://www.bsac.com/page.asp?section=987&sectionTitle=Acceptable+Usage+Policy)

Apart from that you have as much right as any other person to post in this area of the forum.

Adrian

barrygoss

23-03-2010, 19:30

Christian,

I'm more than happy for you to add to the debate. However, realise that there are a lot of members (myself included) that are passionate about BSAC and negatives at the moment from an 'outsider' are almost as painfull as those from a member, but more easily dismissed due to your 'outsider' status.

At the end of the day, mate, membership would cost you less than a days diving, but remove so many flipant comments to your presence here :-)

B

(sod it, that may have been my last recruiting speach for BSAC) that's not a good thing.

Lanny

23-03-2010, 20:29

I have had a little over 24 hours to consider this and my overall reaction is disappointment and a further erosion of faith in the abilities and motivations of the NDC.

The statement as a whole is poorly written and opaque, with a very few exceptions. Clarification of a simple policy could (and should) have been achieved in a short, pithy series of paragraphs. If you are taking over 5000 words to explain this then something is badly wrong. The different interpretations that are already being aired on this and other forums are an indicator of the lack of clarity.

The whole thing has an air of what I would refer to professionally as “situating the appreciation,” i.e. starting with a conclusion and finding the evidence to match. This is an intellectually dishonest approach and will not help to salvage the damaged reputation of BSAC Tech training.

I am not going to take up bandwidth picking at every hole in the edict; however the following howlers really stand out:

1. The woolly statement on insurance, legal liability and formal training that could be used to support a legal case in the event of an incident when primary donate may have played a part. The legal sharks will be circling anyway – there is really no need to chum the water.

2. Not allowing Primary Donate, but then you can if you are diving independent twins, but not if hoglooping. Either it is safe or it is not.

3. Self Reliance over buddy skills. Of course you should be self reliant, but to state that solving your own problems is preferable to sorting issues out in the most effective way within a team is a dangerous step towards a solo mentality, and flys in the face of the team ethos that the better technical instructors promote.

4. Not addressing any of the points made in numerous letters with regard to the inconsistencies between the BSAC courses and equivalents with other tech agencies. This is extraordinarily arrogant. I know at least one of the UK’s leading tech instructors offered his time for free, but his e-mail was not even replied to, which I find ill-mannered in the extreme.

5. Still no detail on the field trials, but an added statement that details of some of the supporting incident reports are “extremely sensitive and not available for public discussion”. Making unsupported statements does not constitute academic rigour.

6. Persisting with the ridiculous assertion that there is some sort of BSAC “standard rig”, despite allowing the teaching of tech courses in an Air 2 or even a rebreather, whilst disallowing the most widely used OC tech rig. A glance at the recently published photos of the pilot course would support the contention that (almost) anything goes.

7. Heavy handed proscription and requiring written permission to teach anything outside the syllabus. In the past I have enjoyed teaching additional skills, outside of courses, for example giving more detail on deco theory or advanced line drills. Whatever happened to an inclusive organisation and “what works, works”?

Overall, this is a mountain being made of a molehill. There is no need to ban any open circuit rig, all of which are just different ways of configuring a couple of regulators. The sensible, pragmatic approach of not proscribing a single rig is successfully adopted by TDI, IANTD, DSAT et al, all of whom teach a lot more tech divers than BSAC, but appears to be beyond the wit of our hierarchy. The incongruity of banning any OC rig, whilst allowing SMG and tech courses to be taught on a RB makes this doubly ridiculous. The photo of the CisLunar with twin 7s strapped to it on the pilot course demonstrates this a lot more eloquently than anything I could write.

So, where do we go from here?

I would support an EGM, but I am not sure we could find the requisite numbers. This edict has the biggest effect on open circuit instructors at the technical level, and divers who have done some research before embarking on tech training or are already hog-looping. This is something of a niche market in the context of the recreational majority, but significant in the effect it has on individual members.

Personally, having written numerous letters, e-mails, forum posts and a petition, I do not feel inclined to bang my head against the wall any further on this issue. I still think the NDC have this very, very wrong and, judging by their standards, it would appear that all the other technical agencies agree.

I have half a dozen or so people keen to do an SMG course, but have absolutely no intention of teaching the BSAC course as it stands and will point them in the direction of more enlightened agencies. I am required to be a member of BSAC to retain my military Sub Aqua Diving Supervisor qualification and will continue to pay my subs in the hope of a more inclusive approach in the future. I genuinely hope that the assertion of continuing examination of the standards is a genuine one as the continued flawed and inconsistent stance is costing BSAC revenue, members and a great deal of credibility in the technical diving community.

barrygoss

23-03-2010, 20:58

Lanny,

Right now I'm on this side.

BSAC will continue to get my sub's, however, I will no longer participate and actively encourage. I'm a BSAC OWI, AD, Advanced Nitrox Instructor, with SMG and I was considering becoming a SMG instructor. I have trodden the path to FCD, but gotten bored. I have trained approx 70/80 divers to date, which right now (active) includes 5 OWI's and 4 IFC's 3 AD's, 6 DL's and 10 SD's plus 4 or so OD's

Those are my personal students over the last few years. They are all currently active and training other students. So "their" instructor walks away from teaching BSAC. They now have some judgement calls of their own to make. It's pretty much a house of cards.

I've always been open and honest with all my students as to my kit configuration. I've shown them every alternative configuration I've ever seen or can think of. Maybe 10% have followed in my foot steps (hog looped/PD) The rest have forged their own paths, which I both respect and encourage.

Have I taught them?? Honestly I've only ever said, try this or try that and work it out yourselves.

B

Am I curerntly covered by BSAC insurance?? I'm waiting to find out

Steve Summers

23-03-2010, 21:46

The sensible, pragmatic approach of not proscribing a single rig is successfully adopted by TDI, IANTD, DSAT et al, all of whom teach a lot more tech divers than BSAC, but appears to be beyond the wit of our hierarchy. The incongruity of banning any OC rig, whilst allowing SMG and tech courses to be taught on a RB makes this doubly ridiculous. The photo of the CisLunar with twin 7s strapped to it on the pilot course demonstrates this a lot more eloquently than anything I could write.

I totally agree with you, it is the politics of the mad house. I have instructed my bank to take back the direct debit money BSAC have already taken for membership next year. As of the 4th April I shall no longer be a BSAC member unless I can find a way to put my disgust at the powers that be below the love of my dive club. I am absolutely gutted that I have been forced into this and I only hope that the people responsible are shamed into resigning or are kicked out by the membership ASAP.

I'm only familiar with the inspiration CCR so don't know much about the CIS lunar Mk5 but if someone in the know could tell me if it has the CE conformity mark please I'd appreciate it.

Howard Payne

24-03-2010, 02:28

I'm only familiar with the inspiration CCR so don't know much about the CIS lunar Mk5 but if someone in the know could tell me if it has the CE conformity mark please I'd appreciate it.

It's about as CE marked as an Airtex condom ;)

neil_richardson

24-03-2010, 02:55

This might interest some people:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/gold-coast-dive-instructor-yuri-bonning-on-manslaughter-charge-over-death-of-chinese-student/story-e6freon6-1225844659782

Mark Papp

24-03-2010, 05:56

This might interest some people:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/gold-coast-dive-instructor-yuri-bonning-on-manslaughter-charge-over-death-of-chinese-student/story-e6freon6-1225844659782Er, it might, but I really can't see what it has to do with this thread.

Steve Summers

24-03-2010, 09:07

It's about as CE marked as an Airtex condom ;)

I wonder if BSAC's insurers would have repudiated a claim from any incident that occurred while Nick Jewson was teaching a SMG course on a non conformity recognised CCR then?

Rather than the NDO seek to create problems for the rest of us he should perhaps clean up his own back yard first?

garethwoodruff

24-03-2010, 09:58

Form what I can see we are running round in circles here.

The best option is to put a motion together for discussion at the next DOC, lodged formally with the company secretary for a vote afterwards.

We don't want to remove the NDO as a director.

We don't really want to prove to him that he's acted beyond his powers, although I think there is a case that he might have. Difficult to enforce even if he has.

If we have a vote at the DOC and its passed I believe he has to take notice of it. When I have time I will have a look at the constitution and see how something like that would work. Advice please Edward?

The problem will be getting an agreed wording together.

Lots of waffle won't cut it. You should keep it to half a dozen bullet points.

Regards,

Gareth.

bythesea

24-03-2010, 10:11

We don't

We don't

Sorry Gareth, who are you speaking on behalf of there? And why don't they want to do these things?

Hickdive

24-03-2010, 10:14

Has the deadline for motions at the AGM in May passed?

JimW

24-03-2010, 10:34

garethwoodruff

24-03-2010, 10:50

Sorry Gareth, who are you speaking on behalf of there? And why don't they want to do these things?

Ok good point, maybe you do! I should have explained that a bit better.

Gosh thats a big step further. Needs an EGM. Expensive to organise, say £30 or £40 K as a guess. We could use that for advertising or appoint an extra member of staff etc..........with the money.

Proving and enforcing the doctrine of 'Ultra Viries' where a director acts beyond their powers is problematic at best, especially as its not a clear cut case.

I would have thought a petition for the NDO to resign would be a better idea. Not sure I could support it though, would have to think very carefully about it. An EGM should be a real last resort.

Gareth.

MattS

24-03-2010, 12:23

I would have thought a petition for the NDO to resign would be a better idea. Not sure I could support it though, would have to think very carefully about it. An EGM should be a real last resort. Yes, we would all like to avoid a 'No confidence' vote at EGM.

At this moment, in view of the clarification on the clarification on the clarification. I am personally not at all confident in our current NDO having the requisite skills to effectively manage The BSAC and the 30,000 people it comprises.

The NDO and Council have a great many options open to them as to how they may resolve the issue, thus restoring the affected membership's confidence in the process of the organisation's governance. If those that can, do not utilise the options they have, the affected minority are backed further into the corner where there are very few options open to them.

Roz

24-03-2010, 12:38

From what I can see we are running round in circles here.

The best option is to put a motion together for discussion at the next DOC, lodged formally with the company secretary for a vote afterwards.

With respect Gareth, potentially nice idea, but why was this not announced at last year's DOC? This statement came out what a week or two weeks after the last DOC? Do you not think that this would have been the ideal forum? It would have provided the right place for the senior club divers to engage directly with the NDC. The next DOC has not been announced yet, but I am taking a punt it will be held in December. That's nine months away - enough time to make a baby! That’s way too far in the future for the HL situation. Let’s face it, if nothing else the BSAC Forum Server will have melted with the amount of HL traffic going through it. :eek:

The entire handling of this sad affair has been an unmitigated disaster. I can’t help thinking of arranging deck chairs on the Titanic as I write this. The latest statement would not win the plain English award; it's not that clear and succinct. I struggled when I read it three times and I regard myself as a reasonably intelligent lady. It’s been written backwards. ‘This is the conclusion, now get there’.

There are many people who now feel as though they've been painted into a corner. Very senior and professional advice has been offered to help bring this situation to a more satisfactory close and it's been rudely dismissed. The NDC might not like what they were hearing, but I did expect them to have some basic manners and good behaviour to at least listen to professionals who dive this system day in day out whilst complying with the Diving At Work Act.

Experienced BSAC members feel betrayed believing that they belonged to a broad church agency. And the whole thing lacks credibility. For instance the fatal diving incident? One of the things that BSAC does very well and it’s recognised the world over, and quite rightly so, is the BSAC Annual Incident Report. This is I believe, the most thorough worldwide recreational diving accident analysis publication, and it’s respected. Many people refer to it because it’s so well put together. (And I most sincerely hope that when Brian Cumming steps down, he will have been mentoring someone equally OCD to ensure this publication prevails). But back to HL. All that needs to be stated is “please refer to Incident Report 11/896”. Brian is hyper sensitive at ensuring accurate information is published without compromising the identity of the divers involved. But writing “yes there’s been a fatality, but it would be insensitive to publish the details” does not wash. BSAC has been publishing worldwide diving fatalities since 1964 so that divers can learn and hopefully not follow the same path.

Regrettably I still do not believe that all of the NDC has understood the ramifications of its action/statements. Yes, this affects only a few of the membership. Merely a few hundred compared to several thousand. But take a closer look at who the few hundred are. They are the DO's, the TO's, the active instructors in the branch, the experienced senior club members, some Area Coaches, and perhaps a few Regional Coaches. The people mainly affected are the top end, and it's this lot that educate, recruit and mentor newer divers. Disenfranchise them and you lose a very powerful resource.

After 3 and half months I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a migration of clubs and members to another agency because of this debacle. Will BSAC prevail after this mess? Yes it will because whilst this is not a fatal blow, it has damaged. There will remain some very good people, but BSAC will be a much weaker club. And that’s part of why so many divers on here are so angry. Whether they HL or not, they’ve all worked really hard for years promoting BSAC, the clubs and British Diving. With a couple of statements regarding HL a small minority believe and feel utterly betrayed and perceive the NDC is out of touch with recognised current advanced OC diving procedures. And many others also feel let down because whilst they don’t advocate HL they defend the right for others to do so.

At present I will not add my voice to an EGM nor ask the NDO to stand down. That's a horrendous (and should be a totally unneccesary) can of worms to open. What I would beg of the NDC is to have some humility, realise the lack of knowledge, listen to those who know what they are talking about, and come to a sensible conclusion. PLEASE.

I have to say out of all of this the one thing BSAC has successfully done is to unite the whole of the technical diving community, so now inverted twinsets are happily discussing diving with DIR divers. That’s a good thing, but golly at what cost.

Mike Halligan

24-03-2010, 13:05

After 3 and half months I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a migration of clubs and members to another agency because of this debacle. Will BSAC prevail after this mess? Yes it will because whilst this is not a fatal blow, it has damaged. There will remain some very good people, but BSAC will be a much weaker club. And that’s part of why so many divers on here are so angry. Whether they HL or not, they’ve all worked really hard for years promoting BSAC, the clubs and British Diving. With a couple of statements regarding HL a small minority believe and feel utterly betrayed and perceive the NDC is out of touch with recognised current technical OC diving procedures. And many others also feel let down because whilst they don’t advocate HL they defend the right for others to do so.

I have to say out of all of this the one thing BSAC has successfully done is to unite the whole of the technical diving community, so now inverted twinsets are happily discussing diving with DIR divers. That’s a good thing, but golly at what cost.

Excellent post, Roz, thank you. We seem to be approaching Niemoller's proposition, "They came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist".

I don't dive twins, inverted, HL or anything so complex. I'm not interested in doing so, either. But I have invested a great deal in the BSAC, ensuring a broad church and attempting to retain the "top end" divers so that newbies can plainly see in their own branch a worthy target for their ambition - as happened to me. (I can hardly have been encouraged by the training. I had to go elsewhere for it. :o ) No, as a Novice, I heard and saw expeditionary diving being reported back 6 or more times a year. I was inspired to drag myself as close to their abilities as I could.

Now I wonder why, as ADO, I bothered fighting so hard 15 years ago to keep my branch in the BSAC and more immediately whether I should stay. The continuum from newbie to exped is under attack from the very heart of the organisation, in a tussle over the squareroot of damn all. The very divisiveness of the fight itself, the extreme focus of the subject and the notable preservation of special rules for rebreather users makes me question whether this remains an organisation worth fighting for or even staying in.
Could someone please answer, what mindless self-destructive urge overcame us?

AndyA

24-03-2010, 13:11

• Other than when instructing BSAC courses, there is no restriction on diving alternative systems provided that sufficient actions have been taken that would reasonably be expected to meet their duty of care towards a buddy. BSAC recommends that both members of a diving buddy pair have each been trained and qualified in any method they plan to use.

Im a bit confused on the above, as on other posts on these forums it seems to have been interpreted that this means you have to have done a course.

I see it that 'BSAC recommends' that you do but cannot see where it says that it is compulsary :confused:

ChristianG

24-03-2010, 13:25

Regrettably I still do not believe that all of the NDC has understood the ramifications of its action/statements. Yes, this affects only a few of the membership. Merely a few hundred compared to several thousand. But take a closer look at who the few hundred are. They are the DO's, the TO's, the active instructors in the branch, the experienced senior club members, some Area Coaches, and perhaps a few Regional Coaches. The people mainly affected are the top end, and it's this lot that educate, recruit and mentor newer divers. Disenfranchise them and you lose a very powerful resource.
Excellent post Roz. :)

I said much the same, perhaps not as eloquently, on the NDO thread maybe two months ago, couldn't be bothered to go and look.

Ron MacRae

24-03-2010, 14:10

Very well put.:)

Unfortunatly,:mad:

Ron.

Ron MacRae

24-03-2010, 14:13

We seem to be approaching Niemoller's proposition, "They came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist".

Unfortunatly I agree with you.

Ron.

Roz

24-03-2010, 17:11

The one thing I forgot to post this morning is that I guess I am not alone in being frustrated at the sheer amount of time, effort, phone calls, emails and bandwidth that has been wasted on this by so many different people and agencies, simply because of a stance and statement that wasn't thought out properly. I am so sure that the resources spend by Jeff Reed, Council, the NDO, senior instructors and divers of many agencies would have been far better spent on far more productive projects.

*Deep breath and stand on soap box*.

With this in mind, because this is not going to go away is it, is there any chance that a truce can be called, and a productive meeting held with ALL relevant parties involved? By all means do it quietly behind closed doors, but please just get on and do it? To achieve a win win situation for everyone it would mean that every single delegate would need to park their ego at the door, along with their personal brick wall and agenda, and whilst it goes on don't sit there with fingers in ears going "la, la, la, I can't hear you".

BSAC is over 50 years old. There are a lot of us proud to be members. Many of us have given so much to the club over the years. It's heartbreaking sitting on the side lines and watch BSAC tear itself to pieces over a 2 metre hose. How daft is that?! It would be really funny if it wasn't so awful.

ChristianG

24-03-2010, 17:20

It's heartbreaking sitting on the side lines and watch BSAC tear itself to pieces over a 2 metre hose. How daft is that?! It would be really funny if it wasn't so awful.
Amen! My emphasis in the quote.

Mike Halligan

24-03-2010, 17:30

Amen! My emphasis in the quote.
Wot 'e said. :eek: I shall consult the Vicar-General to see is there an English translation for "Amen". :D

Rich Walker

24-03-2010, 17:55

Steve Summers

24-03-2010, 17:57

With this in mind, because this is not going to go away is it, is there any chance that a truce can be called, and a productive meeting held with ALL relevant parties involved? By all means do it quietly behind closed doors, but please just get on and do it? To achieve a win win situation for everyone it would mean that every single delegate would need to park their ego at the door, along with their personal brick wall and agenda, and whilst it goes on don't sit there with fingers in ears going "la, la, la, I can't hear you".

Hi Roz,

very well put, but I doubt it would happen. When the people concerned have neither the courage or good grace to debate or defend their decisions in public, why do you think they would be willing to meet anyone and do that face to face. If they had any intention of defusing this situation they would have done so by now.

As you said earlier on in this debate you thought the NDO was unlucky and caught between a rock and a hard place. I actually agree but it is entirely of his own making.

I'm reminded of the verse ''as ye sow so shall ye reap'', the unfortunate thing is the BSAC will do the reaping and I'm sure Jeff will be cosseted and congratulated on a job well done by his cronies :(

Hickdive

24-03-2010, 18:10

Roz,

An excellent, constructive and pragmatic idea. You should perhaps email it to the address given on the statement, after all it invited constructive feedback.

However, it's got a snowball's chance in hell of happening.

A compromise which satisfied just about everyone was proposed on this forum. It was ignored.

The data upon which the decision has been based has been requested repeatedly. That has been ignored.

The lead proponents of the technique have offered publicly and privately to offer practical help and guidance. That has been ignored.

Every single objection, criticism (constructive or otherwise) and piece of feedback has been either been ignored or dismissed with a dodge.

Sad to say, I cannot see your proposal having even the courtesy of an acknowledgement.

Lanny

24-03-2010, 18:12

Roz,

Many thanks for an excellent suggestion. A meeting of all concerned parties is probably the best chance we have to come to an agreement and move on. It would also avoid escalating to an EGM, which would be costly and further harm the club.

Linking this with Howard's earlier post, could this be acheived in the margins of the AGM on 22 May?

Garf

24-03-2010, 18:52

You're all still talking like someone on the other end is willing to listen. Sorry guys, I'm unconvinced of this. All of the common sense in this issue has come from the membership, not the leadership.

Adrian Kelland

24-03-2010, 19:10

There are specific authorities that take responsibility for recognising training agencies or validating their training programmes. For example, in the UK recreational training organisations that wish to operate commercially are required to conform to standards (EN 14153 parts 1, 2 and 3. This in the UK is mapped and managed by British Standards Institution, i.e. BS EN 14153-1, BS En 14153-2, etc ) and be accredited to these standards by independent organisations such as the European Underwater Federation (EUF).

BSAC does recognise Technical Training organisations for the sake of mapping parity and compatibility with BSAC Technical training and the current list can be found at www.bsac.com/technical (http://www.bsac.com/technical)
together with an explanation of how to get a listing.
To date GUE have not reqested such a listing. In addition our understanding is that the Fundamentals course is a recreational rather than technical course.

Jim
BSAC HQ
Jim,

The HSE appears to be quite happy with GUE. I can't find any reference to the 14153 standard requirements on the HSE website at all. I'm sure I am not the only one who would be surprised that the HSE would approve organisations that don't comply with standards, even if they only way it has been determined that they do not comply is because they have not been assessed.

Where can I find the legislation where the requirement for recreational training organisations that wish to operate commercially to conform to the 14153 standard? Just about every search I do for it just brings me to the publication.

The EUF may be independent of the BSI, but it is hardly independent of the diving organisations that are members of it and no doubt are partly paying its way. I would hope that other bodies are also able to asses a diving organisation as to conformance with a standard.

Adrian

Adrian Kelland

24-03-2010, 19:15

andy kerslake

24-03-2010, 19:44

Jim,

The HSE appears to be quite happy with GUE. I can't find any reference to the 14153 standard requirements on the HSE website at all. I'm sure I am not the only one who would be surprised that the HSE would approve organisations that don't comply with standards, even if they only way it has been determined that they do not comply is because they have not been assessed.

Where can I find the legislation where the requirement for recreational training organisations that wish to operate commercially to conform to the 14153 standard? Just about every search I do for it just brings me to the publication.

The EUF may be independent of the BSI, but it is hardly independent of the diving organisations that are members of it and no doubt are partly paying its way. I would hope that other bodies are also able to asses a diving organisation as to conformance with a standard.

Adrian

I have been watching with interest on this ongoing debate and as the person who originally got GUE approved by the HSE. and was directly involved with discussions with BSAC, I feel that I am uniquely qualified to comment.

Firstly all recreational diving instruction with the UK is governed by the HSE, more specifically basic requirements are contained within the ACOP, and additionally any "approved" organisation has to submit standards and other associated materials to the HSE to gain approval. There is no separate ACOP for technical diving.

There are absolutely no requirements to conform to any EN standards.

I personally was involved with submitting to BSAC, the various training materials, plus the course outlines for a number of GUE courses. The reason I wanted to do this was to have GUE recognised by BSAC and not to gain any SALT equivalences.

My motivation for the recognition was just to make it easier for anybody with GUE qualifications to dive within the BSAC club environment, and ensure they were covered by insurance, as well as gain general acceptance within the club environment.

At the time I was no longer a member of BSAC, but I had previously held a number of positions at a club, and had actively been involved in starting a BSAC club.

Despite my best efforts and a considerable amount of time spent on the phone and on emails, GUE were stonewalled and I got to the point and so did my American colleagues where we were totally frustrated - sound familiar?

The material was reviewed by BSAC, but they never approved GUE nor could we ever find out the reason why.

I spent many happy years with BSAC, and I find it sad that they choose to hide behind suspect wordings, long missives, and have clearly lost the ability to communicate clearly and succinctly.

Eventually I hope common sense will prevail.

Regards

Andy

Fiona

24-03-2010, 19:48

I doubt it Lanny, I think the notice period for 'AOB' has passed.

Adrian

Subject to the provisions of the Act relating to meetings convened for the purpose of passing special resolutions and to Annual General Meetings (which both require at least twenty-one days' notice) advance notice shall be given in the following manner (exclusive both of the day on which the notice is served or deemed to be served and of the date of the meeting):

(A) in the case of an Annual General Meeting at least sixty days before the Annual General Meeting;

Might be a couple of days late, unless someone wants to be a little flexible :)

Edward

24-03-2010, 21:01

Firstly all recreational diving instruction with the UK is governed by the HSE, more specifically basic requirements are contained within the ACOP, and additionally any "approved" organisation has to submit standards and other associated materials to the HSE to gain approval. There is no separate ACOP for technical diving.

HSE have no jurisdiction over recreation diving, what you are referring to is the commercial teaching of recreational diving.

There are absolutely no requirements to conform to any EN standards.

There is if you want your courses to be officially recognised by other EC states.

I personally was involved with submitting to BSAC, the various training materials, plus the course outlines for a number of GUE courses. The reason I wanted to do this was to have GUE recognised by BSAC and not to gain any SALT equivalences.

I’m against anyone gaining a BSAC qualification without undertaking a BSAC course with the appropriate assessment. Equivalence to undergo further training is OK.

My motivation for the recognition was just to make it easier for anybody with GUE qualifications to dive within the BSAC club environment, and ensure they were covered by insurance, as well as gain general acceptance within the club environment.

Why, isn’t a GUE qualification good enough on its own.

At the time I was no longer a member of BSAC, but I had previously held a number of positions at a club, and had actively been involved in starting a BSAC club.

And what relevance is this.

Despite my best efforts and a considerable amount of time spent on the phone and on emails, GUE were stonewalled and I got to the point and so did my American colleagues where we were totally frustrated - sound familiar?

You need EC recognition.

The material was reviewed by BSAC, but they never approved GUE nor could we ever find out the reason why.

You need EC recognition.

I spent many happy years with BSAC, and I find it sad that they choose to hide behind suspect wordings, long missives, and have clearly lost the ability to communicate clearly and succinctly.

If BSAC were to ignore EC regulations then BSAC qualifications would lose their standing – no diving for those holding BSAC qualifications anywhere in the EU (including Egypt), except UK.

Regards

Edward

barrygoss

24-03-2010, 21:19

HSE have no jurisdiction over recreation diving, what you are referring to is the commercial teaching of recreational diving.

There is if you want your courses to be officially recognised by other EC states.

If BSAC were to ignore EC regulations then BSAC qualifications would lose their standing – no diving for those holding BSAC qualifications anywhere in the EU (including Egypt), except UK.

Regards

Edward

Ok,

What has my BSAC qual got to do with other EU states?? surely BSAC's CMAS equivalency solves all those problems.

And if BSAC ignore EC regulations ( and what are those exactly for a non commercial body i.e BSAC, which may have some stand alone commercial arms) what happens to me a as travelling diver turning up to a PADi run operation with a CMAS equivalency.

And actually the last time I checked my BSAC qual was never called into question or even checked by a member state of the EU, merely the dive centre which operated under PADI etc instruction.

B

Edward, Really?? do the UK government check the standing of the EU's qualification agencies?? or do they allow the HSE to do it?

Adrian Kelland

24-03-2010, 21:22

HSE have no jurisdiction over recreation diving, what you are referring to is the commercial teaching of recreational diving.

There is if you want your courses to be officially recognised by other EC states.

I’m against anyone gaining a BSAC qualification without undertaking a BSAC course with the appropriate assessment. Equivalence to undergo further training is OK.

Why, isn’t a GUE qualification good enough on its own.

And what relevance is this.

You need EC recognition.

You need EC recognition.

If BSAC were to ignore EC regulations then BSAC qualifications would lose their standing – no diving for those holding BSAC qualifications anywhere in the EU (including Egypt), except UK.

Regards

Edward Edward,

Please would you point me to the legislation that states the requirement for EC recognition. If such legislation exists, why have GUE not been prosecuted for operating without such recognition and the HSE censured for approving such operation?

Generally commercial oriented legislation enforces a higher standard of working method than usually applies in the non-commercial environment. (How many people stand of a chair at home to change a lightbulb? Not many would do it at work without some words being said.)

Yet high level BSAC seems to run scared of GUE, citing all manner of reasons why the qualifications cannot be recognised/SALTed/whatever. AFAIAC, if the organisational and qualification standards of GUE (or any other dive training body) are good enough for the HSE, they are good enough for the members of BSAC.

Adrian

Garf

24-03-2010, 21:28

then BSAC qualifications would lose their standing – no diving for those holding BSAC qualifications anywhere in the EU (including Egypt), except UK.

Ouch that sounds harsh. You should come do a GUE course, they seem to be accepted by people all around the world.

Apart from BSAC, of course.

Edward

24-03-2010, 21:35

Edward, Really?? do the UK government check the standing of the EU's qualification agencies?? or do they allow the HSE to do it?

Its not run by the UK government, but the EC.

Have a look around here (http://euf.vdst.de/). BSAC are top of the "Non-profit distributing" listing, hence your BSAC qualification is accepted throughout the EC. This was one of the activities Council commissioned when I was last on Council.

Edward

Edward

johnskerry

24-03-2010, 21:36

If BSAC were to ignore EC regulations then BSAC qualifications would lose their standing – no diving for those holding BSAC qualifications anywhere in the EU (including Egypt), except UK.

What’s the colour of the sky on planet bureaucracy? I assume in your world if BSAC continues to allow the use of M25 cylinders for Nitrox BSAC members will be banned (probably for life), from diving anywhere in the EU. By the way in my world Egypt is not in the EU.
John

Rich Walker

24-03-2010, 21:47

Its not run by the UK government, but the EC.

Have a look around here (http://euf.vdst.de/). BSAC are top of the "Non-profit distributing" listing, hence your BSAC qualification is accepted throughout the EC. This was one of the activities Council commissioned when I was last on Council.

Edward

Edward

Thanks for the link. I can't seem to find where the technical agencies are listed though.

On the BSAC website, recognised training agencies are listed.

http://www.bsac.com/page.asp?section=1605&sectionTitle=Technical+Diving+%2D+General

There are several mentioned in the pdf file "Recognised Technical Training Agencies & Courses". None of these agencies are listed on your link. I must be missing something.

Rich

barrygoss

24-03-2010, 21:53

Its not run by the UK government, but the EC.

Have a look around here (http://euf.vdst.de/). BSAC are top of the "Non-profit distributing" listing, hence your BSAC qualification is accepted throughout the EC. This was one of the activities Council commissioned when I was last on Council.

Edward

Edward

Edward,

You've sent me through to a UK registered company ( reg number 4329764) which I'm guessing is not a legislative body and therefore really shouldn't be quoted on matters of European Community / Union Policy. In fact the European Underwater Federation claims unique competency in all aspects of sport diving and recreational diver training, and would wish to be consulted and involved in all matters pertaining to our sport. Wish and a wish can never be anything but a wish.

So how can a non governmental organisation effectively control BSAC's legislative influence in the european union, never mind the real world.

B

andy kerslake

24-03-2010, 21:55

HSE have no jurisdiction over recreation diving, what you are referring to is the commercial teaching of recreational diving.

There is if you want your courses to be officially recognised by other EC states.

I’m against anyone gaining a BSAC qualification without undertaking a BSAC course with the appropriate assessment. Equivalence to undergo further training is OK.

Why, isn’t a GUE qualification good enough on its own.

And what relevance is this.

You need EC recognition.

You need EC recognition.

If BSAC were to ignore EC regulations then BSAC qualifications would lose their standing – no diving for those holding BSAC qualifications anywhere in the EU (including Egypt), except UK.

Regards

Edward

Isn't it strange that people can read into a message on a forum whatever they want.

If you want to reply to a well meant message without reading your own agenda into it at least get the facts right.

What is it you do not understand about the HSE approving recreational diving organisations. It has nothing to do with EC, or even EU. Did you personally ever get BSAC approved through the HSE - NO

So you do not know what is involved I do, and the process has not changed.

When I see a such a ill thought out response with no facts whatsoever, quoting supposed regulations which do not exist. I suggest that you just look stupid to all your peers, by all means carry on.

Andy

andy kerslake

24-03-2010, 21:57

As for the HSE approving recreational diving organisations are there any recreational diving organisations that do not train divers here in the UK.

Edward

24-03-2010, 22:38

As for the HSE approving recreational diving organisations are there any recreational diving organisations that do not train divers here in the UK.

These are the European Standards:

EN 14153-1 "Supervised Diver"

EN 14153-2 "Autonomous Diver"

EN 14153-3 "Dive Leader"

EN 14413-1 "Scuba Instructors Level 1"

EN 14413-2 "Scuba Instructors Level 2"

These are governed by the Austrian Standards Institute on behalf of the EC.

EUF is the body commissioned by the Austrian Standards Institute to audit training agencies to ensure the standard(s) are met and maintained.

Edward

barrygoss

24-03-2010, 23:07

These are the European Standards:

EN 14153-1 "Supervised Diver"

EN 14153-2 "Autonomous Diver"

EN 14153-3 "Dive Leader"

EN 14413-1 "Scuba Instructors Level 1"

EN 14413-2 "Scuba Instructors Level 2"

These are governed by the Austrian Standards Institute on behalf of the EC.

EUF is the body commissioned by the Austrian Standards Institute to audit training agencies to ensure the standard(s) are met and maintained.

Edward

Edward,

The AUS or ON is, from their own website: Austrian Standards Institute is a neutral and independent service organisation – not a federal authority or agency. As a private non-profit association (Österreichisches Normungsinstitut) it provides (since 1920) the platform for the development of norms, rules and standards.: So they govern nothing, just assess and set standards as do many agencies BS/EN/DIN/ISO all of which have no ability to set laws or grant EC recognition, that is done by conforming to any one of the "standards" agencies (CMAS would be a good place to start )

Therefore they are nothing more than an NGO or audit company in themselves. Much like the NHBC is a standards agency for housebuilders and so is Zurich. So lets assume that there was a world wide standards agency recognising the value of BSAC qualifications. Lets call it CMAS. Would it effect the value of a BSAC qualification if one independant service agency decided it wasnt going to audit the training of BSAC in Europe only??

B

andy kerslake

24-03-2010, 23:24

These are the European Standards:

EN 14153-1 "Supervised Diver"

EN 14153-2 "Autonomous Diver"

EN 14153-3 "Dive Leader"

EN 14413-1 "Scuba Instructors Level 1"

EN 14413-2 "Scuba Instructors Level 2"

These are governed by the Austrian Standards Institute on behalf of the EC.

EUF is the body commissioned by the Austrian Standards Institute to audit training agencies to ensure the standard(s) are met and maintained.

Edward

The EUF is a body that an organisation pays to join, it has absolutely nothing to do with recreational diving in the UK, specifically training, if they were of any relevance then their standards would be part of the diving ACOP, and they are not.

On the EUF website, I believe NOB that are a Dutch recreational training agency are members, does this mean they can teach in the UK - no, because even though they have met the EN standards they do not apply here in the UK, and NOB would need to meet the HSE criteria.

In fact, even if you do meet these standards the varying countries in Europe and worldwide all have different criteria/standards to enable an organisation to teach in their countries. Some just require suitable insurance, others are far more demanding. Membership of EUF does not give you the right to teach anywhere in Europe.

Currently, I am interested divers in UK clubs, not what is happening elsewhere in Europe. After all the B in BSAC does stand for British.

Andy

bythesea

24-03-2010, 23:27

Dave Whitlow

25-03-2010, 00:37

After all the B in BSAC does stand for British.

Bungee and Bungle also start with B :D

Edward

25-03-2010, 06:41

Hi Andy,

The EUF is a body that an organisation pays to join, it has absolutely nothing to do with recreational diving in the UK, specifically training, if they were of any relevance then their standards would be part of the diving ACOP, and they are not.

The same can be said about the British Standards (BS) office or the International Standards Organisation (ISO). Why do companies pay for ISO 9000:2008 (formally BS 5757) Quality Standard, because it shows their customers they have achieved a particular standard which has been independently assessed. The diver standards can be found here (https://www.astandis.at/shopV5/) and purchased, just like ISO or BS Standards.

On the EUF website, I believe NOB that are a Dutch recreational training agency are members, does this mean they can teach in the UK - no, because even though they have met the EN standards they do not apply here in the UK, and NOB would need to meet the HSE criteria.

The only time an organisation needs to meet HSE criteria (which is not a standard, but requirements e.g. surface support) is if individuals are “At Work”.

In fact, even if you do meet these standards the varying countries in Europe and worldwide all have different criteria/standards to enable an organisation to teach in their countries. Some just require suitable insurance, others are far more demanding. Membership of EUF does not give you the right to teach anywhere in Europe.

The rational behind the standard is those who hold a qualification issued by a body assessed to meet the standards can dive in other member states. As BSAC have met the standard those with BSAC qualifications can dive in, say, Greece or Turkey.

Currently, I am interested divers in UK clubs, not what is happening elsewhere in Europe. After all the B in BSAC does stand for British.

Call me a cynic, but (in my opinion) you are wanting to get your agency’s qualifications EUF accepted without paying like other agencies.

Anyway we’ve high jacked this thread enough.

Regards

Edward

Roz

25-03-2010, 07:07

Some background info on the CEN Standards.

The CEN Standards http://www.cen.eu/CEN/Sectors/TechnicalCommitteesWorkshops/CENTechnicalCommittees/Pages/Standards.aspx?param=6310&title=CEN/TC+329 were written to establish a series of specifications for safe practice and to ensure a standard level across Europe. Basically the CEN gives guidelines on the MINIMUM standard for each course.

These standards specify;

- necessary levels of experience and competency of divers and instructors
- safety practices and requirements for recreational scuba diving service providers appropriate to the different diving levels

In any case, they cannot substitute nor impose upon legal requirements, the alteration of which is outside the competence of the CEN/CENELEC members. Therefore if the member country's standards are higher than the CEN standards, they will apply. No member country can have a standard below the CEN standard. The HSE Diving at Work Regulations 1997 exceed the European Standard.

It was written by representatives of the various diving federations from several countries including the UK agencies. This was a huge process that took great diplomacy, time and effort, and the resulting standards are very useful. I've seen a set and they are written in very plain, easy to understand, simple English. I can't send you a link to a typical standard because you can only buy publications, however this might give you a flavour of what a course looks like according to CEN;

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:uqBPYggol34J:www.acuc.es/standrs.pdf+cen+standards+%2B+diving&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjnc8Vl4JKOb2wq0bjn0ncwvCx0UBVpWB0zkX3T FY6b62I8N7UXBpFw0oW4xljRKwub-bppLg0Gzy7Tj8WMP5sXNeTWLWPZlJg6Do8bSMO4vJqVrgc9rax E5jVJBXSAlpJWrRNS&sig=AHIEtbTpIuDutxi34erZRzzO33PsStC_yw

You can see it's effectively the skeleton. It's down to each individual agency or federation to put the flesh onto the bones.

BTW CEN comes from "European Committee for Standardization", but when it's written in French it becomes "Comite European de Normalisation" or CEN.

For instructors, they make fascinating reading as these standards make it really clear the minimum information you have to get across.

HTH

DarrenA

25-03-2010, 07:33

Scenario (I know, sick of 'em but hear me out)

Capers at the weekend. Sorry OD's, I am diving rocket science HL today. Go find your own buddy.

OD returns with SD and a smile.

In we go as a "four". 2 buddy pairs. Half way through the dive, OD guy runs out of air and rocks up to me (I am the most experienced on the dive so logically he finned up to moi?, dunno but here he is wide eyed and about to drown)

Can I unravel my evil snake and save him?

If I do and there is still a problem, will my BSAC 3rd party insurance now cover me from the family's law suit? I would suggest they would refer to the recent "clarification" and say "No". But maybe I am wrong, it just occurred to me to ask.

Garf

25-03-2010, 07:45

You know something that is interesting, TBH the last ten or so posts since Andy have not been. Of all the other agencies out there only one has publicly offered to work with BSAC on this issue. Others, such as SDI have seen it as an opportunity to sell the possibility of re-affiliation for clubs, who can blame them, this is how the world works, opportunities present and people take advantage.

The only agency to offer some kind of assistance could have seized on this as a marketing opportunity, this says a lot about both agencies, one has presented themselves in a polite. professional manner, the other has been plain ignorant.

See if you can work out which is which...it's like a quiz only easier

I'm hoping that the end result of all of this is that it will actually clear out some of the old anti-GUE feeling which can still clearly be seen, and bring all the agencies closer together, something the leadership clearly don't want but I suspect is actually in the best interest of everyone else. We have a lot to learn from each other.

Michael Purcell

25-03-2010, 08:39

Scenario (I know, sick of 'em but hear me out)

<SNIP>
If I do and there is still a problem, will my BSAC 3rd party insurance now cover me from the family's law suit? I would suggest they would refer to the recent "clarification" and say "No". But maybe I am wrong, it just occurred to me to ask.

It's difficult enough to get answers on real situations about whether the BSAC third-party insurance coverage will apply. Good luck finding the answer to this.

Third-party insurance (unreliable answers to coverage questions)
Magazine (never gets delivered to the Middle East ontime..though had been improving)
Training program morphing away from philosophy of inclusiveness
Poor representation of international members

I enjoyed diving with my local club as it really was "shut-up and dive" rather than strangled by BSAC rules (READ: Ignored), but as of late, and wanting to open a university branch, the rules have become more important to me.

It would be interesting to know if there is a significant decrease in membership or only a loud minority voting with their feet. I was actually hoping to re-join and initiate the club but honestly, I think that will have to wait...

Michael Purcell

25-03-2010, 08:46

Im a bit confused on the above, as on other posts on these forums it seems to have been interpreted that this means you have to have done a course.

I see it that 'BSAC recommends' that you do but cannot see where it says that it is compulsary :confused:

I think there are a portion that a sufficiently frustrated that anything ambiguous that would normally be overlooked is being taken as worst case. Given how the situation developed I think that is fair enough. Having said that I think there is also twisting of things that actually are quite clear.

But the release talks about DL being leaders and having a responsiblity/obligation to model to ODs. This statement in my estimation could cause liability issues diving in some regions if I choose to dive on a BSAC dive in a Hog-looped rig, even if I am not diving with the OD in question.

Mike Halligan

25-03-2010, 19:59

What’s the colour of the sky on planet bureaucracy? I assume in your world if BSAC continues to allow the use of M25 cylinders for Nitrox BSAC members will be banned (probably for life), from diving anywhere in the EU. By the way in my world Egypt is not in the EU.
John

I find Brussels generally grey, dark, gloomy grey.

IMHO, Edward represents to us the reality of operating in the UK department of the EU for that is where we are, an offshore island of continental Europe. Europe is said to be a big and ambitious power block where our politicians sold out long ago, which seems to put the breeze up the Yanks and to which Egypt my well have hitched her wagon in order to preserve her trade.

Ever feel you've been dumped upon? Then look no further.

Mike

Ben Panter

25-03-2010, 22:17

Of course they won't ban Air 2's, The Inspiration comes with them as standard doesn't it?

From memory the BSAC CCR course suggests that independent bailout is carried, with a standard reg on it (for you or your buddy). Certainly the majority of the drills use it instead of the autoair.

Ben

Ron MacRae

26-03-2010, 08:52

I notice again that this is a very one sided discussion. This lack of response is again causing frustration, mis-interpretation, lack of clarity, and causing this thread to degenerate into another rant.:mad:

I thought we were promised some sort of discussion?:confused:
Although before would have been better, afterwards would still be good.

It would be very usefull to know what NDC actually want to achieve. I don't see any replies to questions/clarifications people have raised from the NDO or NDC and hence assumptions have been drawn, some of which may be incorrect.? Have the NDC been instructed not to talk to us again?

This is beginning to look less like a club and more like a burocracy of us and them. Why are the NDO and NDC not talking part in this discussion?:confused:

It seems we're no further forward than last time? Talk to us!!

I get this terrible feeling of Déjà vu.:mad:

Ron.

MattS

26-03-2010, 14:23

In we go as a "four". 2 buddy pairs. Half way through the dive, OD guy runs out of air and rocks up to me (I am the most experienced on the dive so logically he finned up to moi?, dunno but here he is wide eyed and about to drown)

Can I unravel my evil snake and save him?

If I do and there is still a problem, will my BSAC 3rd party insurance now cover me from the family's law suit? I would suggest they would refer to the recent "clarification" and say "No". But maybe I am wrong, it just occurred to me to ask.Only the insurance company know the right answer. What I would add is that if they are not prepared to cover this eventuality the insurance is not fit for purpose and Council better renegotiate as a matter of urgency.

Whether the OOA diver has agreed to buddy you or not, if they approach you for an air share I would suggest that you must attempt to donate to fulfil your statutory (legal) obligation to provide a Duty of Care - That you must not endanger another by your own action or inaction. As a qualified diver you have been trained how to provide gas to the OOA and it may easily be construed as negligent not to do so. The only exception I can think of would be having a justifiable fear that assisting the OOA would compromise your own safety; a panicing diver for instance.

It would be ludicrous to think that BSAC would arrange insurance that presents members with the choice of not being covered or committing a criminal offence! In the view of the fuss they are making within the clarification, I would not put it past them at this moment in time.

While we are on Duty of Care.

By distinguishing Hog Looping/Primary Donate as being different, BSAC have provided the lawyers with a weakness to exploit. To be fair, some other body may have already established the difference, which BSAC is now having to react to. If in the scenario you outline, you had not been instructed how to use Hog Loop/Primary Donate within a course for which you received a recognised qualification, you might invite a claim that you were acting negligently by diving in that way.

Interestingly the Ocean Divers in your scenario also have a Duty of Care to you. You might argue that as qualified divers, we have all been instructed we may abandon a dive, at any time, for any or no reason and that we should do so immediately when we have any doubt toward the dive being completed safely. Declining to dive is a way that ODs should demonstrate their duty of care. Lesser experienced divers, as adults in a democratic country, are entitled to freely consent to placing themselves at risk. There are a few situations deemed as criminally dangerous, but diving in possession of a bone fide diving qualification is not one of them. A qualified OD that has been briefed that the air sharing protocol is other than they were instructed, by jumping in the water, could be argued to have consented freely to the risk it entails. This does not give you a free reign however. The Duty of Care being commensurate with your own training and experience. Basically, the more qualified and experienced you are, the more care you should demonstrate.

The Duty of Care is a (quite reasonable) statutory obligation that all adults (of sound mind) have at all times, in the UK at least. The obligation is entirely agency and circumstance agnostic. You can not side step by leaving BSAC or diving outside the branch or without your DOs knowledge or under the auspices of some other qualification. The law takes the view that you know all that you know.

To be honest, I don't think the duty of care is half as onerous as the FUD spread by BSAC would have you believe. I tend to think a lot of the worry caused to BSAC members by the Hog Loop debate, would have been avoided had NDC spent some of their three months preparation, compiling an honest and transparent explanation of it. Such requires accepting that adults, including qualified Ocean Divers, have their own freewill and are afforded the right to make their own decisions for better or worse, where their own well being is concerned. This simple concept seems rather difficult for the anal retentive's of the World to comprehend though.

I am not a lawyer, this is just my understanding, but I hope it may help you make sense of the situation.

PeteM

26-03-2010, 15:19

Sorry to pick up on a few things here Matt but you have got a few things fundamentally and importantly wrong.

Only the insurance company know the right answer. What I would add is that if they are not prepared to cover this eventuality the insurance is not fit for purpose and Council better renegotiate as a matter of urgency.

The insurance company does not know the right answer, it knows it's opinion on the right answer but the only place a "right answer" can be defined is in a law court. It is not that uncommon for an insurance company to refuse cover but to loose in court.

Whether the OOA diver has agreed to buddy you or not, if they approach you for an air share I would suggest that you must attempt to donate to fulfil your statutory (legal) obligation to provide a Duty of Care - That you must not endanger another by your own action or inaction. As a qualified diver you have been trained how to provide gas to the OOA and it may easily be construed as negligent not to do so. The only exception I can think of would be having a justifiable fear that assisting the OOA would compromise your own safety; a panicing diver for instance.

There is no statutory duty of care That you must not endanger another by your own action or inaction.. England most definitely does not have a good Samaritan law as France does.

Even in common law there is no general duty of care that is breached by inaction although you do have a duty of care not to endanger others by your actions.

In the scenario describe it could be argued that there is a specific common law duty of care as a senior dive in a group can be seen as acting as a dive leader/guide for the other.

A qualified OD that has been briefed that the air sharing protocol is other than they were instructed, by jumping in the water, could be argued to have consented freely to the risk it entails

Consent is of relatively minor importance when considering legal claims for damages for injury or death. In contract law any attempt to get out of a claim by referring to the contract is automatically unfair, in tort law it does not change any obligations or duty of care but may reduce damages if someone knowingly puts themselves in danger.

Nigel Hewitt

26-03-2010, 16:41

Mooching round on Wikipedia I find a Law Lord's decision on 'duty of care' which requires

* Harm must be a "reasonably foreseeable" result of the defendant's conduct;
* A relationship of "proximity" between the defendant and the claimant;
* It must be "fair, just and reasonable" to impose liability.

UK Judges love throwing things out because they fail the test of 'reasonable'.

Edward

26-03-2010, 17:49

Only the insurance company know the right answer. What I would add is that if they are not prepared to cover this eventuality the insurance is not fit for purpose and Council better renegotiate as a matter of urgency.

Unless we (BSAC) have radically changed the way insurance is provided since I was last on Council, the insurance provider will cover members for whatever activities Council sanction, as Council are the Directors of BSAC Ltd.

Therefore, an activity is covered if Council say it is OK. We now have a situation, from my understanding of the document, where anything not covered by the DTP or a SDC is not covered.

This is not because the insurers have said so, but Council (via the NDC sub-committee) have.

Do I fell strongly about this, you bet

Regards

Edward

Ron MacRae

26-03-2010, 17:58

Therefore, an activity is covered if Council say it is OK. We now have a situation, from my understanding of the document, where anything not covered by the DTP or a SDC is not covered.

Then we're ALL in deep doodoo.

I never did a formal course on a drysuit.
I never did a formal course on a twinset.
I just went out with a couple of then instructors and they showed me what to do.

No one ever showed me how to bungee my long hose down the side of my twinset. I worked it out for myself and practiced a few times in shallow water.

Am I now uninsured because of any/all of the above?

As a DO can I now not help others with these things because I wasn't formally trained?

We seem to have opened a rather large can of worms here!!:eek:

Ron.

Edward

26-03-2010, 18:08

Then we're ALL in deep doodoo.

No.

I never did a formal course on a drysuit.
I never did a formal course on a twinset.
I just went out with a couple of then instructors and they showed me what to do.

All elements of the DTP or a SDC so the instructors are covered. The only issue I see is how do you now prove competence. That to me is the result of this poorly worded document.

We seem to have opened a rather large can of worms here!!:eek:

Ron.

Totally agree, and I don’t see how Advanced Instructor and National Instructor qualifications can continue as these are based on “add-hoc” teaching of things not in the DTP or SDCs. I don’t blame NDC, but Council that’s where the buck stops.

Edward

Janos

26-03-2010, 18:42

Although ironically I suspect that anyone who was taught by BSAC to buddy breathe or to use an Air II is covered when it comes to Primary Donate ;)

Janos

MattS

26-03-2010, 19:04

Sorry to pick up on a few things here Matt but you have got a few things fundamentally and importantly wrong.Don't apologise Pete. I am just trying to find some clarity, please feel free to contribute what you can.

I understand that ultimately the question of whether insurance cover is valid can only settled in court, but it does beg the question, who is going to be paying for that court action if the insurance company are refusing cover?

Wikipedia seems to be a reasonable summary and has some interesting things to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care_in_English_law

The general principal laid down by Lord Aitkin and the current test that it has established are well worth reading IMHO.

From the rest of the page these extracts caught my eye.

Rescuers
It has been established at common law that those who attempt rescue are owed a duty of care by those who create dangerous situations, in which it is forseeable rescuers may intervene.
...
The duty of care owed to a rescuer is separate from that owed to those he is rescuing.
...
Equally, a duty of care may arise where an individual imperils himself, and a rescuer is injured, despite the individual clearly owing himself no duty of care.
...
Omissions
Generally, no duty of care may arise in relation to pure omissions; acts which if taken would minimise or prevent harm to another individual.[35] However, where an individual creates a dangerous situation - even if blamelessly - a duty of care may arise to protect others from being harmed.

So I guess the question I really don't know the answer to is whether Scuba diving as a pastime and freely taking the risks it entails, places us all in the special situation.

My comments toward consent were referring to a slightly infamous case a few years ago, where a drug dealer was found guilty of manslaughter for supplying a sufficient quantity of illicit drugs to cause the victim the fatal overdose he subsequently died of. The appeal court over turned the original verdict, citing as I recall, that the victim had chosen to both buy and consume the drugs. Sorry, I can't give you a reference for that case as it was some years ago.

Nigel Hewitt

26-03-2010, 19:36

Vic

26-03-2010, 19:41

The insurance company does not know the right answer, it knows it's opinion on the right answer but the only place a "right answer" can be defined is in a law court. It is not that uncommon for an insurance company to refuse cover but to loose in court.

By way of counterpoint, we should consider anyone ending up in court who is not being paid by the hour already to have lost; the best you get from court action is not to lose as heavily as if you hadn't gone to court :-(

There is no statutory duty of care That you must not endanger another by your own action or inaction.. England most definitely does not have a good Samaritan law as France does.

The position in England is actually somewhat less clear than that; although there might be no statutory Good Samaritan law, there may still be a binding duty of care. I've just been reading up on Regina v Evans in which the defendant was jailed for manslaughter. Although she was not connected with the events that caused the deceased to administer an overdose, she was considered by the court to have a duty of care once she realised that something was wrong. Her failure to act - an act of omission, not commission - was considered culpable, and she was convicted. The sentence was upheld on appeal.

There are references in the appeal judgement to other cases where failure to act has resulted in manslaughter - I haven't finished reading them yet.

Vic.

Vic

26-03-2010, 19:43

My comments toward consent were referring to a slightly infamous case a few years ago, where a drug dealer was found guilty of manslaughter for supplying a sufficient quantity of illicit drugs to cause the victim the fatal overdose he subsequently died of. The appeal court over turned the original verdict, citing as I recall, that the victim had chosen to both buy and consume the drugs. Sorry, I can't give you a reference for that case as it was some years ago.

Regina v. Kennedy?

Vic.

Mike Halligan

26-03-2010, 19:43

Although ironically I suspect that anyone who was taught by BSAC to buddy breathe or to use an Air II is covered when it comes to Primary Donate ;)

Quite. :) So, if I'm keeping up, we've had 3 months of doubt, fear, presumption and accusation which could quite possibly add up to the squareroot of damn all. :( But if it's so simple then why have I this uneasy feeling that someone's being stitched up like a kipper? :o

Complete this once-popular saying "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we ........ .. ......."

Ron MacRae

26-03-2010, 20:04

All elements of the DTP or a SDC so the instructors are covered. The only issue I see is how do you now prove competence. That to me is the result of this poorly worded document.

OK there is a Drysuit SDC, but I havn't done it. I can't see any twinset SDC or think where it is taught in the DTP. I can't see any SDC that teaches long hose use?

Based on what you said how am I still covered?

You seem to imply that just because a course exists I'm covered, even if I havn't done the course?

Ron.

Ron MacRae

26-03-2010, 20:07

This is truly a chocolate fireguard.

Seems you are right. So what's the point of the insurance then?

Ron.

Vic

26-03-2010, 20:24

Therefore, an activity is covered if Council say it is OK.

So if Council hadn't backed this preposterous attempt to ban a hose routing, we'd all have been happily insured - and now we're not. I do hope this action will eliminate those thousands of drownings we see in the Incident Reports that are attributed to hoglooping...

We now have a situation, from my understanding of the document, where anything not covered by the DTP or a SDC is not covered.

Marvelous.

BSAC is acting against the interests of its members. Whatever anyone thinks of hoglooping, all we're doing here is giving everyone imporant reasons to steer well clear of BSAC...

Vic.

johnskerry

26-03-2010, 21:17

Seems you are right. So what's the point of the insurance then?

Ron.For many years I have been of the opinion that BSACs insurance in common with most bundled products is not worth the paper it’s written on. Personally I have DAN instructor insurance.
I suspect that the BSAC insurance is gradually worth less and less as BSAC negotiate cuts in cost for reduced cover. Let’s face it, it no good for diving abroad as it does not include medical cover, which means for most members they effectively have to pay twice. My advice would be for all instructors to take out their own cover, as should branches. The big advantage would be the great and the good at HQ could not continue to bang us members over the head with the repeated insurance argument.
John

Edward

26-03-2010, 21:46

OK there is a Drysuit SDC, but I havn't done it. I can't see any twinset SDC or think where it is taught in the DTP. I can't see any SDC that teaches long hose use?

Based on what you said how am I still covered?

You seem to imply that just because a course exists I'm covered, even if I havn't done the course?

Ron.
Hi Ron,

If you read my comments again, you will see I'm saying your instructor would be covered. I didn't say you would, The onus would be on you to provide proof of your competence.

I think twins and long hoses (bungeed) are taught somewhere in the Technical courses.

Regards

Edward

Oliver T

26-03-2010, 21:59

So if Council hadn't backed this preposterous attempt to ban a hose routing, we'd all have been happily insured - and now we're not.

BSAC is acting against the interests of its members.

Vic.

HL aside, this point is the real debacle here. The outlawing of any instruction outside the DTP is not only preposterous but also a dereliction of duty.

The risks and issues it brings up are untold and are just as glibly being offerred as a solution to the problem as a chainsaw being offerred to file your nails with.

Steve Summers

26-03-2010, 22:44

HL aside, this point is the real debacle here. The outlawing of any instruction outside the DTP is not only preposterous but also a dereliction of duty.

The risks and issues it brings up are untold and are just as glibly being offerred as a solution to the problem as a chainsaw being offerred to file your nails with.

That's it in a nutshell, it's gone way beyond HL, the very fabric of the BSAC is under attack by the very people supposedly entrusted to look after it.

I still cannot believe that it took them over 3 months to come up with something so shockingly bad. I seriously doubt that the NDO/NDC have any clue what to do or realise the full implications of what they have done, and just how it will change the BSAC for the worse.

PeteM

26-03-2010, 22:46

Hi Ron,

If you read my comments again, you will see I'm saying your instructor would be covered. I didn't say you would, The onus would be on you to provide proof of your competence.

I think twins and long hoses (bungeed) are taught somewhere in the Technical courses.

I think we probably have the interesting situation where I taught people on AND courses to use twinsets so they are probably covered but because I learnt in a less formal way from mates and personal research I'm not

Woz

26-03-2010, 23:14

johnskerry

27-03-2010, 08:52

Are BSAC really saying that if you dive with a kit configuration not formally covered on a recognised course, not only are you not insured (assuming the insurance is worth anything), but more importantly that if the DO or DM allows such a dive they could be liable. That just cannot be the case, could it?
John

Ron MacRae

27-03-2010, 09:38

I think we probably have the interesting situation where I taught people on AND courses to use twinsets so they are probably covered but because I learnt in a less formal way from mates and personal research I'm not
Thanks. Exactly the point I was, poorly, trying to make.

Ron.

Ron MacRae

27-03-2010, 09:44

Twinsets are covered in the DTP in ST5.

But that's not twinset training?
That's a theory lesson about gas planning and a one liner description of what a twinset is.
Where is all the stuff about shutdowns and isolation etc?
Where is the practical?

Or do you mean that if the DTP mentions the word twinset then every BSAC member is covered by insurance regardless of training?

Ron.

Woz

27-03-2010, 22:34

But that's not twinset training?
That's a theory lesson about gas planning and a one liner description of what a twinset is.
Where is all the stuff about shutdowns and isolation etc?
Where is the practical?

Or do you mean that if the DTP mentions the word twinset then every BSAC member is covered by insurance regardless of training?

Ron.There is no practical training. You are meant to get that bit (I assume) from club mentoring. Cos it's in the DTP at SD, we can use it (otherwise it would not be in there). So it needs to be taught.

And this, dear readers, is the nub of it. NDC says we can't teach off the DTP. The whole point of AI is to teach "on the fly" and off the DTP. The DTP mentions twinsets and Air2 but NDC say we can't teach primary donate despite it being implicit in those 2 configurations.

So NDC- update the bl00dy AS FAQ and this time, don't take 3 months over it.

Oliver T

27-03-2010, 22:56

I went to the dive show today, and I had a loooong chat with our NDO Jeff Reed about all of this and more, asking for clarifications and explanations, and he was most forthcoming. He cant post on here - and nor can the other bods at the top, and frankly a lot of others up there that could just find t'interforums just too darn scary, and who can blame them?
So here, from the horses mouth, is some clarification on the clarification.

Insurance issues: The focus is entirely on 'life critical' skills.
PD is an issue, how you route a hose is not. Nor is anything that is actually covered anywhere in the DTP, drysuits for instance. An instructor who picked the skill up 10 yrs ago on his own can teach and is covered as he can demonstrate time served experience and is teaching something that is covered within the DTP somewhere. A numpty who was taught PD by his mate who had read a book yesterday is not.
The words to get serious about are LIFE and CRITICAL. Everything else is just stuff we are getting our knickers in a twist about.
So mentoring is fine, teaching people more about diving in an ad hoc way outside of formal lessons is ok. Dont sweat it. But it should be a subject that is actually in the DTP and it should be techniques that are within the DTP.
Using your primary reg to inflate a DSMB is not. Currently. It might be that it could be ok in future, but not now and not soon.

How soon could PD be part of the DTP? The guys working on the twinset course will (as soon as practicable) be working towards having a section on PD, along with options on hose routing, not so much as bsac's reccommended way but as a set of options for a diver to choose for himself. This will be the earliest point at which PD/HL could be included in the DTP. It could be elsewhere in the tech sections of the DTP at a later date, but someone would need to be write them and write them properly, with every part of the rest of the DTP taken into consideration and cross checked - do you know how long that takes, and how carefully it has to be done? 2 years minimum. Or more if need be. Many hours a week, many meetings and much consultation.

Can you PD within BSAC if you go and get taught it by GUE?
Yes.
GUE are a training agency with their own insurance (that bit is important) and they will be the ones backing you up if you are involved in a legal situation as a result of an incident involving your use of PD. Simple, not a problem. The buck would stop somewhere else, so BSAC is happy and no BSAC National Officers end up in a criminal lawsuit cos someone made a CF of their PD using non-mandated skills.

GUE being accepted as a recognised agency: There are at least 2 perceived problems.

1. All tins left is at odds with RR/LL. BSAC wants to have continuity in its training and all tins L introduces a different system so you could have two buddies using different systems and it might be a problem.
I made the point that anyone diving at this level should really be able to work in a more flexible way and should be able to learn where his buddies gasses are during a buddy check. Or if they arnt buddies, then should at least be aware of the different sytems. Jeff made the point in return that research shows that in a crisis we revert to the 1st method we were ever taught, and this could cause problems. Btw, this point is also made about PD as an OOA method in general.
It is a moot point however, as the same should be said for rebreathers.
I dont think this sank home though as I got the thousand yard look.
This research is a BIG thing for the bsac bods, and it will require work to get to a level of understanding where there can be movement on it.

2. It is thought that if BSAC accepts GUE then GUE can advertise in a way so as to poach bsac members.
I made the point that they can do this anyway - in fact, it already seems an attractive training for many of us. Does it mean we wont belong to BSAC any more? I know a DO that has Fundies already booked, but he was going to do it way before this whole thing blew up. It doesnt mean he isnt going to be an active member of BSAC though, so where's the problem there? There isnt one in fact, but there are many/most/all at the top level of BSAC who never dive outside of the club and dont see the 'outside' world of diving in practice and they perceive it as a problem.

THis last point brought us neatly to a wider point about BSAC and its future.
BSAC is worried about falling membership and understandably wants to protect what it sees as it's own. Namely us, the members, as its all about the money that we bring in. They want us doing BSAC courses, not anyone elses. There is still the feeling that we are BSAC divers.
Well here's the news: I'm not a bsac diver, I'm just a diver thats a member of bsac. Its actually of benefit to me that I dive outside BSAC, and if I train outside BSAC thats a benefit to me aswell as I become a more rounded and safer diver as a result. I become a safer buddy, and safer to be diving near as I'm aware of other systems, have a rgeater experience base and could potentially safe your life because of it.
BSAC would do well to take this on board.

BSAC would do even better by actively encouraging its members to dive outside of BSAC, and to train outside of BSAC. It happens anyway, this is after all, the real world.

How many people have done any diver training at all outside of BSAC? Loads of us, including many on the top bods.
How many of those are now still active members of BSAC?
The answer is, you guessed it, loads. Including many of the top bods.

So lets not continue to pretend that the outside world is a bad place.
Currently there is little or no mention of diving in the outside world in the DTP.
Which means that those that dive entirely inside BSAC are not well rounded divers. It means they have to make it up as they go when they find themselves diving with PADI types on holiday, or if they should (heaven forbid) book themselves on a boat at the weekend and (hush now) just go diving.

Which is insane really isnt it? Its like a car advert where there's no traffic or roadworks. It just doesnt reflect the real world that we dive in.

That was me on my own soapbox there, and at this point I was given a couple of e-mail addresses and asked to write to these guys as they're the ones that need to hear this bit..... and I will do just that.

I also said that I would make the gist of the above conversation public, an idea which was actively encouraged.

On the whole I am reassured by what I heard from Jeff, BSAC is safe in that we can teach and learn non DTP stuff without fearing the insurance implications, and there is a channel through which this can all move forwards.
In the short term it means doing Fundies if you want to PD and long term it should end up in the DTP anyway with twinset use.
I was trying to encourage the development of an SDC for the idiots that want to PD on a single and pony (me) but that is something for another day/year - and again, it would have to written - properly.
I forgot to ask if a one day course on PD from a fully agency-trained instructor would suffice. Sorry bout that. Maybe someone could ask on Sunday?

Oliver T

27-03-2010, 23:01

Woz's point above I didnt have any idea about or I'd have brought that up too.
Its a perfectly valid point.

Someone go and hook up with Jeff tommorrow and put it to him. Please?

PeteM

27-03-2010, 23:07

Sounds great - but completely meaningless unless communicated to the masses.

If they are too scare to communicate it here then we currently have two council members regularly contributing who can put the message across and two almost council members who they could get to involved as well.

In addition we have a web site, an official magazine, multiple emailing lists etc. But despite all that the NDC is still incapable of communicating with members despite the assurance to Andy Moll that questions would be answered.

Oliver T

27-03-2010, 23:14

Communication is a topic we covered as well.
I made the point very strongly that this all need communicating publicly.

Jeff admits himself that while he's a confident communicator about his area of expertise (engineering and product development) he is hamstrung slightly about getting this sort of thing accross. I suggested that he should look to use terms that a 3 yr old having a tantrum could deal with. What he needs isnt a BSAC bigwig consultant group, he needs a primary school teacher!

(not to teach him anything, just to transcribe communications)

Edit - He's already working 40+ hrs a week on BSAC stuff ontop of his fulltime job. Give the guy a break if it doesnt happen on Monday eh?

iainmsmith

28-03-2010, 08:05

I went to the dive show today, and I had a loooong chat with our NDO Jeff Reed about all of...

GUE being accepted as a recognised agency: There are at least 2 perceived problems.

1. All tins left is at odds with RR/LL. BSAC wants to have continuity in its training and all tins L introduces a different system so you could have two buddies using different systems and it might be a problem.

So what. TDI is recognised and has no defined system. One could be taught RL/LR by TDI (in theory). I was taught "all-left" on my TDI course.

> Jeff made the point in return that research shows that in a crisis we revert
> to the 1st method we were ever taught, and this could cause problems.

If we're not teaching visual identification of the tank's MOD as the primary determinant of whether we switch to it or not, we're asking for a disaster. If we are teaching this, then there is no problem.

2. It is thought that if BSAC accepts GUE then GUE can advertise in a way so as to poach bsac members.
I made the point that they can do this anyway - in fact, it already seems an attractive training for many of us. Does it mean we wont belong to BSAC any more? I know a DO that has Fundies already booked

I (was) a DO with DIR-F and subsequently Deputy DO with Tech 1. Until recently my DO was Cave 2, Tech 2 and a Tech Instructor.

There isnt one in fact, but there are many/most/all at the top level of BSAC who never dive outside of the club and dont see the 'outside' world of diving in practice and they perceive it as a problem.

And that level of ignorance about the wider diving world is quite horrific in those who make decisions about us as an organisation within that wider world, especially as they formally represent us within it!

THis last point brought us neatly to a wider point about BSAC and its future. BSAC is worried about falling membership and understandably wants to protect what it sees as it's own. Namely us, the members, as its all about the money that we bring in. They want us doing BSAC courses, not anyone elses. There is still the feeling that we are BSAC divers.
Well here's the news: I'm not a bsac diver, I'm just a diver thats a member of bsac. Its actually of benefit to me that I dive outside BSAC, and if I train outside BSAC thats a benefit to me aswell as I become a more rounded and safer diver as a result. I become a safer buddy, and safer to be diving near as I'm aware of other systems, have a rgeater experience base and could potentially safe your life because of it.
BSAC would do well to take this on board.

Quite. We're BSAC, not PADI. Our instructor training process does not involve "How to sell the next course". Our greatest strength is not our courses, it's our Branches and our ability to integrate knowledge and skills from a diverse variety of sources. From what you've said, people at the top seem to have lost sight of this.

Iain
PS - really wishing I could have got to LIDS. :(

Richard Whitcombe

28-03-2010, 08:24

1. All tins left is at odds with RR/LL. BSAC wants to have continuity in its training and all tins L introduces a different system so you could have two buddies using different systems and it might be a problem.

So what about the other recognised agencies that ALLOW all left ? TDI and so on. No different to GUE and BSAC do recognise that.

but there are many/most/all at the top level of BSAC who never dive outside of the club and dont see the 'outside' world of diving in practice and they perceive it as a problem.

That is a HUGE problem, its the case in lots of clubs as well and at the top is a big issue. BSAC has in short a very shallow gene pool. That means the people in charge of decisions lack the broader experience and knowledge needed to properly make those decisions. Never exposed to alternate methods, standards and methods and only ever doing it "our way" is not a recipe for an informed decision as to the best way to proceed.

THis last point brought us neatly to a wider point about BSAC and its future.
BSAC is worried about falling membership and understandably wants to protect what it sees as it's own.

The best way to keep and then increase membership is to be more accepting and open whereas the current rulings are going in completely the opposite direction. Previously the "anyone is welcome no matter how they dive" at least meant that it was a serious option for most people to join. Now its "you might be welcome provided you arent trained by these or dive with this gear". Its off-putting to potential new members trained elsewhere and to current members who prefer to dive in a way BSAC dont teach.
You're hardly going to get people doing more BSAC courses or BSAC technical courses while they specifically ban a system recommended and advocated by the rest of the world.

If they truly believe the last one then they're paranoid and have made a very bad decision that will have the opposite effect to what they intended.

Ben Panter

28-03-2010, 09:06

There is no practical training. You are meant to get that bit (I assume) from club mentoring. Cos it's in the DTP at SD, we can use it (otherwise it would not be in there). So it needs to be taught.

And this, dear readers, is the nub of it. NDC says we can't teach off the DTP. The whole point of AI is to teach "on the fly" and off the DTP. The DTP mentions twinsets and Air2 but NDC say we can't teach primary donate despite it being implicit in those 2 configurations.

So NDC- update the bl00dy AS FAQ and this time, don't take 3 months over it.

I think there's a subtle difference there Woz, AI teaches skills from all over the DTP and SDCs 'on the fly' rather than a set piece pre-written lesson as expected from an OWI. The novel bit is the delivery rather than the skill. Eg. boat handling is in the boat handling SDC, but you don't need to be in an SDC to teach bits of it on an everyday dive - ditto dive planning and marshalling, chartwork etc.

Ben

Steve Summers

28-03-2010, 09:17

Hi Oliver,

glad you were able to get through to him, I have no sympathy for him or the NDC at all. You cannot be the officer in charge of diving for the largest dive club in the world and be 'hamstrung in getting points across' especially when the muddled points have implications for others.

They need to step down from their ivory tower, grow some backbone and find a positive way out of this CF they have made for themselves. I would suggest one of Jeff's BSAC hours could be spent sending an e-mail to Howard Payne/Janos and stating in writing what he said to you about insurance and ad hoc lessons etc.

If he said it to you and was happy for you to repeat it then it shouldn't be too much of a problem for him?

Hopefully alot quicker than the last one.

Oliver T

28-03-2010, 12:54

'So what?' is pretty much what I said and tried to expand on.
It will take time for that message to work its way in.

Steve - not a bad idea at all.

Ron MacRae

28-03-2010, 20:16

He cant post on here - and nor can the other bods at the top,

Why not? He spoke to you, why can't he speak to us?:confused: :confused:

This is a discussion forum where people discuss things, give personal opinions and debate options? Nothing here is cast in stone or legally binding.

Or is he, and the rest of the NDC, not allowed to have a personal opinion?

We really are not using this forum properly.

Ron.

Steve Summers

28-03-2010, 20:32

We really are not using this forum properly.

We are Ron, unfortunately they are not.

northern_diver

28-03-2010, 20:55

He cant post on here - and nor can the other bods at the top, and frankly a lot of others up there that could just find t'interforums just too darn scary, and who can blame them?

Can't post here? Why not? It is the BSAC forum, they are the BSAC 'top bods', so they are actually allowed and would, i'm sure be encouraged.

Scary? It is their agency forum, if people dont like it, they dont have to keep replying, but they should feel capable in making a reply.

Can't? what, they are technically unable to? They are bound by some law? they are actually now incapable of any communication due to some disease of something?

Sounds like a dodge, to a dodgy situation.

John

Oliver T

28-03-2010, 21:29

Do you ever see anyone of the NDC posting on here?
Me neither.

Must be some reason adn I think its to do with their high office.
I'm sure someone'll be along that can explain....

GLOC

29-03-2010, 01:23

I think one of the strengths of GUE is that JJ and the senior team post quite regularily on the GUE forum and the Quest mailing list to clarify issues or expand on a problem someone may have regarding standards, drills, skills or configuration.

I am not pushing GUE per se, but showing that engagement by the leadership goes a long way to show their is understanding at the top of the problems at the bottom.

Regards

Gareth

Hickdive

29-03-2010, 07:04

Do you ever see anyone of the NDC posting on here?
Me neither.

Must be some reason adn I think its to do with their high office.
I'm sure someone'll be along that can explain....

Sean Gribben used to post when he was NDO, not often, but he did post in his official capacity.

So it isn't impossible, unless something has changed.

Janos

29-03-2010, 07:10

PeteM

29-03-2010, 07:55

It's not impossible to post, but given the degree to which posts are dissected, if I were in Jeff's shoes I'd have to think about each post very carefully, and I'm not sure that I'd have the time to do that.

Janos

That is at least partially a function of the lack of information. If an edict is issued which is not 100% clear then it is analysed because you know you are not going to get anything else for months. If information was disseminated as part of a conversation then the ambiguities would be clarified as part of that conversation.

Whilst I have no doubt that some dissection would still take place I think a lot of the hostility would be assuaged by proper two way communication rather than the current impression of people sitting in ivory towers.

Steve in Sharm

29-03-2010, 09:11

Do you ever see anyone of the NDC posting on here?
Me neither.

Must be some reason adn I think its to do with their high office.
I'm sure someone'll be along that can explain....

Yes,

Mike Rowley posts on here. He has even started the occasional thread.

Regards

Ron MacRae

29-03-2010, 11:01

Whilst I have no doubt that some dissection would still take place I think a lot of the hostility would be assuaged by proper two way communication rather than the current impression of people sitting in ivory towers.

Well said.

Ron.

Ron MacRae

29-03-2010, 11:02

Woz

29-03-2010, 11:10

I think there's a subtle difference there Woz, AI teaches skills from all over the DTP and SDCs 'on the fly' rather than a set piece pre-written lesson as expected from an OWI. The novel bit is the delivery rather than the skill. Eg. boat handling is in the boat handling SDC, but you don't need to be in an SDC to teach bits of it on an everyday dive - ditto dive planning and marshalling, chartwork etc.

BenOK so what about teaching someone how to stop a reg from hissing? Or pulling a cylinder valve apart that's leaking? Or simply fitting a drysuit hose to a first stage? All stuff that's not on the DTP or in an SDC but is shown over and over again by "experienced" people to others. Mending dry suit leaks. Stripping a BC dump valve. Stripping the throttle linkage off an outboard so you can get the thing started. Wiring a GPS unit to a VHF radio. Putting your new or dirty mask into the dishwasher to clean it. Rubbing a shoe cleaning pad on the inside of your fin so you can get them off easier. Filling your glove with water before putting it on so it slides over your hand.

Shucking scallops.

The list is endless.

Ron MacRae

29-03-2010, 11:31

We are Ron, unfortunately they are not.

You're right. I'm just trying to avoid saying us vs them as much as possible :(

Ron.

MattS

29-03-2010, 12:39

I suspect that the BSAC insurance is gradually worth less and less as BSAC negotiate cuts in cost for reduced cover.If you read the policy, you might notice the cover has been increased in recent years. As I understand, due to some expensive public liability payouts within other sports/pastimes, which the insurers also provide club policies for.

Let’s face it, it no good for diving abroad as it does not include medical cover, which means for most members they effectively have to pay twice.What BSAC cover has been really, really good for in the past, is being a member of a diving club, where you may be engaged in or organising activities that are beyond the scope of the public indemnity insurance provided by mainstream policies you might hold. For all sorts of obtuse reasons, it turns out my business insurance covers my diving activities, but the premium is quite a lot more than BSAC asks for.

The big advantage would be the great and the good at HQ could not continue to bang us members over the head with the repeated insurance argument.From what Edward said it is up to Council to decide what the policy does and does not cover. If it does not cover what can reasonably be expected to occur in a dive club, it would be unfit for purpose IMVHO.

clairev

29-03-2010, 14:56

[QUOTE=Oliver T]I...he was most forthcoming. He cant post on here - and nor can the other bods at the top, and frankly a lot of others up there that could just find t'interforums just too darn scary, and who can blame them?
So here, from the horses mouth, is some clarification on the clarification....

QUOTE]

I have lurked around the forum for a few months now, keeping track of this debate and considering my BSAC future I am a BSAC Sports Diver who is also GUE-F trained and always hogloop. I have never posted before as I have never felt the need.

However I was so incensed by the post above I had to reply. Why on earth do we have to hear a response through a Forum Member with 27 posts (sorry Oliver)? Why are the Council not allowed to post on the BSAC forum? This is insulting and disgraceful behaviour.

I know people have suggested that we do something about it or leave. Fine. I probably will leave - even though I need to be a member of BSAC to go on military diving expeditions. But I won't leave if my vote may be needed at an EGM. I won't leave on my own if the loss of one Sports Diver doesn't even register with the Council. There is quite clearly no point in writing to the Council. I know tons of people who have already written and heard nothing back in repsonse - again, utterly insulting.

So I will leave when everyone decides to leave. I will stay if people need my vote in an EGM, or some other way of getting a considered point of view through to Council. Happy to help either way.
Yours,
Claire

clairev

29-03-2010, 15:34

Steve Summers

29-03-2010, 16:03

And I know I don't know how to post yet. But be warned, I am sure it is not just a vociferous few regular posters who feel strongly about this. I am sure there are a lot more people like me who are just monitoring the various threads without having the guts to post. I didn't feel that strongly at the beginning. But it is the most horrendous way that this has been dealt with, the lack of communication, the worry about insurance, the lack of clarification, that makes me lose confidence in BSAC.

Hi Clair,

i think early on the powers that be have just consoled themselves with the fact that it was just a few vociferous pro loopers. Now though the depth of feeling and betrayal is just starting to surface from people previously on the fence as it were, and it will haunt the BSAC and this administration for years.

Websitedragon

29-03-2010, 18:12

Hi Clair,

i think early on the powers that be have just consoled themselves with the fact that it was just a few vociferous pro loopers. Now though the depth of feeling and betrayal is just starting to surface from people previously on the fence as it were, and it will haunt the BSAC and this administration for years.I wonder if they've considered how many people this affects. Within our club, we have 11 people who did the hog set up... Everyone single one of those is an instructor.

It's a reasonable debate (Hog vs not) but it's one that the communication on has been awful and I really don't think they've considered properly.

I understand the logic of not wanting PD being taught to trainee ODs, however, why they went on a full-blown attack on the hog set up, rather than setting clear guidelines on what one can and cannot do whilst wearing it, is beyond me. They're essentially demanding instructors to either change their regular diving gear, wear different kit for training, or stop teaching. Given that it tends to be instructors who are doing the most demanding diving (instructing and/or harder/deeper dives), messing with their kit, and therefore their mental training/reflexes is possibly the single most stupid thing to do.

Finally, given that all BSAC OOA procedures involve the donor donating the reg, there is no reason for the recipient to be trained for PD. Only the donor must be, in which case a SDC for PD needs to be offered (also think autoairs, not just hog) rather than kicking up this mess. It is of course a very fair point about training everyone to look for a reg from the same place but at the end of the day, use of the hog set up is only going to grow so if you're not going to accept it in BSAC then you're going to lose a LOT of instructors, and you'll continue to do so.

Garf

29-03-2010, 19:08

It's a reasonable debate (Hog vs not) but it's one that the communication on has been awful and I really don't think they've considered properly.

There was a debate?

Websitedragon

29-03-2010, 19:15

There was a debate?Don't be silly :p. I just meant that the subject is debatable.

I'm assuming they've discussed it but they clearly haven't bothered to think outside of their bubble nor consult anyone else.

johnskerry

29-03-2010, 20:46

If you read the policy, you might notice the cover has been increased in recent years. As I understand, due to some expensive public liability payouts within other sports/pastimes, which the insurers also provide club policies for.

What BSAC cover has been really, really good for in the past, is being a member of a diving club, where you may be engaged in or organising activities that are beyond the scope of the public indemnity insurance provided by mainstream policies you might hold. For all sorts of obtuse reasons, it turns out my business insurance covers my diving activities, but the premium is quite a lot more than BSAC asks for.

From what Edward said it is up to Council to decide what the policy does and does not cover. If it does not cover what can reasonably be expected to occur in a dive club, it would be unfit for purpose IMVHO.
The amount of cover is not the same as being covered, so the maximum amount to be paid out can increase while you are covered for fewer eventualities. As you rightly say it is council who negotiate with the insurer. And no doubt the cost is a reflection of the risk the insurance company feels it is liable for. However the point I would make is are the ever restrictive diving guide lines being brought in to reduce insurance cost? Why else did BSAC need to discuss the HL announcement with the insurer? This is exactly the problem with bundling insurance with membership; one size does not fit all. The reality is that sports divers are effectively subsidising the RB & Trimix diver. It would be better if the insurance only covered diving and training to sports diver level. With additional compulsory cover being paid for by individuals who wish to dive beyond that on club dives. I personal feel that the present arrangement is largely there to protect BSAC not the member, and that not how it should be.
John