View Full Version : Why is GUE not recognised by BSAC? A direct question...
Following on from the HL thread and the requirement to undertake a (BSAC) recognised course before a diver can dive hog-looped in a BSAC environment, can someone please explain to me why the GUE technical courses are not recognised by BSAC?
They are arguably some of the most comprehensive courses around and accepted by the HSE, and in addition I know that the Technical Director has forwarded the course materials to the NDC for scrutiny sometime ago (before the current HL debacle) but they have not replied.
This means that those BSAC members who have only undertaken GUE technical training cannot dive hog-loop within BSAC without undertaking another agency's recognised course. I find this incredulous.
I ask this question in public because I have an expectation that the question will remain unanswered if I send an email to the NDC.
Therefore can someone please explain why GUE technical courses are not recognised by the BSAC NDC?
Regards
Gareth are you not including Fundamentals in your question, as fundies is a recreational course and not included in the technical programme.
Good point. Why is Fundies not included in the HL qualification argument?
Regards
Nigel Hewitt
23-03-2010, 19:44
What would you like them to be regarded as 'the equivalent of'?
I have all sorts of silly cards and they mean I can go on virtually any club dive we could invent but when I wanted to do the IFC it was my old Rescue Diver card that SALTed me in. None of the others were relevant.
I'm sure that if you had Tech 2 nobody would turn you away from a 50m club dive as you are diving within your qualifications. They aren't on the list because they don't teach the same things.
Steve Walsh
23-03-2010, 19:56
the hairs on our beards short out the probes ??
sorry, i find it crazy too.
good ideas can be cherry picked from all diving agencies. thats straight from one of the best divers i ever dived with , a BSAC FCD so he knew a fair bit.
What would you like them to be regarded as 'the equivalent of'?
I haven't kept up with the whole issue, I just got bored with it. I was just waiting for an answer and to be honest one I didn't think would be resolved anyway.
For me I don't need my fundies course to be equivalent to anything as I no longer dive within a club, however it would be nice to hope that BSAC would accept the course and recognise that I have been adequately trained in the use of HL, primary donate.
As a BSAC advanced diver I am qualified to dive to 50m, a depth I haven't been to in years and not one I have ever reached in the UK, yet I could dive this tomorrow without any insurance issues but apparently I could be on a very sticky wicket if I attempted to assist an OOG diver using my current kit configuration.
Seem a little odd to me.
What would you like them to be regarded as 'the equivalent of'?
I have all sorts of silly cards and they mean I can go on virtually any club dive we could invent but when I wanted to do the IFC it was my old Rescue Diver card that SALTed me in. None of the others were relevant.
I'm sure that if you had Tech 2 nobody would turn you away from a 50m club dive as you are diving within your qualifications. They aren't on the list because they don't teach the same things.
The cross-over and SALT'ing isn't what I am on about - I understand the reasoning (sort of) behind this.
Edit: While looking at the SALT info - http://www.bsac.org/uploads/documents/Resources/SALT_May_06.pdf - just found this gem!! Now I know the mix training is being addressed through the SMG course...but the BSAC SALT document doesn't list GUE and this was dated May 2006 when GUE were recognised by the HSE. As a matter of interest, does this also apply to Nitrox as I can't see anything in the SALT?
Trimix – At this time the BSAC does not offer training courses in the use of Trimix, but recognises training offered by alternative technical diver training agencies (see box opposite). Where non-BSAC qualifications are held, and before using such specialist training on Branch dives, members must register such training with BSAC HQ. To do this they need to complete a Registration Form and send it complete with evidence of their technical training to BSAC HQ. Their details will then be recorded on a database and they will be sent an Information Pack and a Qualification Record Book sticker, which they should show to their Diving Officer.
RECOGNISED TECHNICAL TRAINING AGENCIES
Technical Diving International (TDI)
International Association of Nitrox and Technical Divers (IANTD)
International Technical Diving Association (ITDA)
American Nitrox Divers International (ANDI)
Professional Scuba Association International (PSAI)
What I am talking about is that if someone only has a GUE ticket (Fundies, Rec 1, Cave 1, Tech 1, Cave 2 or Tech 2) all of which mandate HL and primary donate but have not done any training with another agency which teaches HL, then they cannot dive within a BSAC training environment (I am not talking about going on a BSAC club dive). What about a DO who's only experience of HL is through GUE? As I understand it he cannot dive a HL configuration because he was trained through GUE, but if he trained through IANTD or TDI or DSAT then he would be able to. Why?
Regards
Gareth
i would say your chances at actually getting a reply are slim. It's very difficult to publicly defend a stance which is based on "cos we don't wanna"
The cross-over and SALT'ing isn't what I am on about - I understand the reasoning (sort of) behind this.
What I am talking about is that if someone only has a GUE ticket (Fundies, Rec 1, Cave 1, Tech 1, Cave 2 or Tech 2) all of which mandate HL and primary donate but have not done any training with another agency which teaches HL, then they cannot dive within a BSAC training environment (I am not talking about going on a BSAC club dive). What about a DO who's only experience of HL is through GUE? As I understand it he cannot dive a HL configuration because he was trained through GUE, but if he trained through IANTD or TDI or DSAT then he would be able to. Why?
Regards
Gloc
I don't think that is entirely correct. I don't see there being an issue diving on the GUE ticket. It is an accepted diving qualification, as such, it is legitimate to dive on that qualification within a branch.
The BSAC does not issue 'equivalent qualifications'. The SALT is a defining level at which the next BSAC qualification can be undertaken (with certain proviso's, i.e. completing the 'missing specific BSAC elements' like BSAC88 tables).
Not having completed fundies, or any other GUE qualifcation, (not that I am adverse to learning/experiencing something new,) I am not sure how they would match with the BSAC structure.
Part of the problem may well be that they don't 'sit well' within the BSAC DTP. Because of the significant differences in emphasis, cave as against recreational. I don't think that any of the caving agencies have a SALT level within the BSAC, although I may be wrong? Or the fact that they are technical qualifcations which be definition excludes them from the DTP.
Prehaps the best thing is to raise this direct with HQ. There are a lot of multiagency divers within the BSAC, including those holding GUE qualifications, any clarification would be of interest to all.
Gareth
I don't think that is entirely correct. I don't see there being an issue diving on the GUE ticket. It is an accepted diving qualification, as such, it is legitimate to dive on that qualification within a branch.
............
Prehaps the best thing is to raise this direct with HQ. There are a lot of multiagency divers within the BSAC, including those holding GUE qualifications, any clarification would be of interest to all.
Gareth
From the FAQ
Q: What courses do BSAC recognise as teaching Hog Looping or Primary Donate?
Since 2004, BSAC Technical has reviewed and published approved course equivalences for agencies including IANTD, TDI, DSAT, PSAI, etc. Types of courses where these techniques are typically encountered include Extended Range Diving and Trimix courses. Further courses will be added to this list after review of course syllabi.
GUE is not listed here and I would have thought that with the fact that GUE mandate HL, then they should be. Either the wording above is wrong about "which courses do BSAC recognise as teaching Hog Looping" or the equivalences bit is wrong (which I presume refers to SALT'ing).
GUE Rec 1 is the same as OW, AOW, RD and Nitrox in PADI parlance. To complete Fundies you need to have an OW ticket of some sort (PADI, SSI, BSAC). Tech 1 is allegedly the same as AN&DP due to the single deco gas and depth limit (48m) but does include normoxic trimix. The lack of equivalence for Cave classes I can understand.
Notwithstanding the SALT issue, which I am dismissing because I think it is a red-herring for the HL argument, why is GUE not listed in the agencies who teach HL?
I will be sending an email to BSAC HQ tomorrow but as I said, I am not that convinced I will get a satisfactory answer.
Regards
I emailed HQ earlier today to see where I stood on this.
I have been trained by GUE on a formal course to PD and hog loop.
I would of thought that in law I can prove formal training in the use of hog loop. I would like to know if BSAC accept this enabling my DO to sanction the dives I make within my club.
The cross-over and SALT'ing isn't what I am on about - I understand the reasoning (sort of) behind this.
Edit: While looking at the SALT info - http://www.bsac.org/uploads/documents/Resources/SALT_May_06.pdf - just found this gem!! Now I know the mix training is being addressed through the SMG course...but the BSAC SALT document doesn't list GUE and this was dated May 2006 when GUE were recognised by the HSE. As a matter of interest, does this also apply to Nitrox as I can't see anything in the SALT?
Gareth
Hi Gareth,
Your referring to an out dated SALT. The current one (Jan 2009) is here (http://www.bsac.com/core/core_picker/download.asp?id=10131), however, that doesn't change things.
Edward
Thanks Edward. I will download that for reference.
Presumably the references to mix and CCR previously contained in the 2006 SALT are somewhere else now. Where?
Regards
Thanks Edward. I will download that for reference.
Presumably the references to mix and CCR previously contained in the 2006 SALT are somewhere else now. Where?
Regards
Is this (http://www.bsac.com/core/core_picker/download.asp?id=10001&filetitle=Recognised+training+agencies+and+courses ) what your looking for?
Edward
Is this (http://www.bsac.com/core/core_picker/download.asp?id=10001&filetitle=Recognised+training+agencies+and+courses ) what your looking for?
Edward
Thanks Edward, but not quite. The 2006 SALT document had a comment about agencies whose mix qualifications (for OC) which BSAC would recognise but the document you have linked to lists just CCR although at the end it does refer to an instructor document
The BSAC document Recognition of Mixed Gas and Rebreather Experience Gained External to the BSAC - Advice to Diving Officers provides some useful background and guidance to BSAC Branch DOs for the smooth integration and even further development of such (rebreather) divers gaining experience outside the BSAC.
Does that mention OC specifically?
Regards
i would say your chances at actually getting a reply are slim. It's very difficult to publicly defend a stance which is based on "cos we don't wanna"
I'm with Garf here.
garethwoodruff
24-03-2010, 09:08
I know that there is a lot of work involved in recognising another agencies qualifications. They review the training materials etc...and make a stab about where it sits in BSAC terms.
GUE I believe is a fairly small teaching organisation in the UK.
How many active instructors in the UK does it curently have?
As you obviously have an issue GLOC, why don't you approach BSAC HQ direct with your qualifications and ask them to give you a one off crossover / equivalency and you will be sorted.
If enough people do this I'm sure they will sort out something more formal.
Alistair Reynolds at HQ is worth caliing for some advice.
Kind Regards,
gareth.
robforrest
24-03-2010, 10:00
I emailed HQ yesterday about this and I'm not holding my breath for a reply...
It's not about being SALT'ed over to an equivalent BSAC qual - just having acknowledgement that GUE courses are seen as suitable training in HL/PD and so people with those quals can dive within BSAC as they have appropriate training.....
robforrest
24-03-2010, 10:04
Alistair Reynolds at HQ is worth caliing for some advice.
Alistair retired from BSAC sometime last summer.......
Thanks Rob, exactly what I was trying to say and thought I did.
Regards
Thanks Rob, exactly what I was trying to say and thought I did.
RegardsI would have thought a simple phone call could clear this up. HQ are pretty good at answering questions like this.
But what to cross over to? If you are, say, PADI AOW and Fundies, does this cross over to continue SD or DL training? The answer, I suspect, is not that simple. What about Tech 1 or 2? They would, I suspect have a tech equivalent but no equivalent in the DTP as the GUE tech courses miss out a whole chunk that is in the BSAC DTP- you would have to do a load of catch up work to be "as good" as a BSAC diver ... :D
robforrest
24-03-2010, 10:31
I would have thought a simple phone call could clear this up. HQ are pretty good at answering questions like this.
But what to cross over to? If you are, say, PADI AOW and Fundies, does this cross over to continue SD or DL training? The answer, I suspect, is not that simple. What about Tech 1 or 2? They would, I suspect have a tech equivalent but no equivalent in the DTP as the GUE tech courses miss out a whole chunk that is in the BSAC DTP- you would have to do a load of catch up work to be "as good" as a BSAC diver ... :D
Its not about cross over though. No one is expecting to be told GUEF = BSAC xxx, GUE T1 = BSAC yyy
The recent 'clarification' said HL/PD could be used by people with "appropriate training". All we are trying to do is find out if BSAC see GUE training as appropriate to satisfy their requirement.
Anyway if we want equivalents - HSE consider all GUE courses to be equivalent to CMAS 3* - the same as BSAC Advanced :p
http://www.hse.gov.uk/diving/qualifications/approved.htm#cmasequiv
garethwoodruff
24-03-2010, 10:45
Its not about cross over though. No one is expecting to be told GUEF = BSAC xxx, GUE T1 = BSAC yyy
The recent 'clarification' said HL/PD could be used by people with "appropriate training". All we are trying to do is find out if BSAC see GUE training as appropriate to satisfy their requirement.
Anyway if we want equivalents - HSE consider all GUE courses to be equivalent to CMAS 3* - the same as BSAC Advanced :p
http://www.hse.gov.uk/diving/qualifications/approved.htm#cmasequiv
What do CMAS consider it equivalent to?
The recent 'clarification' said HL/PD could be used by people with "appropriate training". All we are trying to do is find out if BSAC see GUE training as appropriate to satisfy their requirement.Well FFS apply some common sense to it. If the HSE know about GUE then I can't see a problem with it as "appropriate training". They've had write-ups in magazines FFS so they're not exactly the Brotherhood of Underwater Monks, are they? Just cos the BSAC docs haven't caught up yet it doesn't mean to say stuff doesn't exist.
Phonecall made, referred to Jim Watson. Email sent.
As Rob and I are asking, does BSAC recognise GUE training (and only training carried out through GUE) as evidence of a qualified course for hog-looping. In addition, I have asked whether the GUE Nitrox and Trimix qualifications allow GUE divers to dive Nitrox and Trimix within a BSAC club environment without an other agency's trimix or nitrox tickets (something that was explicitly stated in the 2006 SALT document (referred to trimix but could also apply to nitrox).
Regards
Gareth
Phonecall made, referred to Jim Watson. Email sent.
As Rob and I are asking, does BSAC recognise GUE training (and only training carried out through GUE) as evidence of a qualified course for hog-looping. In addition, I have asked whether the GUE Nitrox and Trimix qualifications allow GUE divers to dive Nitrox and Trimix within a BSAC club environment without an other agency's trimix or nitrox tickets (something that was explicitly stated in the 2006 SALT document (referred to trimix but could also apply to nitrox).
Regards
GarethWell with my common sense hat on, I would say yes to all of that. You've received appropriate training. Not really sure why you needed to ask. You're diving within the limit of your existing qualifications, just like when a PADI OW diver turns up they can do 18m no-stop diving within the club. Have a look at the Dive Definitions and Safe Diving for what's what.
robforrest
24-03-2010, 10:54
Well FFS apply some common sense to it.
Oh the irony! If only some common sense had been applied a little eariler on we wouldn't be here now :)
Maybe I should have applied for a post of "Common Sense Officer" instead of a plain old Council position.
Maybe I should have applied for a post of "Common Sense Officer" instead of a plain old Council position.
What a strange and messed up situation this must be if Woz sounds like he's talking common sense. :)
I agree common sense would state that, but seeing as BSAC are being very specific with their wording, I am seeking written clarification.
Regards
Gareth
What a strange and messed up situation this must be if Woz sounds like he's talking common sense. :)Sorry. I'll try to return to the normal output of knob-gags and swearing :D
garethwoodruff
24-03-2010, 11:04
Maybe I should have applied for a post of "Common Sense Officer" instead of a plain old Council position.
Is "director of common sense" not a more attractive title :)
A company I used to work for had a position that was " head of knowledge"
As Rob and I are asking, does BSAC recognise GUE training (and only training carried out through GUE) as evidence of a qualified course for hog-looping.I am not so sure it matters what The BSAC recognise.
Your GUE qualifications are your GUE qualifications. Should you ever find yourself in court facing a charge of negligence, for the purpose of defending yourself, possessing GUE qualification is likely to be no better or worse than possessing BSAC qualifications.
Whether your BSAC insurance cover is going to pay for this defence, will depend on the circumstances of the incident. The validity of your insurance is between you, the insurers and the insurance ombudsman. It is a condition of the insurance that you dive within your qualifications and with due regard for BSAC SDPs. It is not a condition that your qualifications come from BSAC.
That is my understanding of it anyhow.
Howard Payne
24-03-2010, 12:01
I am not so sure it matters what The BSAC recognise.
Your GUE qualifications are your GUE qualifications. Should you ever find yourself in court facing a charge of negligence, for the purpose of defending yourself, possessing GUE qualification is likely to be no better or worse than possessing BSAC qualifications.
Whether your BSAC insurance cover is going to pay for this defence, will depend on the circumstances of the incident. The validity of your insurance is between you, the insurers and the insurance ombudsman. It is a condition of the insurance that you dive within your qualifications and with due regard for BSAC SDPs. It is not a condition that your qualifications come from BSAC.
That is my understanding of it anyhow.
Sounds sensible to me. I would say the onus is more on the Dive Manager to satisfy himself that when pairing up divers, they are both suitably qualified and their experience levels and equipment configs do not create any issues
Sounds sensible to me. I would say the onus is more on the Dive Manager to satisfy himself that when pairing up divers, they are both suitably qualified and their experience levels and equipment configs do not create any issuesI was just contemplating starting a new thread on that very subject.
Rich Walker
24-03-2010, 12:28
Trouble is that were the Dive Manager, on a BSAC branch dive, to "sanction" two GUE Tech 1 divers to dive as a pair, within their GUE certification limit, he would place himself outside the protection of BSAC in the event of an incident.
The same situation may arise if GUE certifications are not recognised as long hose use.
Best wishes,
Rich
Trouble is that were the Dive Manager, on a BSAC branch dive, to "sanction" two GUE Tech 1 divers to dive as a pair, within their GUE certification limit, he would place himself outside the protection of BSAC in the event of an incident.
1. How so?
2. What is this "protection that BSAC provide," you speak of?
Rich Walker
24-03-2010, 12:40
1. How so?
2. What is this "protection that BSAC provide," you speak of?
When you sign up to join a club, you agree to abide by its rules and constitution. It follows that as long as you stay within these recommendations, that the club will back your decisions in the event of anything untoward happening. Should you decide to stray outside of these recommendations, then you are effectively on your own.
When you take on a position of responsibility, such as a DM role, you become acutely aware of what your organisation recommends, supports and advises. Or you should, anyway.
BSAC recognise a list of organisations and their training. Not as equivalent, but recognises that the divers trained by those organisations have sufficient competence to undertake a dive within the bounds of that certification.
Rich
When you sign up to join a club, you agree to abide by its rules and constitution. It follows that as long as you stay within these recommendations, that the club will back your decisions in the event of anything untoward happening. Should you decide to stray outside of these recommendations, then you are effectively on your own.
When you take on a position of responsibility, such as a DM role, you become acutely aware of what your organisation recommends, supports and advises. Or you should, anyway.
BSAC recognise a list of organisations and their training. Not as equivalent, but recognises that the divers trained by those organisations have sufficient competence to undertake a dive within the bounds of that certification.
Rich
Just because you are the dive manager does not mean that you fully understand all types of diving, all qualifying agencies, & all agency recomended variations.
At some point, there is onus on the buddy pair. When you are talking about Ocean Divers or PADI OW (or equivilent) then the onus is mainly on the DM to ensure the site, & dive is appropriate (he may not be able to calculate the deco schedule for two PADI divers because he may not have this 'training' the onus here is with the 'qualifed' divers to plan as per there training.)
When dives are more advanced requiring more advanced qualifcations, then more of the onus will move to the dive pair. It is not reasonable to expect a GUE qualified DM to 'plan' or 'approve' a MOD3 CCR divers dive plan. That is why the MOD3 CCR diver is trainied & qualified with his/her agency. If you have a mixed boat of advanced divers employing advanced diving techniques the DM does not plan or authorise each dive, other than to specify the particulars of the dive, i.e depth orientation, maximum available in water time, emergency procedures etc.
It is about reasonable action. Was there a dive briefing covering risk, emergency procedures, emergency equipment, maximum diving window etc. Did the DM check that the same number of people returned as went out :). Did the divers have reasonable experience/qualfications? If so then reasonable action was take.
That my view anyway.
Gareth
Rich Walker
24-03-2010, 14:52
Just because you are the dive manager does not mean that you fully understand all types of diving, all qualifying agencies, & all agency recomended variations.
Exactly, you make my point so well. It is precisely why a club would issue recognition of credentials - in order to guide and assist the DM.
Rich
Dave Woodward
24-03-2010, 14:54
I think Jim W posted on another thread that GUE has yet to approach BSAC to have their courses recognised. So, the logical thing would be for GUE to approach BSAC with details of their courses and and ask for them to be recognised. I don't think it is unreasonable. In the same way, any one who wanted to be recognised for the new BS / En . ISO ratings had to go through the process of review / recognition.
On the question of would GUE be recognised as a provider of training for HL/PD, I would suggest that as (splitters like UTD excepted) they are the only mainstream agency that actively teaches / mandates HL/PD, so realistically they would be more appropriate than TDI/IANTD etc to be accepted as such as they would have the only specific training syllabus that includes it without exception.
But really, it is up to GUE to approach BSAC for recognition, in support of their members / customers etc. If I were in that position, I would expect no less.
Dave
Richard Whitcombe
24-03-2010, 15:02
But really, it is up to GUE to approach BSAC for recognition, in support of their members / customers etc. If I were in that position, I would expect no less.
Dave
From reading other forums it would seem they have (http://www.yorkshire-divers.com/forums/training-forum/105302-bsac-divers-using-hogarthian-rigged-twinsets-without-training-5.html#post1398105) and got nowhere.
Exactly, you make my point so well. It is precisely why a club would issue recognition of credentials - in order to guide and assist the DM.
Rich
Rich
There are far to many agencies, I don't see anything about my Israelly diving fed qualifcations, & honestly I wouldn't expect them too.
I don't expect a non CCR diver to understand my diving planning, when I was diving OC trimix, I didn't expect the DM to understand either the qualfication or what I was doing. He gave me the working parameters for diving (slack depth etc), I came up with a plan that stayed within them. The onus was on me to ensure I followed my agency training & stayed within those guidelines.
Gareth
robforrest
24-03-2010, 15:26
I don't expect a non CCR diver to understand my diving planning, when I was diving OC trimix, I didn't expect the DM to understand either the qualfication or what I was doing. He gave me the working parameters for diving (slack depth etc), I came up with a plan that stayed within them. The onus was on me to ensure I followed my agency training & stayed within those guidelines.
As I understand it as (soon to be ex-) DO the dive manager should hold qualifications suitable to marshall/manage any dive that is to be undertaken. So if CCR they should be CCR trained/qualified. Same for trimix, etc
EDIT: I've just looked at BSAC Save Diving which say:
The Dive Manager should be appropriately qualified or have an assistant who is qualified for the dive(s) to be undertaken.
The Dive Manager must know and document:-
Divers’ names and pairing
Divers’ cylinder size and contents
Divers’ planned decompression schedule
Divers’ planned decompression technique
Divers’ back up plan in case of an emergency
Dive start and finish times
For the DM to mange diving properly he (or an assistant) will therefore need to understand deco schedule/technique for trimix/CCR/etc divers.......
ChristianG
24-03-2010, 17:15
Just because you are the dive manager does not mean that you fully understand all types of diving, all qualifying agencies, & all agency recomended variations.
There, I believe, is the nub of that particular problem.
The dive manager might not have the ability, themselves, to perform that particular dive but they do have the ability to say that specific people are not, how does one put this, necessarily capable of performing the particular dive. What they, here need if required, is the ability to say no in a well-mannered way, something that I personally lack, inter alia.
Adrian Kelland
24-03-2010, 17:35
Maybe I should have applied for a post of "Common Sense Officer" instead of a plain old Council position.
That should be each council member.
Ben Panter
25-03-2010, 22:01
What I am talking about is that if someone only has a GUE ticket (Fundies, Rec 1, Cave 1, Tech 1, Cave 2 or Tech 2) all of which mandate HL and primary donate but have not done any training with another agency which teaches HL, then they cannot dive within a BSAC training environment (I am not talking about going on a BSAC club dive). What about a DO who's only experience of HL is through GUE? As I understand it he cannot dive a HL configuration because he was trained through GUE, but if he trained through IANTD or TDI or DSAT then he would be able to. Why?
Hi Gareth,
As usual, this is my interpretation of the guidance rather than an official statement, but the SALT issue is a red herring I think. While I don't think that a GUE / DIR[1] course forms the basis for entry into a BSAC training course (ie a SALT), there shouldn't be a problem with it being used to demonstrate ability to HL/PD - it's clearly a recognized agency, and HL/PD is clearly a skill taught there.
If you'd like a more formal view HQ should be able to help you.
Ben
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, and if you've been trained to Primary Donate then you can dive your chosen configuration within your BSAC branch provided you discharge your duty of care.
[1] Does such a thing ( a DIR rather than GUE course) exist?
Thanks Ben,
The SALT is a red-herring.
I did send Jim an email which he replied to and then posted a reply on the other HL thread...http://www.bsacforum.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=21959&page=13 but there are issues with this as BSAC state that they have not been approached by GUE for formal recognition of their courses to come under the recognised "technical agencies" banner, whereas there has been contact on 2 separate occasions from the head of GUE in the UK.
This matter is now being taken up officially by the GUE staff in the UK to correct the statements made and get GUE recognised as both a hog-looping training provider (!) and the mix (nitrox and trimix) qualifications recognised so that GUE trained and qualified divers can dive mix on a BSAC dive. This is as long as BSAC recognise the training carried out by GUE of course!!
Regards
Gareth
Ben Panter
25-03-2010, 22:19
Thanks Ben,
The SALT is a red-herring.
I did send Jim an email which he replied to and then posted a reply on the other HL thread...http://www.bsacforum.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=21959&page=13 but there are issues with this as BSAC state that they have not been approached by GUE for formal recognition of their courses to come under the recognised "technical agencies" banner, whereas there has been contact on 2 separate occasions from the head of GUE in the UK.
This matter is now being taken up officially by the GUE staff in the UK to correct the statements made and get GUE recognised as both a hog-looping training provider (!) and the mix (nitrox and trimix) qualifications recognised so that GUE trained and qualified divers can dive mix on a BSAC dive. This is as long as BSAC recognise the training carried out by GUE of course!!
Regards
Gareth
Hi Gareth,
Glad to hear things are moving in the right direction. Thanks for bringing this up and I look forward to seeing the result.
cheers,
Ben
Hi Gareth,
Glad to hear things are moving in the right direction. Thanks for bringing this up and I look forward to seeing the result.
cheers,
Ben
It moved in the right direction in about 2002 and definitely in 2008 but nothing happened... :(
Here's hoping, although if you look at the other thread, the comments from BSAC HQ aren't that encouraging...
Regards
Gareth
oldbutnotbold
29-03-2010, 14:17
I have to say that as an old diver who has only recently joined this forum and I might add has dived the tropics in various locations as a simple "Open water diver" class of 80 without the benefit of further training I am totally baffled by the acronyms used in this thread.Is there somewhere I can find a list of these abbreviations?Also,what on earth is hoglooped!!!!
Mark Papp
29-03-2010, 14:26
Also,what on earth is hoglooped!!!!It's the simplest, most fail-safe method of primary DV rigging to ensure that your buddy, should he or she run out of air, gets offered a breathable gas as efficiently as possible.
I am totally baffled by the acronyms used in this thread.Is there somewhere I can find a list of these abbreviations?
This page (http://bsacforum.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Diving_Abbreviations) might be a good place to start. Feel free to add anything you think is missing...
Also,what on earth is hoglooped!!!!
It's an incredibly simple regulator configuration.
You start with a backup regulator in a bungy close to your chin. A purist would tell you that you should be able to grab it with your mouth without touching it (although I'm not that fussed, TBH).
Your main regulator ("primary") is on a 7ft hose that comes from the first stage down to the right hip. where it is hooked underneath something appropriate. It then comes up across the chest, wrapping behind the neck, then into the mouth.
In the event of needing to donate gas to someone, you take the reg from your mouth (which is known to be working, and to be delivering an appropriate gas for the depth) and give it to the OOG diver. You then breathe off the backup.
The casualty now has a known-good gas supply, and has 4ft or so of hose - plenty to play with. If you need more, a quick flick frees the rest from where it is tucked at the right hip, and you've now got 7ft to play with.
Vic.
deandive
29-03-2010, 14:53
Who cares dive how you like, set up your gear how you like as long as you are safe no one will be bothered BSAC dont have a crack team of national instructors poised to debadge anyone using HL all they are saying is if you teach a bsac course follow their guidelines then dive how the hell you like so long as you demonstrate good role model behavior.:p
ChristianG
29-03-2010, 15:32
I am totally baffled by the acronyms used in this thread.Is there somewhere I can find a list of these abbreviations?
Yep, right here (http://www.bsacforum.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Diving_Abbreviations). :)
Edit/: Sorry Vic, stupid here didn't realise you'd already answered that one.
robscubaproxlt
29-03-2010, 15:35
Alistair retired from BSAC sometime last summer.......
Any one wonder why?
Who cares dive how you like, set up your gear how you like as long as you are safe no one will be bothered BSAC dont have a crack team of national instructors poised to debadge anyone using HL all they are saying is if you teach a bsac course follow their guidelines then dive how the hell you like so long as you demonstrate good role model behavior.:p
So if I go on some AD training (which I need to complete), I cannot dive HL and PD because GUE is not recognised, how does that work? I HAVE to be a member of BSAC if I am to dive in a military environment.
Outside of BSAC I WILL dive HL and PD, but I can't, at the moment, if I am diving within BSAC. In addition, I can't dive mix in a BSAC environment because BSAC don't recognise my GUE Tech 2 ticket.
That is the problem.
Regards
So if I go on some AD training (which I need to complete), I cannot dive HL and PD because GUE is not recognised, how does that work? I HAVE to be a member of BSAC if I am to dive in a military environment.
Outside of BSAC I WILL dive HL and PD, but I can't, at the moment, if I am diving within BSAC. In addition, I can't dive mix in a BSAC environment because BSAC don't recognise my GUE Tech 2 ticket.
That is the problem.
RegardsAs I understand it, the only time you can't HL and PD is during the AS skills in the DTP- have a shuftie at the FAQ.
And GUE are recognised. Put your sensible hat on and simply dive within your existing qualifications.
As an AD (and DL) you can dive deep air anyway ;)
As I understand it, the only time you can't HL and PD is during the AS skills in the DTP- have a shuftie at the FAQ.
Thanks, just had a better read however where does this sit
"b. 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 provided they meet their duty of care by fully and clearly explaining to their buddy what the particular technique entails. This should include:"
I can do the explain bit but what about the fact that GUE isn't recognised?
And GUE are recognised. Put your sensible hat on and simply dive within your existing qualifications.
When did that change? Not as of friday they weren't.
As an AD (and DL) you can dive deep air anyway ;)
Oh yes, I forgot :)
Regards
Yazzyfooty
29-03-2010, 21:34
Any one wonder why?
Yes shorter then the expected planned time. It was announced at the DO conference year before last it was down to family and work commitmments.
Thanks, just had a better read however where does this sit
"b. 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 provided they meet their duty of care by fully and clearly explaining to their buddy what the particular technique entails. This should include:"
I can do the explain bit but what about the fact that GUE isn't recognised?
When did that change? Not as of friday they weren't.
Oh yes, I forgot :)
RegardsAh well this is where the phrase "Bollox to BSAC" might well get an airing. GUE are a recognised agency and I for one as DO would be perfectly happy to let you dive within your qualifications on a club dive. I would even go as far as to stand up in court with you to defend that position.
However I would ensure the DM for the day buddies you with someone appropriately qualified or experienced to dive with your AS setup. If there were no suitable buddy available, I would hand you a hose clip and ask you to clip your long hose to your left hip D ring and breathe from your backup reg. I might even stretch to a couple of bits of bungee to pop round your left hand cylinder.
Or does that have too much of a dollop of common sense about it to work? If it sounds too sensible, I'll take 3 months thinking about it then release a 5000 word essay all about it.
Good job really as I am diving with you bunch in Shetland...however, what I am trying to prove is there is a massive inconsistency even though common sense seems to want to prevail.
Hopefully the fact that BSAC are re-considering the "recognition" of GUE will go someway to solving this problem, of not just HL/PD but also recognition of trimix and nitrox qualifications.
Regards and thank you for your forebearance...
Gareth
It's terribly arrogant of an organisation not to recognise another's qualifications although in this case I suspect it's a combination of poor communication and a few people who are, for some reason, anti GUE. It would be like going to rent a car and your licence being rejected cos you passed your test in India*
I suppose if there is no direct equivalent to SALT across from then that would cause problems but for simply going diving then I don't think there is a problem at all. Certainly not as far as I would be concerned.
And as far as the whole HL/PD thing is concerned, we need to forget about the HL part (that's just a sub-set of PD) and concentrate on the issues around PD. I can't imagine it taking any more than a week then a simple 5 lines of text ;)
* Indian driving test is drive for 500m round 2 bends then reverse 10 yards (or something like that).
Ron MacRae
30-03-2010, 11:52
And as far as the whole HL/PD thing is concerned, we need to forget about the HL part (that's just a sub-set of PD) and concentrate on the issues around PD. I can't imagine it taking any more than a week then a simple 5 lines of text ;)
1) I thought it was Primary Take that was the issue?:confused:
2) A week!! 5 lines!! You've obviously been living in a cave for the last 4-5 months.:D
Ron.
Primary take is banned and rightly so. There is a whole can o worms about PD though that is still fairly unresolved.
However I would ensure the DM for the day buddies you with someone appropriately qualified or experienced to dive with your AS setup. If there were no suitable buddy available, I would hand you a hose clip and ask you to clip your long hose to your left hip D ring and breathe from your backup reg. I might even stretch to a couple of bits of bungee to pop round your left hand cylinder.
If that happens when you and GLOC are in Shetland can I please have a photo.
Primary take is banned and rightly so. There is a whole can o worms about PD though that is still fairly unresolved.
I thought I could PD with an Ocean Diver if I bungeed my long hose but cant if I HL it?
Also I can if I use an AIR2 and one primary reg (as long as its not HL)?
I can if I use any setup actually, except HL.
Isnt that the case?
I thought I could PD with an Ocean Diver if I bungeed my long hose but cant if I HL it?
Also I can if I use an AIR2 and one primary reg (as long as its not HL)?
I can if I use any setup actually, except HL.
Isnt that the case?
From the BSAC SAFE DIVING PRACTICES
Alternate (gas) sources (Air and nitrox diving)
BSAC strongly recommends that all divers carry an Alternate (gas) Source (AS) in the event that they may need to share gas underwater.
Suitable AS include an 'Octopus Rig' (a second 2nd stage fitted to the same 1st stage of the regulator, which includes the type fitted to a direct feed). In this case divers should be aware that a first stage failure on their regulator will affect both second stages and may render them in-operative.
A more strongly recommended alternative, however, is a totally independent gas supply such as a 'Pony cylinder' (a small 2-7 litre auxiliary cylinder attached to the main cylinder with its own regulator assembly) or separate regulators attached to each cylinder of a matched pair. If a manifold is fitted to the pair of cylinders, making them into a 'twin-set', it should allow the diver the ability to isolate each cylinder / regulator assembly should a failure occur. Auxiliary cylinders having a capacity of less than 2 litres and BC mouthpieces are not considered adequate AS.
I have highlighted the interesting statement.
It appears to me that the BSAC is strongly pushing independent alternate gas sources, accepting the conventional single cylinder Octopus, & distancing itself from systems like AIR2's.
So it looks as if AIR2's are in a similar position to Hog Loop's, not recommended, & accepting that for some this is standard practice.
But I'm sure that others will interpret this differently.
Gareth
I thought I could PD with an Ocean Diver if I bungeed my long hose but cant if I HL it?
Also I can if I use an AIR2 and one primary reg (as long as its not HL)?
I can if I use any setup actually, except HL.
Isnt that the case?Tsk don't ask me. Wade through the latest spouting from NDC for more information.
ChristianG
30-03-2010, 14:01
Sorry, quite possibly a stupid comment on my part.
That is not how I read that, I've highlighted the bit in red which implies AIR2 is OK.
I think the bit you have bolded prohibits using the BC as an Alternate Air source, that was considered a viable method many years ago but (almost) everyone would no longer consider it a goer.
From the BSAC SAFE DIVING PRACTICES
Alternate (gas) sources (Air and nitrox diving)
BSAC strongly recommends that all divers carry an Alternate (gas) Source (AS) in the event that they may need to share gas underwater.
Suitable AS include an 'Octopus Rig' (a second 2nd stage fitted to the same 1st stage of the regulator, which includes the type fitted to a direct feed). In this case divers should be aware that a first stage failure on their regulator will affect both second stages and may render them in-operative.
A more strongly recommended alternative, however, is a totally independent gas supply such as a 'Pony cylinder' (a small 2-7 litre auxiliary cylinder attached to the main cylinder with its own regulator assembly) or separate regulators attached to each cylinder of a matched pair. If a manifold is fitted to the pair of cylinders, making them into a 'twin-set', it should allow the diver the ability to isolate each cylinder / regulator assembly should a failure occur. Auxiliary cylinders having a capacity of less than 2 litres and BC mouthpieces are not considered adequate AS.
I have highlighted the interesting statement.
It appears to me that the BSAC is strongly pushing independent alternate gas sources, accepting the conventional single cylinder Octopus, & distancing itself from systems like AIR2's.
So it looks as if AIR2's are in a similar position to Hog Loop's, not recommended, & accepting that for some this is standard practice.
But I'm sure that others will interpret this differently.
Gareth
That is not how I read that, I've highlighted the bit in red which implies AIR2 is OK.
I think the bit you have bolded prohibits using the BC as an Alternate Air source, that was considered a viable method many years ago but (almost) everyone would no longer consider it a goer.
Thanks Pete
Read it twice & didn't absorb that point, strange how people often read what they want or think, rather than whats said:D .
Also interesting, is the second statement!
Gareth
oldbutnotbold
30-03-2010, 14:17
Thanks for the abbreviation page.I did recognise quite a few!! I now know about GUE although I have never heard of them before.Hoglooped seems to refer to divers who are"Tech divers",Am I correct?My "Octopus "still remains in the left hand pocket for those who need it and I always tell my buddy where it is!!Although I am working in Egypt I dont get much time of but will try hard to get a weekend on the red sea!!
ChristianG
30-03-2010, 15:22
Thanks for the abbreviation page.I did recognise quite a few!! I now know about GUE although I have never heard of them before.
Would you recognise GUE as the caring, sharing DIR/Wookey Hole Cave Divers derivative? Quite possibly not but it's there FWIW.
Hoglooped seems to refer to divers who are"Tech divers",Am I correct?
Sort of, that's how it started (with DIR). Of itself it's a supremely simple way of stowing a long (considerable longer, around 2 metres, than Octopus) length hose without compromising pretty well anything and, yes, it derived from cave diving, which was the DIR main thing. Actually, so did the Octopus itself.
My "Octopus "still remains in the left hand pocket for those who need it and I always tell my buddy where it is!!Although I am working in Egypt I dont get much time of but will try hard to get a weekend on the red sea!!
According to the BSAC it should be stowed in the triangle that starts at your throat (thereabouts) and finishes at the top of your stomach (thereabaouts). I'm sure that the BSAC has a better definition than that but in the scheme of things (read, in the real world) it simply doesn't matter. Particularly when many agencies teach otherwise - which happens to be a major, a very major, point in all of this brouhaha.
ChristianG
30-03-2010, 15:35
I think the bit you have bolded prohibits using the BC as an Alternate Air source, that was considered a viable method many years ago but (almost) everyone would no longer consider it a goer.
Pete,
If I had nothing else, particularly a buddy, I would happily breathe out of (and back into) my wing if needs be. Hypercapnia and the associated headache in the front of my brain is fine, provided I'm still alive. I can "live" with that fairly temporary condition.
BTW, I do note how carefully you said that, it may not be for everyone but in that type of emergency, or rather (more often than not) stupidity, it's a viable option.
Pete,
If I had nothing else, particularly a buddy, I would happily breathe out of (and back into) my wing if needs be. Hypercapnia and the associated headache in the front of my brain is fine, provided I'm still alive. I can "live" with that fairly temporary condition.
BTW, I do note how carefully you said that, it may not be for everyone but in that type of emergency, or rather (more often than not) stupidity, it's a viable option.
It is as a last resort but would you condone it as a best or recommended practise? Would you consider it the equal to an octopus or pony? I know you wouldn't.
The Safe Diving Guidelines define the recommended diving practises within BSAC, i.e. for this bit what kit you should be carrying and planning on using. The sentence that Gareth bolded just says that planning to breath from the bag is not good enough as a first line plan.
If you read the whole section that Gareth quoted (which puts things back in context) then I don't think you would disagree with any of it
Thanks for the abbreviation page.I did recognise quite a few!! I now know about GUE although I have never heard of them before.Hoglooped seems to refer to divers who are"Tech divers",Am I correct?
There are plenty of people who HL recreationally but it does have it's roots in tech diving.
My "Octopus "still remains in the left hand pocket for those who need it and I always tell my buddy where it is!!Although I am working in Egypt I dont get much time of but will try hard to get a weekend on the red sea!!
I would expect in a real OOA situation, you will be a subject of primary take!! How long does it take to get that reg out of your pocket? Now do it when you have swum 10-15m towards you out of gas...sorry, but that isn't the brightest place to keep a spare reg which could save someone's life (unless you are happy with primary take - not that it is allowed under BSAC).
Regards
Gareth
ChristianG
30-03-2010, 17:14
It is as a last resort but would you condone it as a best or recommended practise? Would you consider it the equal to an octopus or pony? I know you wouldn't.
Actually I don't disagree at all and I very carefully qualified the circumstances where I would "breathe the bag". However, it's just one reason why that bag needs to be kept as clean as can be - a potential source of lung infection, which it is, is something I'd rather avoid if at all possible.
A healthy dose of "milton" (or similar) in a reasonable amount of (fresh) water, carefully sloshed around in a previously carefully rinsed bag (of the BCD/Wing kind), then filled up and equally carefully left alone for about 12 hours sounds good to me if you want to do your best to avoid the above scenario.
Edit/: It's just another option when all else fails.
Actually I don't disagree at all and I very carefully qualified the circumstances where I would "breathe the bag". However, it's just one reason why that bag needs to be kept as clean as can be - a potential source of lung infection, which it is, is something I'd rather avoid if at all possible.
A healthy dose of "milton" (or similar) in a reasonable amount of (fresh) water, carefully sloshed around in a previously carefully rinsed bag (of the BCD/Wing kind), then filled up and equally carefully left alone for about 12 hours sounds good to me if you want to do your best to avoid the above scenario.
Edit/: It's just another option when all else fails.Ever tried it? First thing you breathe in is an inch of water sat in the hose which chokes you to death.
So if I go on some AD training (which I need to complete), I cannot dive HL and PD because GUE is not recognised, how does that work? I HAVE to be a member of BSAC if I am to dive in a military environment.
Outside of BSAC I WILL dive HL and PD, but I can't, at the moment, if I am diving within BSAC. In addition, I can't dive mix in a BSAC environment because BSAC don't recognise my GUE Tech 2 ticket.
That is the problem.
Regards
Go rebreather. It's the answer to everything :)
Janos
Good job really as I am diving with you bunch in Shetland...however, what I am trying to prove is there is a massive inconsistency even though common sense seems to want to prevail.
Hopefully the fact that BSAC are re-considering the "recognition" of GUE will go someway to solving this problem, of not just HL/PD but also recognition of trimix and nitrox qualifications.
I think you're trying to prove something that doesn't need to be proven.
- BSAC doesn't teach PD
- So if you PD - then you should ideally have some proper training in case someone decides to sue you.
- If someone sues you, and you've been trained by a proper agency, you should be ok (you can pass the blame on to the agency). Really it's up to you whether you think your agency passes the test or not.
Now. How do we get the Brotherhood of Underwater Monks recognised as an HSE-approved agency?
Janos
Go rebreather. It's the answer to everything :)
Janos
I suppose it doesn't matter if it isn't CE marked either ;)
I suppose it doesn't matter if it isn't CE marked either ;)
Mine is. I have a felt tip pen...
Janos
Steve Summers
30-03-2010, 23:57
quite simply that GUE divers smell :)
Howard Payne
31-03-2010, 02:08
quite simply that GUE divers smell :)
I smell magnificent - like a racehorse that's just won the Derby :cool:
Mine is. I have a felt tip pen...
I didn't think Nurse Cratchett allowed you anything that sharp?
bythesea
31-03-2010, 07:55
strange how people often read what they want or think, rather than whats said:D .
Not when what they are reading is waffle of the highest order, less is more, hopefully this will be remembered in future communications
ChristianG
31-03-2010, 17:07
Not when what they are reading is waffle of the highest order, less is more, hopefully this will be remembered in future communications
Future communications? How many months do you want?
Any response from BSAC HQ on this one?
I know that all the materials were sent off to BSAC about a week ago but I am not sure where things are. It will take a little while to go through them all but I would hope that GUE in the UK would get a response soon.
Regards
I know that all the materials were sent off to BSAC about a week ago but I am not sure where things are. It will take a little while to go through them all but I would hope that GUE in the UK would get a response soon.
Regards
Is this for SALT or just hog training recognition?
Cant see any probs with hog, but reckon you could be in for a bit of a
wait and some disapointment if its SALT.
Cant see Fundies getting recognised and Tech 1 will get downgraded.
Doesnt matter if we think they are better courses overall than some
BSAC, with missing elements they wont get an equivelent. Bit like PADI
AOW not existing in BSAC SALT.
Not a pop at GUE BTW, just saying that its a tricky one.
Dave Woodward
06-04-2010, 16:02
Is this for SALT or just hog training recognition?
Cant see any probs with hog, but reckon you could be in for a bit of a
wait and some disapointment if its SALT.
Cant see Fundies getting recognised and Tech 1 will get downgraded.
Doesnt matter if we think they are better courses overall than some
BSAC, with missing elements they wont get an equivelent. Bit like PADI
AOW not existing in BSAC SALT.
Not a pop at GUE BTW, just saying that its a tricky one.
I think most would be happy enough if the Tech 1, 2 etc are recognised as valid nitrox / mixed gas qualifications for diving within a club in the same way TDI Trimix etc. is. The SALT would be a seperate and probably irrelavent issue (for now)
Dave
Is this for SALT or just hog training recognition?
Cant see any probs with hog, but reckon you could be in for a bit of a
wait and some disapointment if its SALT.
Cant see Fundies getting recognised and Tech 1 will get downgraded.
Doesnt matter if we think they are better courses overall than some
BSAC, with missing elements they wont get an equivelent. Bit like PADI
AOW not existing in BSAC SALT.
Not a pop at GUE BTW, just saying that its a tricky one.
This has never been about SALT recognition.
This is about BSAC recognising GUE as a training agency which provides HL/PD training and trimix/nitrox training. At the moment, if you have conducted all of your training through GUE and want to dive in a BSAC club environment but as GUE is not recognised by BSAC then you can't use your GUE qualifications to undertake a HL/PD dive or a trimix/nitrox dive. However, common sense would dictate otherwise.
Regards
This has never been about SALT recognition.
This is about BSAC recognising GUE as a training agency which provides HL/PD training and trimix/nitrox training. At the moment, if you have conducted all of your training through GUE and want to dive in a BSAC club environment but as GUE is not recognised by BSAC then you can't use your GUE qualifications to undertake a HL/PD dive or a trimix/nitrox dive. However, common sense would dictate otherwise.
Regards
Thanks GLOC, that's what I thought.
Which should make it a lot easier and a response just that little bit faster.
SALT recognition would have really bogged it down.
Wilbo
I understand your frustration, but I suspect it will take time to get GUE recognised by BSAC. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that this needs to be run past Council, and they don't meet that often. Remember that most of the work is done by volunteers, not paid staff. And the paid staff are swamped with work. BSAC is not really a commercial business, it's a members club. Give it till July. Three months should be enough time for a decision to be made.
ChristianG
13-04-2010, 17:14
I understand your frustration, but I suspect it will take time to get GUE recognised by BSAC. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that this needs to be run past Council, and they don't meet that often. Remember that most of the work is done by volunteers, not paid staff. And the paid staff are swamped with work. BSAC is not really a commercial business, it's a members club. Give it till July. Three months should be enough time for a decision to be made.
Three months? An "interesting" period of time in light of recent events. :rolleyes: ;) :D
Give it till July
which year?
Garf
Go on then. Give us a clue. List the GUE quals below thatshould SALT over to on the core DTP. And then list the missing lectures and lessons that the GUE diver needs to complete.
Ocean Diver
Sports Diver
Dive Leader
Advanced Diver
First Class Diver
For example- where in the GUE courses does it teach you about buoyage, chartwork and tides like in the DL course?
Go on then. Give us a clue. List the GUE quals below thatshould SALT over to on the core DTP. And then list the missing lectures and lessons that the GUE diver needs to complete.
Ocean Diver
Sports Diver
Dive Leader
Advanced Diver
First Class Diver
For example- where in the GUE courses does it teach you about buoyage, chartwork and tides like in the DL course?
Well fundies is out for a start, no rescue and that puts it at OD level, which
is a bit of a waste of time cause you need OD or PADI OW to go on fundies
anyway.
As GLOC wrote earlier, this is not and never has been about SALT recognition.
How can you compare Apples with Cherries? Both are fruit. Both are round. Both have a stem. Both make good pies. :) *Yum* Both are sometimes the same colour; red apples, red cherries, but that is stretching it a bit. And that's pretty much where the compatibility ends. The request is for BSAC to recognise GUE as a training agency which provides HL/PD training and trimix/nitrox training. The HSE recognises GUE and they have the power to prosecute. So that's the request. Simples. End of.
The current situation means that if some of your training, (Nitrox, Trimix, HL) is with GUE and you want to dive in a BSAC club environment, but as GUE is not recognised by BSAC then you can't use your GUE qualifications to undertake a HL, trimix or nitrox dive.
As TerryH said earlier SALT recognition will really bog this process down.
If you look at the SALT Table, http://www.bsac.org/uploads/documents/Resources/SALT_May_06.pdf NONE of the current recognised Technical Training Agencies are listed under Ocean Diver, Sport Diver, Dive Leader and Advanced Diver. They are listed at the end in a little box on their own under Rebreather & Trimix Qualifications. The current recognised Technical Training Agencies are;
American Nitrox Divers International (ANDI)
International Association of Nitrox and Technical Divers (IANTD)
International Technical Diving Association (ITDA)
Professional Scuba Association International (PSAI)
Technical Diving International (TDI)
Interestingly enough, SDI (Scuba Diving International), the recreational arm of TDI is not listed under Ocean Diver, Sport Diver, Dive Leader and Advanced Diver. And PADI DSAT is not listed under current recognised Technical Agencies, but that's a whole new can of worms. :eek:
As GLOC wrote earlier, this is not and never has been about SALT recognition.
How can you compare Apples with Cherries? Both are fruit. Both are round. Both have a stem. Both make good pies. :) *Yum* Both are sometimes the same colour; red apples, red cherries, but that is stretching it a bit. And that's pretty much where the compatibility ends. The request is for BSAC to recognise GUE as a training agency which provides HL/PD training and trimix/nitrox training. The HSE recognises GUE and they have the power to prosecute. So that's the request. Simples. End of.
The current situation means that if some of your training, (Nitrox, Trimix, HL) is with GUE and you want to dive in a BSAC club environment, but as GUE is not recognised by BSAC then you can't use your GUE qualifications to undertake a HL, trimix or nitrox dive.
As TerryH said earlier SALT recognition will really bog this process down.
If you look at the SALT Table, http://www.bsac.org/uploads/documents/Resources/SALT_May_06.pdf NONE of the current recognised Technical Training Agencies are listed under Ocean Diver, Sport Diver, Dive Leader and Advanced Diver. They are listed at the end in a little box on their own under Rebreather & Trimix Qualifications. The current recognised Technical Training Agencies are;
American Nitrox Divers International (ANDI)
International Association of Nitrox and Technical Divers (IANTD)
International Technical Diving Association (ITDA)
Professional Scuba Association International (PSAI)
Technical Diving International (TDI)
Interestingly enough, SDI (Scuba Diving International), the recreational arm of TDI is not listed under Ocean Diver, Sport Diver, Dive Leader and Advanced Diver. And PADI DSAT is not listed under current recognised Technical Agencies, but that's a whole new can of worms. :eek:As far as I am concerned as DO of a club, if you rock up with BSAC and club membership and a GUE qualification, then I'd be perfectly happy for you to dive within the limits of your quals with the club.
If you wanted to continue your BSAC training with the club then I would have to have a bloody good sit down and work out what you had missed. For example would you let a GUE Tech 2 lead an expedition to an unknown site? Or act as Dive Manager? Or administer O2?
It's a tricky one.
As far as I am concerned as DO of a club, if you rock up with BSAC and club membership and a GUE qualification, then I'd be perfectly happy for you to dive within the limits of your quals with the club.
Woz, sorry OT but they can dive with your club even if they are not a member of BSAC or have club membership right? Just a GUE qualification (that you are happy with) would be enough, in the same way if someone rocked up with a PADI OW cert?
Woz, sorry OT but they can dive with your club even if they are not a member of BSAC or have club membership right? Just a GUE qualification (that you are happy with) would be enough, in the same way if someone rocked up with a PADI OW cert?
Hi Darren,
Can you clarify your statement. Do you mean as a one off visiting diver or as a regular diver with a club?
Hamish
Hi Darren,
Can you clarify your statement. Do you mean as a one off visiting diver or as a regular diver with the club?
Hamish
Actually I was thinking of a one-off but now you mention it, as a regular diver with the club would also be interesting (would it make a difference?).
Many thanks
Darren
bythesea
14-04-2010, 16:35
Woz, sorry OT but they can dive with your club even if they are not a member of BSAC or have club membership right? Just a GUE qualification (that you are happy with) would be enough, in the same way if someone rocked up with a PADI OW cert?
I think you will find as DO Woz gets to decide who needs what to dive with the club....
Actually I was thinking of a one-off but now you mention it, as a regular diver with the club would also be interesting (would it make a difference?).
Many thanks
Darren
Darren,
I believe it may be down to the DO for the following reasons.
From the BOH Section 3.4.9 Visiting or Transferring Member
Before allowing a visitor or transferring member to take part in diving activities, Branch Diving Officers may wish to satisfy themselves of the visitors diving ability. Both Qualification Record Book and Diving Log Books should be inspected to determine the level of qualification and recent diving experience. Attention should also be paid to evidence of current fitness to dive (Section 3.4.8) and BSAC membership.
Notice it mentions BSAC membership. Also the Branch byelaws may restrict the number of times visiting divers may dive before having to take up branch membership.
My last branch had the policy that visitors could only attend no more than 2 trips before having to join.
Hamish
Hamish
Woz, sorry OT but they can dive with your club even if they are not a member of BSAC or have club membership right? Just a GUE qualification (that you are happy with) would be enough, in the same way if someone rocked up with a PADI OW cert?Club rules state that to dive with the club you must have:
BSAC membership
Club membership
Valid medical form
Membership of the Student Union
New members who are already qualified have to complete a check dive with a experienced member of the club. We have loads of OW and AOW divers rocking up each year, some very good, some very bad.
A simple qualification is not enough. Having GUE Tech 3 does not mean you have 3rd party insurance or are medically ok. Plus when you get club membership with NUSAC, there is also another larded on layer of insurance provided by the Student Union.
Ah ok. Thanks all. its not a BSAC thing then, its a per branch thing (although BSAC kinda nudge you in the intended direction there are not actually any "rules").
A simple qualification is not enough. Having GUE Tech 3 does not mean you have 3rd party insurance or are medically ok.
A self cert and BSAC 3rd party insurance doesnt either :p (teasing)
But I get the point. Its a fair place to start. Although I would expect most clubs would allow non-BSAC members to dive, at least for a set number of times to see if it was for them etc.
Thanks again.
On Topic I would hope GUE (and other) agencies can be aligned as appropriate as soon as possible in whatever way works. I would hope that was a priority.
Cheers
As far as I am concerned as DO of a club, if you rock up with BSAC and club membership and a GUE qualification, then I'd be perfectly happy for you to dive within the limits of your quals with the club.
If you wanted to continue your BSAC training with the club then I would have to have a bloody good sit down and work out what you had missed. For example would you let a GUE Tech 2 lead an expedition to an unknown site? Or act as Dive Manager? Or administer O2?
It's a tricky one.
Woz, I appreciate your sentiments and your openness about this, but what about DOs who have never heard of GUE, other than "are they are those DIR *******?" Not quite the response I heard when I went to do my AD training but pretty close.
Without an official policy statement to the effect that GUE are recognised providers of training covering trimix/nitrox and HL/PD, then some DOs would be within their rights to tell me to **** off.
As I have said again and again, this is not about SALT.
I have also been asked whether I am a member of BSAC as I infer from this conversation I am, I was but I will not renew until they have sorted out this HL debacle.
Regards
Actually I was thinking of a one-off but now you mention it, as a regular diver with the club would also be interesting (would it make a difference?).
Many thanks
Darren
Hi Darren,
This bit from the Insurance FAQ (http://www.bsac.com/core/core_picker/download.asp?id=13185&filetitle=Third+Party+Insurance+%2D+FAQs) defines the limits of visiting divers.
Are guests and visitors to our club covered by this policy?
Yes, guests and visitors who are in the process of joining the club and who are receiving training, or visiting certified divers diving with your branch, with a view to membership, are covered by this insurance for up to seven visits in one 30 day period during the current policy year. Once they have joined your branch and are members of BSAC they are covered like any other BSAC member.
If your club allows non-members to continue to dive outside these limits (even with their own insurance) your (and the Committee’s) cover could by invalidated.
Regards
Edward
Woz, I appreciate your sentiments and your openness about this, but what about DOs who have never heard of GUE, other than "are they are those DIR *******?" Not quite the response I heard when I went to do my AD training but pretty close.
Please keep the language down as required by the Acceptable use policy
Sorry Pete....won't happen again.
Nigel Hewitt
14-04-2010, 21:34
If your club allows non-members to continue to dive outside these limits (even with their own insurance) your (and the Committee’s) cover could by invalidated.
We all go down the beach together and we go diving.
Some are club members and some not.
50 meters out and 12 meters down something snaps and I suddenly realise that black suits are the work of the devil and it is my duty to kill everybody wearing them.
An hour later, as they finally strap me to a stretcher and stuff me in the padded van, the beach looks like somebody has been skinning baby seals.
The injured and the bereaved sue me, the committee and Telidyne.
They are third parties and I have BSAC third party insurance.
Do they get paid?
I'm not actually that bothered about black fins.
Well not yet.
Just keep me away from insurance salesmen.
Especially the one that ripped BSAC off for a policy that doesn't apparently cover anything.
We all go down the beach together and we go diving.
Some are club members and some not.
50 meters out and 12 meters down something snaps and I suddenly realise that black suits are the work of the devil and it is my duty to kill everybody wearing them.
An hour later, as they finally strap me to a stretcher and stuff me in the padded van, the beach looks like somebody has been skinning baby seals.
The injured and the bereaved sue me, the committee and Telidyne.
They are third parties and I have BSAC third party insurance.
Do they get paid?
I'm not actually that bothered about black fins.
Well not yet.
Just keep me away from insurance salesmen.
Especially the one that ripped BSAC off for a policy that doesn't apparently cover anything.
I love these staged scenarios there are so many assumptions.
If you deliberately do something the chances are no insurance company will support you.
Edward
Out of curiosity, has the BSAC 3rd party insurance ever been tested in a court and paid out? genuine question, I'm curious as some people seem to think it covers the world and some people seem to think it is worthless.
Nigel Hewitt
14-04-2010, 22:52
Out of curiosity, has the BSAC 3rd party insurance ever been tested in a court and paid out? genuine question, I'm curious as some people seem to think it covers the world and some people seem to think it is worthless.
Edward keeps telling us that it doesn't cover things but always seems horrified when we believe him.
Edward keeps telling us that it doesn't cover things but always seems horrified when we believe him.
It does provide cover, but not for kit, boats, compressors or self injury.
Its for defence for claims against individuals whom are following BSAC guidance:
Insured: Affiliated Branches of the British Sub Aqua Club
Period of Cover: 1st June 2009 to 31st May 2010
Activities: All activities recognised / authorised by the British Sub Aqua Club and declared to insurers
The Certificate is here (http://www.bsac.com/core/core_picker/download.asp?id=13187)
Nigel Hewitt
15-04-2010, 07:31
It does provide cover, but not for kit, boats, compressors or self injury.We don't have a problem with that. It's third party cover.
Its for defence for claims against individuals whom are following BSAC guidance:
It's the constant harping that if you make a mistake and step outside some guideline, which is when an incident would probably occur, that you probably aren't covered that gets me.
The last clause gives the policy away. Almost anything BSAC says as 'advice' can invalidate this cover. (Hog loop?) I'd be pretty sure that you could dig out some reason that any dive with an incident in it breached some guideline or there wouldn't have been an incident. We don't need insurance for when we do it all right but for when we get it wrong.
May I respectfully submit that the policy needs renegotiating before it is described as 'an advantage of membership'. Get rid of the woolly words. All the statements that you might not be covered for this or that reason meant that I went the extra ten quid on my kit policy for the third party stuff and that covers me for all sorts of errors other than diving in North America.
Oh I am interested in this now...
We don't need insurance for when we do it all right but for when we get it wrong.
Totally agree. It would seem the cover is only of any use if I was following "guidelines" and in an incident, someone probably wasnt. Therefore not covered.
Interestingly I had a long drawn out negotation of life cover for certain diving I do where I wanted the cover to include "all diving related activities" not just "diving within qualification" and boy, did they load the policy for that sentence (but I wanted it). But that's life cover and different.
Activities: All activities recognised / authorised by the British Sub Aqua Club and declared to insurers
Is this declared bit passed on to the clubs? Can I see it?
May I respectfully submit that the policy needs renegotiating before it is described as 'an advantage of membership'. Get rid of the woolly words. All the statements that you might not be covered for this or that reason meant that I went the extra ten quid on my kit policy for the third party stuff and that covers me for all sorts of errors other than diving in North America.
Yeah, you could have an interesting conversation where you could be being told that you couldn't dive with the club if you were not a member because of insurance. My reply might be...sorry BSAC'ers, you aint covered to dive with me or each other anyway.... so accept that and lets get wet.
btw I should add, I just wanna go diving with like minded divers. None of this agency, insurance nonsense will ever stop me. But it is interesting to know where we stand (oh and apologies for thread hijack again GUE folks. My bad)
We don't have a problem with that. It's third party cover.
It's the constant harping that if you make a mistake and step outside some guideline, which is when an incident would probably occur, that you probably aren't covered that gets me.
The last clause gives the policy away. Almost anything BSAC says as 'advice' can invalidate this cover. (Hog loop?) I'd be pretty sure that you could dig out some reason that any dive with an incident in it breached some guideline or there wouldn't have been an incident. We don't need insurance for when we do it all right but for when we get it wrong.
May I respectfully submit that the policy needs renegotiating before it is described as 'an advantage of membership'. Get rid of the woolly words. All the statements that you might not be covered for this or that reason meant that I went the extra ten quid on my kit policy for the third party stuff and that covers me for all sorts of errors other than diving in North America.
If I have any STANDARD third party insurance they'll be a clause that says
you have to comply with the rules and regulations of the agency you belong.
I can dive to 40m on my PADI ticket, but go past that and into deco (not
DSAT) and i'm on my own.
If I want to specificly dive outside of those parameters eg: expedition diving,
i'd need seperate specific insurance and a good underwriter.
So what is BSAC saying? As long as you follow rules/guidelines you'll be
fine, yep same as every other insurance I can shake a stick at.
I suppose you might have a point and it's more of a bind if a club hasnt
been to dligent in following whats prescribed, but not sure tightning up slack
procedures, because of insurance is actually a bad thing.
Interestingly I had a long drawn out negotation of life cover for certain diving I do where I wanted the cover to include "all diving related activities" not just "diving within qualification" and boy, did they load the policy for that sentence (but I wanted it). But that's life cover and different.
No it's not different, it's exactly the same.
BSAC third party covers for diving within BSAC rules & guidelines, it's that
simple. Dive outside those guidelines and chances are you* wont be insured.
90% of the time we know if we are following BSAC standards. If it's a bit
woolly, then call HQ or get seperate insurance. My house holiday policy
covers me to 30m, but I always get seperate insurance to the max of my
cert, so that if I do drop down the odd 1m, i'm still insured. If i'd relied on
my house policy and dropped down, i'd be doing so knowing i'm uninsured
and that's no different to what would happen with BSAC insurance.
Rich Walker
15-04-2010, 11:13
To bring this back to the topic, if you hold a GUE tech certification, I do not think you are "covered" whatever that means.
Look here, in "Safe Diving", the DO's reference material:
http://www.bsac.com/page.asp?section=1019§ionTitle=Safe+Diving
Page 22-23 lists the agencies that are recognised to provide training for mixed gas. GUE is not on that list. Neither are NAUI or DSAT.
This is the problem. A DO/DM that exercises "common sense" when the rules are very clear has no leg to stand on in the event of an incident and any resulting litigation.
It could all be made to go away by changing the phrase to something like:
"All divers who wish to undertake technical diving activities must have passed a training course covering the theory and skills required to use mixed gas. Divers must remain within the limits of this certification when using mixed gas."
And then deleting the agency list.
Rich
Ron MacRae
15-04-2010, 11:13
My house holiday policy
covers me to 30m, but I always get seperate insurance to the max of my
cert, so that if I do drop down the odd 1m, i'm still insured. If i'd relied on
my house policy and dropped down, i'd be doing so knowing i'm uninsured
and that's no different to what would happen with BSAC insurance.
But what happens if you go to 30+M because of an equipment failure?
Not covered?
As Nigel said you need cover for when things go wrong.
Someone described BSAC's insurance as a Chocolate teapot and as far as I'm concerned it is. Problem is most BSAC divers think they are insured. They don't realise it's so limited.
It would be much better if BSAC either
a) Took out proper insurance, even if it adds to the subs.
or
b) Gave it up and gave us a refund on subs.
Ron.
But what happens if you go to 30+M because of an equipment failure?
Not covered?
As Nigel said you need cover for when things go wrong.
As long as your kit was serviced following the manufacturers reccommendeded service intervals, then you wouldnt have a problem.
It's scuba, things go wrong and that's factored into all policies, but there
is a massive difference between an accidental breach of any rules/guidelines
because of circumstance and a calculated deliberate breach.
I was talking to a diver the other day. Newly qualified OW, he was gushing
over how great it was doing the inside of the Thistlegorm. Like to guess what
an insurance company would make of that!!!!
Woz, I appreciate your sentiments and your openness about this, but what about DOs who have never heard of GUE, other than "are they are those DIR *******?" Not quite the response I heard when I went to do my AD training but pretty close.
Without an official policy statement to the effect that GUE are recognised providers of training covering trimix/nitrox and HL/PD, then some DOs would be within their rights to tell me to **** off.
As I have said again and again, this is not about SALT.
I have also been asked whether I am a member of BSAC as I infer from this conversation I am, I was but I will not renew until they have sorted out this HL debacle.
RegardsReplace DIR **** with PADI **** and you get exactly the same problem as there used to be in alot of clubs. In our club, we openly welcome divers from any other agency. It's up to us to say whether we recognise them or not. Granted we have another layer of insurance not provided by BSAC cover (our covers boats, kit and all sorts) as diving with BSAC cover is a bit like diving with TPFT cover on your car. It's cheap, but next to useless.
To bring this back to the topic, if you hold a GUE tech certification, I do not think you are "covered" whatever that means.
Look here, in "Safe Diving", the DO's reference material:
http://www.bsac.com/page.asp?section=1019§ionTitle=Safe+Diving
Page 22-23 lists the agencies that are recognised to provide training for mixed gas. GUE is not on that list. Neither are NAUI or DSAT.
This is the problem. A DO/DM that exercises "common sense" when the rules are very clear has no leg to stand on in the event of an incident and any resulting litigation.
It could all be made to go away by changing the phrase to something like:
"All divers who wish to undertake technical diving activities must have passed a training course covering the theory and skills required to use mixed gas. Divers must remain within the limits of this certification when using mixed gas."
And then deleting the agency list.
Rich
Well ignoring the fact that no agency anywhere hands out a parity blank
cheque, that would be even worse. All you've done is put the responsibilty
for figuring out all dives/divers on the DO's head without any structure from
BSAC HQ.
All we need is a GUE included in the table of tech agencies and some idea
of parity on where the grades sit + recognition of hog teaching.
Once that's done the long term goal would be SALT, but TBH that would only
be to give DO's a guide for buddy pairs etc. I cant see many GUE guys going
back to BSAC, which would I suspect in BSAC time manngement put it on
a back burner.
Main thing though is to not confuse issues and simply get GUE on the tech
list.
Nigel Hewitt
15-04-2010, 12:04
I was talking to a diver the other day. Newly qualified OW, he was gushing over how great it was doing the inside of the Thistlegorm. Like to guess what an insurance company would make of that!!!!
We had some guy got a lot of press in the forums a few years ago got bent to bits at 40+ meters in the Red Sea and his ordinary travel insurance washed its hands of him. I confess I didn't feel very sympathetic.
However third party insurance is normally for when you mess up.
Back to GUE. The problem with listing them as a recognised provider of scuba training mystifies me. We have managed to become more sensible over the years and all we really need to do is recognise that they teach nitrox and trimix so if somebody turns up with their card we can let them join the club and come diving. Darn it GUE is the sensible end of the DIR spectrum.
Rich Walker
15-04-2010, 12:08
Well ignoring the fact that no agency anywhere hands out a parity blank
cheque, that would be even worse. All you've done is put the responsibilty
for figuring out all dives/divers on the DO's head without any structure from
BSAC HQ.
It's called trusting DO's to make a sensible decision. To allow them to utilise common sense.
But adding GUE to the list would also work.
Rich
Once that's done the long term goal would be SALT, but TBH that would only
be to give DO's a guide for buddy pairs etc. I cant see many GUE guys going
back to BSAC, which would I suspect in BSAC time manngement put it on
a back burner.
I've trained with BSAC and GUE. I never left BSAC so it's not a case of going back.
I want to continue to dive with my branch and continue to receive BSAC training. GUE is excellent for in water training but does not cover a lot of what BSAC can (O2 training, dive marshaling, boat handling etc) and does not have a club structure.
The problem with all this nonsense is that my DO does not know where he stands when I am on a club dive. Who can I dive with and are my qualifications recognised?
At club level it's not a problem, the DO recognises that GUE provides quality training but where we are within BSAC 'rules' we don't know. We now just ignore all the silliness.
BSAC does recognise Technical Training organisations for the sake of mapping parity and compatibility with BSAC Safe Diving. The current list of approved agencies can be found at www.bsac.com/technical
GUE has formally applied for BSAC recognition of the GUE Fundamentals and GUE Technical Diver I courses. The request has been acknowledged by BSAC. Dialogue is being exchanged between BSAC and GUE and reference material has been received. The documented application process, which requires a detailed gap analysis of all aspects of the training between the agencies, is underway.
Following the analysis work, a paper will then be presented to BSAC Council for their consideration and ratification.
We are currently unable to give a date as to when a decision will be made.
It's called trusting DO's to make a sensible decision.
To allow them to utilise common sense.
But adding GUE to the list would also work.
Rich
You cant trust someone with no experience of the topic to make an informed
decision. Unless the DO is exposed to GUE standards, he'd be fishing in the
dark and god help him if it went pair shaped.
At least this way the standard has been looked at, ratified and listed by HQ
BSAC does recognise Technical Training organisations for the sake of mapping parity and compatibility with BSAC Safe Diving. The current list of approved agencies can be found at www.bsac.com/technical (http://www.bsac.com/technical)
GUE has formally applied for BSAC recognition of the GUE Fundamentals and GUE Technical Diver I courses. The request has been acknowledged by BSAC. Dialogue is being exchanged between BSAC and GUE and reference material has been received. The documented application process, which requires a detailed gap analysis of all aspects of the training between the agencies, is underway.
Following the analysis work, a paper will then be presented to BSAC Council for their consideration and ratification.
We are currently unable to give a date as to when a decision will be made.*sigh* remember this?
"As far as I am concerned as DO of a club, if you rock up with BSAC and club membership and a GUE qualification, then I'd be perfectly happy for you to dive within the limits of your quals with the club.
If you wanted to continue your BSAC training with the club then I would have to have a bloody good sit down and work out what you had missed. For example would you let a GUE Tech 2 lead an expedition to an unknown site? Or act as Dive Manager? Or administer O2?
It's a tricky one."
I should be on Council or something... :)
I should be on Council or something... :)
Why dont you run then. Im guessing you would have a lot of support.
Be the man that cuts out the BS, and moves the organisation forward in a productive manner. ;)
Why dont you run then. Im guessing you would have a lot of support.
Be the man that cuts out the BS, and moves the organisation forward in a productive manner. ;)
Matt
You are a bit behind the times, Woz IS a council member.
Gareth
Matt
You are a bit behind the times, Woz IS a council member.
Gareth
Slights oops. :p
I havent followed the forums properly for a bit, just the odd post here and there, but good to know. ;)
But that does allow me to understand some his postings a little better, as now i see why they had a certain edge to them (wrong wording but i cant think of the exact word to describe a different feel to how he used to post).
Would it be wrong to say a belated congrats. :D
Adrian Kelland
15-04-2010, 20:38
Matt
You are a bit behind the times, Woz IS a council member.
Gareth
IS? I thought it was 'will be' come the AGM. Either way, a good man. ;)
IS? I thought it was 'will be' come the AGM. Either way, a good man. ;)
I stand corrected :)
Does that make Woz a council member elect?
Gareth
I stand corrected :)
Does that make Woz a council member elect?
GarethI'll be on Council from the AGM on May 22nd when the new members are appointed.
Hopefully I'll bring some business, communication and IT skills along to chuck in the pot. Have a shuftie at bsac.com for my "resume".
Hopefully I'll bring some business, communication and IT skills along to chuck in the pot.
Yay! (see bold)
Can you make the first job to remove the incorrect statements posted on the website about the HL debacle please. Communication is great, unless its wrong (as that is, HL requires stage cylinders to be on the left...etc).
Anyway, like the "resume". All sounds positive stuff. Best of luck. :)
Yay! (see bold)
Can you make the first job to remove the incorrect statements posted on the website about the HL debacle please. Communication is great, unless its wrong (as that is, HL requires stage cylinders to be on the left...etc).
Anyway, like the "resume". All sounds positive stuff. Best of luck. :)Thank you. I will also try to get the word "poo" into an official release. You might have to look carefully for it.
Thank you. I will also try to get the word "poo" into an official release. You might have to look carefully for it.
hehe, I think that has already been achieved. So no need to bother...
ChristianG
16-04-2010, 13:54
:) Thank you. I will also try to get the word "poo" into an official release. You might have to look carefully for it.
"Poor"? "Poorer"? "Poorest"? "Poorest" sounds pretty good to me.
Now I wonder what I could be thinking of. :D
Edit/: Roll on May 22. :)
Are GUE recognised yet?
This seems to be taking ages - is this the norm for BSAC? :eek:
I would say it is the norm. TBH I would not expect anything before the AGM at the end of May.
I know that Jeff has been overseas recently as has Jim. I am waiting for some other information from them and they contacted me to let me know the reason for the delay.
Regards
Are GUE recognised yet?
This seems to be taking ages - is this the norm for BSAC? :eek:
What part?
Recognition as an authorised hog educator, well that should take 5 minutes.
Recognition as an agency or technical agency and parity on SALT will take
a lot longer and even then many wont be happy with the result.
I could be wrong here, but I wouldnt be too surprised if the latter was
only just in the the outline stage end of this year.
Recognition as an authorised hog educator, well that should take 5 minutes.
Agreed, but this is a slow-tanker and there are some obvious prejudices.
Recognition as an agency or technical agency and parity on SALT will take
a lot longer and even then many wont be happy with the result.
I would hope that they recognise the GUE Nitrox and Trimix training so that GUE trained divers (with only GUE Nitrox and Trimix qualifications) can dive within a BSAC club. SALT would be too hard as there are too many things missing and TBH, that is not what GUE trained divers really want. [/QUOTE]
I could be wrong here, but I wouldnt be too surprised if the latter was
only just in the the outline stage end of this year.
I would be surprised if it was addressed at all...
Regards
I would hope that they recognise the GUE Nitrox and Trimix training so that GUE trained divers (with only GUE Nitrox and Trimix qualifications) can dive within a BSAC club. SALT would be too hard as there are too many things missing and TBH, that is not what GUE trained divers really want.
Agreed to both, but i'm not sure it will be that easy and there is also an
element of passing NDO responsibilty to sancioning DO's.
Some of the GUE courses, while exceptionally good on the skills side are
weak on Rescue. Unless there are other agency tickets such as PADI
rescue in there, would BSAC be irresponsible saying yes to GUE Nitrox/Trimix
considering the type of dives they might potentially be doing?
With some clubs having no idea of Nitrox let alone Trimix we cant get in a
situation where a Trimix cert is taken at face value and a DO assumption that
other skills are included, because it's seen to be an advanced course.
Which is why if I was BSAC looking at this I cant see how you could get
away from a SALT type comparison or at least crib sheet for DO's.
Might not be a popular view, but reckon its of sufficient concern and if all the
above rings true could delay the process.
johnkendall
29-04-2010, 17:46
Agreed to both, but i'm not sure it will be that easy and there is also an
element of passing NDO responsibilty to sancioning DO's.
Some of the GUE courses, while exceptionally good on the skills side are
weak on Rescue. Unless there are other agency tickets such as PADI
rescue in there, would BSAC be irresponsible saying yes to GUE Nitrox/Trimix
considering the type of dives they might potentially be doing?
With some clubs having no idea of Nitrox let alone Trimix we cant get in a
situation where a Trimix cert is taken at face value and a DO assumption that
other skills are included, because it's seen to be an advanced course.
Which is why if I was BSAC looking at this I cant see how you could get
away from a SALT type comparison or at least crib sheet for DO's.
Might not be a popular view, but reckon its of sufficient concern and if all the
above rings true could delay the process.
Hi Terry,
There is more rescue in the GUE Nitrox/Trimix classes than there is in other Agency Nitrox or Trimix classes. However no-one has asked for SALT equivilent for GUE. Simply acknowledgement that GUE provide Nitrox and Trimix training. In the same way that TDI and IANTD are recognised but not SALT'ed.
HTH
John
Hi Terry,
There is more rescue in the GUE Nitrox/Trimix classes than there is in other Agency Nitrox or Trimix classes. However no-one has asked for SALT equivilent for GUE. Simply acknowledgement that GUE provide Nitrox and Trimix training. In the same way that TDI and IANTD are recognised but not SALT'ed.
HTH
John
I wouldnt say there was more rescue than ALL other agency courses, after
all fundies gives you a nitrox ticket and cant see much rescue in that.
The point I was making (without trying to start a ruck), is that while the
other agency courses are seen as stand alone entities that often run
parrallel to existing qualifications (eg: DL with TDI Trimix), GUE is seen as
a combined effort of both dive and technical qualfication.
So the assumption might be that eg: a GUE fundies with a Nitrox ticket has
done at the very least the same rescue/first aid etc. as say a BSAC Sport
diver and we both know that's simply not true.
All i'm saying is that the above might or might not be a factor in any delay.
johnkendall
29-04-2010, 19:10
I wouldnt say there was more rescue than ALL other agency courses, after
all fundies gives you a nitrox ticket and cant see much rescue in that.
The point I was making (without trying to start a ruck), is that while the
other agency courses are seen as stand alone entities that often run
parrallel to existing qualifications (eg: DL with TDI Trimix), GUE is seen as
a combined effort of both dive and technical qualfication.
So the assumption might be that eg: a GUE fundies with a Nitrox ticket has
done at the very least the same rescue/first aid etc. as say a BSAC Sport
diver and we both know that's simply not true.
All i'm saying is that the above might or might not be a factor in any delay.
An SD with Fundies is an SD with a nitrox cert. A DL with Tech1 is a DL with a Trimix cert.
Fundies does have some Rescue in it.
Tech1 does have some Rescue in it.
Both of these have more rescue than say PADI Nitrox, or TDI Trimix.
HTH
John
Rather than wade through this long thread, i was wondering if someone could clarify exactly what GUE wants.
I was under the impression that they wanted their courses to be recognised as an equivalent to similar BSAC courses. So presumably Fundies would be counted as a Nitrox course. Tech 1 as a rough equiv to SMG, Tech 2 roughly equiv to Explorer SMG.
A lot of the divers that go down the GUE route seem to already have qualifications from other agencies, so i dont see what the problem is.
If it relates to the recreational courses GUE runs, then i dont know, i havent really looked heavily at them.
But the impression i got it was more to do with having the mixed gas tickets seen as equivalent to BSAC offerings (and presumably being allowed to HL).
About 2 pages in to this thread, this is what is requested.
BSAC recognise GUE as a training agency at both recreational and technical level.
BSAC recognise the Nitrox courses taught by GUE to allow GUE trained divers (those with only GUE Nitrox certs) to dive within a BSAC environment.
BSAC recognise the Trimix courses taught by GUE; as above.
BSAC recognises the Hog Loop training taught by GUE; as above.
As BSAC do not currently recognise GUE as a training agency (even though the HSE does), those divers with only GUE training, and there are more and more of them, cannot legally (in the eyes of BSAC) dive within a BSAC environment.
The SALT thing keeps on getting brought up and that isn't what is being asked for.
I personally don't have a mix ticket.
I hope that makes it clear.
Regards
Thanks that clarifies it a bit. :)
I actually dont see the reason why points 2,3,4 arent easily sorted out, ie, Nitrox, Trimix and Hog Loop. Its nothing all that different to having a TDI/IANTD/etc ticket for that type of diving. From a quick glimpse at the GUE website the requirements are pretty much the same as everyone else.
I suspect point 1 is something that would require some time to sort out, and i guess it will be sorted out at some point. But considering the last couple of fiascos it may take a while.
bythesea
29-04-2010, 19:59
Here is a thought..
Why doesn't GUE recognise BSAC
Why would a BSAC advanced diver who dives a hogarthian set up with nitrox and trimix quals have to do fundies before they could do Tech1?
I am, of course, presuming they would have to do fundies I don't know for sure, hence asking.
Do GUE recognise and quals from other agencies or does everyone have to do fundies before moving on to the tech or cave courses?
Paul,
There are lots of threads on this already so I am not going to go into this in too much detail.
If you pitch up with a Nitrox ticket on Fundies from pretty much any agency, you can dive Nitrox, it is recognised.
There is a mechanism to prove to an Instructor that you don't need to undergo Fundies before attending any further training class, but I am not aware of anyone passing. This isn't because of one thing, it is because the whole trainig is holistic and that skills, knowledge and procedures all work together.
There have been many people who pitch up for Fundies with Adv Trimix Tickets from all sorts of agencies and get a fail, rec pass or a tech pass. The meaning of a Tech pass is that you could start a Tech 1/Cave 1 class the following day and you would have the building blocks to undertake that course. If you don't have those skills, procedures and knowledge, you will be spending the first part of that second course, learning the basics from the Fundamentals course and paying for the privilege (and then coming back to finish the second level course because you ran out of time...)
What you are referring to Paul is SALT and that isn't what this is about.
Regards
bythesea
29-04-2010, 20:19
Thanks Gareth, it was a question that just occurred to me while reading this thread, thanks for the prompt reply...
An SD with Fundies is an SD with a nitrox cert. A DL with Tech1 is a DL with a Trimix cert.
That's kind of the problem John, you are asking DO's, many with no knowledge
of GUE to know the difference between Fundies & Fundies and Tech1 &
Tech1 ;)
I know SALT is seen as a side issue, but it's an absolute fact (yep sorry,
but it is) that DO's use SALT not just as a further education system, but
also to see where any new diver fits in with existing BSAC grades.
Fundies have some Rescue in it.
Tech1 does have some Rescue in it.
Both of these have more rescue than say PADI Nitrox, or TDI Trimix.
Hmm kinda the problem again. PADI Nitrox & TDI Trimix are seen as gas
courses, GUE fundies and Tech1 are seen as diving courses, well they are
by many in BSAC and i'd take a pretty good guess thats true by many in
GUE as well.
I can see a fair few DO's having eppys that GUE Trimix divers might only
have "some rescue" .
I keep saying it, because it seems the sensitivity knob seems to be turned
up high that this is not a pop at GUE, just an observation that even if GUE
is ratified for Nitrox and Trimix I would expect BSAC would at the very least
need an A4 crib sheet for DO's to explain any anomilies and that might, delay
the process just a tad.
Apologies if that appeared harsh Paul, I just get bored explaining the same thing...
Regards
I can see a fair few DO's having eppys that GUE Trimix divers might only
have "some rescue" .
What rescue requirements do you need to have to undertake a BSAC Trimix Course? As far as I can see from the pre-course requisites for SMG OC, you only need to have SD with a 35m certification?
Lifting is covered in Fundies and Tech 1.
Again not having a go Terry, but I don't see the difference in rescue requirements between a Tech 1 diver and a SD with a SMG OC ticket. How many lifts do you do with twinsets and stages as part of the BSAC SMG?
Regards
bythesea
29-04-2010, 20:35
Apologies if that appeared harsh Paul, I just get bored explaining the same thing...
Regards
No worries, I have a thick hide, it matches my thick head ;)
iainmsmith
29-04-2010, 20:57
Here is a thought..
Why doesn't GUE recognise BSAC
Why would a BSAC advanced diver who dives a hogarthian set up with nitrox and trimix quals have to do fundies before they could do Tech1?
Because BSAC AD + Nitrox + Trimix cannot assume they have anything close to the skill level for Tech 1.
I was that BSAC AD/OWI/NXI + TDI Trimix on Fundies and I'm very glad I had to do it that way. When I did it, DIR-F (as was) was pass/fail, not Tech/Rec/Provisional/Fail. I honestly don't know if I would have got a Tech pass back then.
Do GUE recognise and quals from other agencies or does everyone have to do fundies before moving on to the tech or cave courses?
There is a mechanism for being assessed as being of a suitable standard to skip levels. It will involve in-water assessment. Having the paper tickets for BSAC AD+Nx+Tx might get you in the water for that assessment, but I wouldn't assume that it would get you a pass.
Iain
What rescue requirements do you need to have to undertake a BSAC Trimix Course? As far as I can see from the pre-course requisites for SMG OC, you only need to have SD with a 35m certification?
Lifting is covered in Fundies and Tech 1.
Again not having a go Terry, but I don't see the difference in rescue requirements between a Tech 1 diver and a SD with a SMG OC ticket. How many lifts do you do with twinsets and stages as part of the BSAC SMG?
Regards
Sport Diver Rescue will include AS, CBL, make buoyant, RB, tow, Dekit, RB/CP,
bit of PRM and then recovery position. It's done in theory, a practical session
with an Annie, a very long pool session (normally 2 or even 3) and then a
days rescue training with the full sequence.
None of that lot is in fundies and not sure if as much as the day+ in Sport
is spent on Tech1 covering the same.
Bottom line IMO is that a DO faced with a PADI Rescue/TDI nitrox might
look on a Fundies/Nitrox in a different light and we can just guess the
threads about "BSAC club wouldnt let me dive" on DirX that will start :rolleyes:
Thats the trouble with going ligit. You might get your name on a BSAC
form, but it could actually stir up more trouble than it prevents.
BTW GUE divers are always welcome on our boats :D
Well apart from Howard, but he smells
johnkendall
30-04-2010, 06:58
Sport Diver Rescue will include AS, CBL, make buoyant, RB, tow, Dekit, RB/CP,
bit of PRM and then recovery position. It's done in theory, a practical session
with an Annie, a very long pool session (normally 2 or even 3) and then a
days rescue training with the full sequence.
None of that lot is in fundies and not sure if as much as the day+ in Sport
is spent on Tech1 covering the same.
Bottom line IMO is that a DO faced with a PADI Rescue/TDI nitrox might
look on a Fundies/Nitrox in a different light and we can just guess the
threads about "BSAC club wouldnt let me dive" on DirX that will start :rolleyes:
Thats the trouble with going ligit. You might get your name on a BSAC
form, but it could actually stir up more trouble than it prevents.
BTW GUE divers are always welcome on our boats :D
Well apart from Howard, but he smells
Terry,
Fundies is GUE's nitrox class. The only thing that it allows someone to do after the class that they couldn't do before is use Nitrox.
Therefore your PADI Rescue/TDI Nitrox could just as well be PADI Rescue/GUE Fundamentals. If they were an AOW/Fundies then you can treat them as AOW+Nitrox.
If they come into the class with an 18m limit, then they leave with the same limit.
They do get a lot of training however during the fundies class, and so will have improved buoyancy, trim, team awareness, as well as Gas Sharing, Valve drills, Rescue lifts.
I think that trying to look at SALT is muddying the water, it would be very hard to SALT any of GUE's qualifications to BSAC ones and so there is not much point in trying, however recognising that GUE Teach Nitrox and Trimix would be a good step.
J
Terry,
Fundies is GUE's nitrox class. The only thing that it allows someone to do after the class that they couldn't do before is use Nitrox.
Therefore your PADI Rescue/TDI Nitrox could just as well be PADI Rescue/GUE Fundamentals. If they were an AOW/Fundies then you can treat them as AOW+Nitrox.
If they come into the class with an 18m limit, then they leave with the same limit.
They do get a lot of training however during the fundies class, and so will have improved buoyancy, trim, team awareness, as well as Gas Sharing, Valve drills, Rescue lifts.
I think that trying to look at SALT is muddying the water, it would be very hard to SALT any of GUE's qualifications to BSAC ones and so there is not much point in trying, however recognising that GUE Teach Nitrox and Trimix would be a good step.
J
Not trying to muddy the water, all i'm saying is that precisely what you've
said above and more needs to be said as part of a crib sheet for DO's.
We've got similar for mixing RB's in with open circuit, managering etc.
so would epect the same for mixing in GUE.
Saying ok to Nitrox/Trimix is easy, making sure that the DO's know that
a eg: GUE fundies keeps you at the depth of your entry level may take
longer, simply because someone has to sit down and work out all the
variants.
Cant you see that a DO faced with a guest diver spouting GUE qualifications
could easily see more than just a gas ticket. That is after all what you do
yourself.
Its not about cross over though. No one is expecting to be told GUEF = BSAC xxx, GUE T1 = BSAC yyy
The recent 'clarification' said HL/PD could be used by people with "appropriate training". All we are trying to do is find out if BSAC see GUE training as appropriate to satisfy their requirement.
Anyway if we want equivalents - HSE consider all GUE courses to be equivalent to CMAS 3* - the same as BSAC Advanced :p
http://www.hse.gov.uk/diving/qualifications/approved.htm#cmasequiv
Surely the real issue here is whether the BSAC 3rd party insurance covers you in the event it all goes pear shaped. For those that aren't sure, get your own insurance that does recognise the training you have received from other agencies and show that to whoever is questioning your eligibility to dive within the club. If you are really desperate about it, cancel your BSAC membership to ofset the cost. It doesnt physically stop you from diving with anyone.
Well if the BSAC 3rd party doesnt cover an organisation approved by HSE, then what use is it to BSAC members?
ChristianG
30-04-2010, 15:13
Surely the real issue here is whether the BSAC 3rd party insurance covers you in the event it all goes pear shaped. For those that aren't sure, get your own insurance that does recognise the training you have received from other agencies and show that to whoever is questioning your eligibility to dive within the club. If you are really desperate about it, cancel your BSAC membership to ofset the cost. It doesnt physically stop you from diving with anyone.
An interesting, and valid, point.
Ignoring the fact that certain members of Council (at least one, I have no idea whether the other one is a member of Council) have, of late, done their level best to make the life of certain Insurance Claims Administrators rather easier, what are we talking about here?
Well, seems to me that negligence is really the only one that has any bearing (I could well be wrong of course) and by that I particularly, but not necessarily entirely, mean incorrect advice by Instructors and/or others in a position of diving authority, such as DOs. If you've simply got bent then as a UK citizen you get to go in the pot "for free", more correctly at the expense of UK tax payers.
Now I would have thought that a relatively minor consideration in the overall scheme of things.
As BSAC do not currently recognise GUE as a training agency (even though the HSE does), those divers with only GUE training, and there are more and more of them, cannot legally (in the eyes of BSAC) dive within a BSAC environment.
Umm, legally? that would imply some law is being broken by a non BSAC approved diver jumps in within a club dive. This is clearly not the case. The only difference is that BSAC insurance does not cover the non approved diver should anything go wrong.
What do GUE trained (or any other agency for that matter) divers do about 3rd party insurance when they dive? is it something they are not bothered about or is there insurance available to them through their respective agencies? Or, for example, does a PADI/TDI/any other BSAC recognised agency diver solely rely on BSACs 3rd party insurance to cover them in case they injure someone, in which case do they have to contribute something for this cover on a BSAC club dive or do they get it for free.
When the BSAC first accepted Trimix into branches, initially all that was required was to register the alternate agency Trimix qualifcation. [1]
Subsequent to this, the BSAC formalised the procedure by developing a 'technical' SALT table. This initially basically compared all the technical agency qualifcation with each other, thus giving an equivelence between TDI, IANTD etc.
When PSA joined the throng, after TDI sort of withdrew from the UK after a falling out (I believe). BSAC members with PSA qualifcation asked for the PSA qualifcation to be added to the list, (this didn't happen overnight, it took a few months to achieve this,) basically making the PSA qualifcations 'approved' by the BSAC.
The 'approval' is a BSAC thing, not a UK legal requirement. PADI are not interested in the BSAC approvals, (other than commercially it is advantages to have your qualifcations on the BSAC list). It relates to the BSAC recommendations to diving officers, branches & members. Thus it 'probably' has some impact on the third party insurance [2].
I 'think' the BSAC mix qualifcations where developed post PSA joining the list.
Which has
So, the 'technical' SALT table has become more complicated, as it now covers equivelence between agencies, & the BSAC qualifications.
Ultimately, GUE qualifcations will make it onto the list, it is in BSAC's interest because some of 'its' members want it to be added.
It's in GUE's interest because commercially the approval gives GUE an increaseing potential customer base.
The bigger complication probably comes where GUE has 'diving' qualifications as against 'technical' qualifications. What 'I' mean by this is that GUE (unlike TDI), actually teach a diving qualifcation. Taking a non diver & teaching them to dive. This is not something that TDI (et al) do [3].
Another issue is that GUE have there own discriptions that don't fit the industry 'norm'. i.e basic nitrox, advanced nitrox, (advanced) decompression procedures, extended range, Sport Mix, Normox, Hypoxic etc.
I have a pretty good idea what ANx means, or normoxic, I know there are differences but I have a good general idea, what the hell tech 1 is, God only knows.
GUE have historically made a product out of intentionally being different from the norm, & courting division, retoric & confrontation.
GUE do have a good 'product', this is an opinion I have made through discussion rather than participation to date.
GUE have now reached a size where commerically, joining the mainstream is a good idea.
It appears to me that initially GUE didn't want to be on the BSAC list (or any list for that matter). Being on the list would have made them mainstream, they would have been 'just another' american technical agency. Rather that a 'superior' agency, as they initially promoted themselves.[4]
Whilst I do have some critisism of GUE.
They do appear to have excellent QA.
They do appear to have a set of high quality courses.
In conclusion. GUE will get some form of validation with the BSAC because BSAC members want it. To some degree part of the difficulty is down to GUE, there 'wish' to be different. There is also probably some historical issue as well. If someone has been insulting you, you tend to make less of an effort than for those that have been polite!
On the positive side, from GUE's point of view, at least the NDO is GUE qualified & has a lot of experience with GUE (both training &diving). So they have a friend in the camp as it were.
Gareth
[1] This is my understanding from the side lines.
[2] Noteing that insurance companies generally like to recieve premiums & avoid paying out it at all possible.
[3] I know some technical agencies do/have introduced diving qualifications but this is 'seldom' seen here in the UK (at least at this time).
[4] This certainly not the line GUE take now. However, my initial contact with GUE was one where they consistantly stated that 'every one else' didn't dive properly & where going to die on there next dive.
Again not having a go Terry, but I don't see the difference in rescue requirements between a Tech 1 diver and a SD with a SMG OC ticket. How many lifts do you do with twinsets and stages as part of the BSAC SMG?
Regards
There is a huge difference in rescue training having been done to SD/DL and the "rescue" instruction given on a fundies course, obviously I can't comment on Tech1 but there is more to rescue than the 1 lift attempt I had during my course, which I haven't done since. Compare this to having a lot of practice during sports, DL and advanced diver training, in an OW emergency I know which technique I would immediately opt for.
As has been said this isn't about SALT, it would be like comparing apples and oranges.
As has been said this isn't about SALT, it would be like comparing apples and oranges.
Well, theyre both roundish.................
Michael Purcell
02-05-2010, 07:27
Well, theyre both roundish.................
Which is where BSAC and GUE members tend to differ :)
I've gotta say I am more BSAC shaped than GUE shaped these days.
Steve in Sharm
02-05-2010, 09:12
About 2 pages in to this thread, this is what is requested.
BSAC recognise GUE as a training agency at both recreational and technical level.
BSAC recognise the Nitrox courses taught by GUE to allow GUE trained divers (those with only GUE Nitrox certs) to dive within a BSAC environment.
BSAC recognise the Trimix courses taught by GUE; as above.
BSAC recognises the Hog Loop training taught by GUE; as above.
As BSAC do not currently recognise GUE as a training agency (even though the HSE does), those divers with only GUE training, and there are more and more of them, cannot legally (in the eyes of BSAC) dive within a BSAC environment.
The SALT thing keeps on getting brought up and that isn't what is being asked for.
I personally don't have a mix ticket.
I hope that makes it clear.
Regards
I appreciate that things are now moving along, and well done to the people involved in getting this far.
But a thought has just occurred to me! (yes I know, not always a good thing).
But GUE has been around a good few years now, and BSAC is the UK governing body for the sport of diving in this country - my thought is this:
If the HSE can recognise GUE and allow it to operate in the UK then why has the governing body taken so long to agree/disagree with the HSE findings? Apparently "they" were waiting for GUE to ask them, surely that cant be right, can it? If so then I think we should reconsider, and look at having a fulltime, salaried NDO type figure who can devote more time to running UK diving and all its related matters in a more timely fashion.
Regards
Steve
Adrian Kelland
02-05-2010, 09:21
I appreciate that things are now moving along, and well done to the people involved in getting this far.
But a thought has just occurred to me! (yes I know, not always a good thing).
But GUE has been around a good few years now, and BSAC is the UK governing body for the sport of diving in this country - my thought is this:
If the HSE can recognise GUE and allow it to operate in the UK then why has the governing body taken so long to agree/disagree with the HSE findings? Apparently "they" were waiting for GUE to ask them, surely that cant be right, can it? If so then I think we should reconsider, and look at having a fulltime, salaried NDO type figure who can devote more time to running UK diving and all its related matters in a more timely fashion.
Regards
Steve
Steve,
I think that a salaried and full time NDO would have made no difference to the outcome so far. It is about people and their attitudes and hence decisions. Nothing else.
Adrian
Mike Halligan
02-05-2010, 10:25
I appreciate that things are now moving along, and well done to the people involved in getting this far.
But a thought has just occurred to me! (yes I know, not always a good thing).
But GUE has been around a good few years now, and BSAC is the UK governing body for the sport of diving in this country - my thought is this:
If the HSE can recognise GUE and allow it to operate in the UK then why has the governing body taken so long to agree/disagree with the HSE findings? Apparently "they" were waiting for GUE to ask them, surely that cant be right, can it? If so then I think we should reconsider, and look at having a fulltime, salaried NDO type figure who can devote more time to running UK diving and all its related matters in a more timely fashion.
Regards
Steve
Hi, Steve,
I doubt the employment relationship of the NDO would make the slightest difference. This is England (and I use the word advisedly) where "not invented here" is the most damning attribute to burden any proposal, where NGB status confers unworldly presumption that all will beat a path to one's door. [vide: the FA, the R&A and EWCB]
Hence, unless and until those with alternative concepts bow the knee to NGB status and make supplicant entreaty, they gain no audience. Reflect if you will on recent pronouncements in the UK's general election and tell me we are not an offshore island of Europe stuck in a "We won, dammit" rut? :eek:
But GUE has been around a good few years now, and BSAC is the UK governing body for the sport of diving in this country - my thought is this:
If the HSE can recognise GUE and allow it to operate in the UK then why has the governing body taken so long to agree/disagree with the HSE findings? Apparently "they" were waiting for GUE to ask them, surely that cant be right, can it? If so then I think we should reconsider, and look at having a fulltime, salaried NDO type figure who can devote more time to running UK diving and all its related matters in a more timely fashion.
Regards
Steve
Hi Steve,
One down side of a paid Directorship (any position) is the security of employment they would enjoy. Fixed term employment that lasts over two years becomes permanent once renewed. Therefore, we could end up with someone we could not remove without an expensive termination battle, and a pension. The concept was discussed in another thread recently.
As an aside, Governing Body status was bestowed on BSAC by the English Sports Council, just as SSAC is the Scottish Governing Body awarded by Sport Scotland. The same applies in Wales and Northern Ireland with their respective Governing Bodies.
Regards
Edward
Hickdive
02-05-2010, 12:04
Hi Steve,
As an aside, Governing Body status was bestowed on BSAC by the English Sports Council, just as SSAC is the Scottish Governing Body awarded by Sport Scotland. The same applies in Wales and Northern Ireland with their respective Governing Bodies.
Regards
Edward
Sorry, OT I know;
AFAIK The GB for Northern Ireland is NIFED and for Wales it is WASAC. IIRC there was a thread some years ago relating to Welsh clubs being unable to get lottery funding as their GB, WASAC, was effectively defunct and they were trying to have BSAC take over that status.
Could someone on Council PLEASE stop BSAC from advertising itself as the 'UK' governing body? It simply isn't true and I think it's embarrassing to continue to peddle the myth.
Sorry, OT I know;
AFAIK The GB for Northern Ireland is NIFED and for Wales it is WASAC. IIRC there was a thread some years ago relating to Welsh clubs being unable to get lottery funding as their GB, WASAC, was effectively defunct and they were trying to have BSAC take over that status.
Could someone on Council PLEASE stop BSAC from advertising itself as the 'UK' governing body? It simply isn't true and I think it's embarrassing to continue to peddle the myth.
Hi,
For issues covering the UK BSAC is the Governing Body. Its a throw back to the days of only one Parliament, some things haven't been devolved.
Following devolution governing body responsibilities for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were awarded to Welsh Association of Sub-Aqua Clubs (WASAC), Scottish Sub-Aqua Club (SSAC) and Northern Ireland Federation of Sub Aqua Clubs (NIFSAC). BSAC retains governing body responsibilities for issues that affect the UK as a whole.
Edward
Hickdive
02-05-2010, 14:03
Hi,
For issues covering the UK BSAC is the Governing Body. Its a throw back to the days of only one Parliament, some things haven't been devolved.
Edward
Sorry Edward, BSAC isn't and never has been the UK GB, regardless of devolution. Don't forget SSAC, for example, is actually older than BSAC by about 6 months.
It may be the case that if the Westminster parliament wishes to consult on amateur scuba diving they would approach BSAC but that is a rather different thing from being the "UK" governing body. The Sports Council, as was, conferred GB status on BSAC but their writ did not extend beyond England, hence WASAC, NIFED and SSAC's status as GBs in their respective countries long before devolution.
Again, can someone please have BSAC amend their misleading advertising?
ChristianG
02-05-2010, 16:59
What I would like to know is exactly what the BSAC, never mind jurisdictional issues, is supposed to "govern". The BSAC certainly doesn't "govern" any other Agency, "technical" or not and I suppose that the same applies to the other "governing" bodies as well. For the life of me I can't understand what any of the "Governing Bodies'" duties are, if any. I actually suspect that "if any" is the point, that there actually are none.
Oh yes, the Incident Report could conceivably be classed as one. Laudatory though it is, anyone could do that but the PADIs of this world won't because there isn't a quid in it for them. Besides, they'd rather not be hoist by their own petard.
And if that's the case, exactly what point is being made here, other than creating time-wasting?
ChristianG
02-05-2010, 17:02
I've gotta say I am more BSAC shaped than GUE shaped these days.
Beard, pipe, paunch, slippers and tankard? ;) ;) ;)
Sorry. :D
Hickdive
02-05-2010, 17:26
Beard, pipe, paunch, slippers and tankard? ;) ;)
Sorry. :D
Oi! I resemble that remark!:D
Steve in Sharm
02-05-2010, 17:31
Hi Steve,
One down side of a paid Directorship (any position) is the security of employment they would enjoy. Fixed term employment that lasts over two years becomes permanent once renewed. Therefore, we could end up with someone we could not remove without an expensive termination battle, and a pension. The concept was discussed in another thread recently.
As an aside, Governing Body status was bestowed on BSAC by the English Sports Council, just as SSAC is the Scottish Governing Body awarded by Sport Scotland. The same applies in Wales and Northern Ireland with their respective Governing Bodies.
Regards
Edward
Sorry, not trying to hijack the thread, but how about a paid administrator then, like the civil serveant in "Yes Prime Minister", he/she could do all the stuff that gets put off cos HQ have real jobs and a life!
Regards
Steve
Sorry, not trying to hijack the thread, but how about a paid administrator then, like the civil servent in "Yes Prime Minister", he/she could do all the stuff that gets put off cos HQ have real jobs and a life!
Regards
Steve
There are already full paid staff at HQ, I don't think we need more. Talking about who is paid at HQ has nothing to do with this thread. Let us not divert attention from the original question.
Adrian Kelland
02-05-2010, 17:38
Sorry, not trying to hijack the thread, but how about a paid administrator then, like the civil serveant in "Yes Prime Minister", he/she could do all the stuff that gets put off cos HQ have real jobs and a life!
Regards
Steve
Steve, I agree with Fiona.
http://www.bsac.com/people.asp?section=1013§ionTitle=BSAC+HQ
Adrian
Steve in Sharm
02-05-2010, 19:19
There are already full paid staff at HQ, I don't think we need more. Talking about who is paid at HQ has nothing to do with this thread. Let us not divert attention from the original question.
But thats my point, I dont want to divert from the question! I am trying to provide solutions.....
I've just taken a look at Adrians link and cant see anyone/position who would be best suited to have "vetted" (for want of a better word) the GUE status.
Obviously people like Geoff and his staff on council and all their relevant sub departments have a real life, family, work and other stuff to do (Mike Rowley did an excellent Tech Wksp here recently) which delays some stuff that matters to people and they (in this case Gloc) start asking questions as to why stuff hasn't happened - perhaps a position as a salaried PA/Civil Serveant/Aide de Camp etc would help smooth things along.
Regards, and I'll stop talking about salaied people now..... ;)
Steve
Regards, and I'll stop talking about salaied people now..... ;)
Steve
Looking at the 2009 report they spent £507,000 on salaries there must be someone who can make a decision ;)
Adrian Kelland
02-05-2010, 19:28
But thats my point, I dont want to divert from the question! I am trying to provide solutions.....
I've just taken a look at Adrians link and cant see anyone/position who would be best suited to have "vetted" (for want of a better word) the GUE status.
...
Steve
Again I disagree Steve, I think Jim Watson come close, if not precisely the role.
Can't have one person just for vetting other agencies courses.
Adrian
Oliver T
04-05-2010, 19:25
Can I ask why we're all getting caught up in this? Its a complete non-issue.
If you've been trained by an agency with their own safety and risk analysis sewn up, then BSAC wont have a problem with you diving in a BSAC setting.
GUE clearly have this done, so there shouldnt be any problem at all.
Does a GUE diver know how to dive? Yes.
Has a GUE diver received basic training? Yes - and they probably got it from PADI or BSAC or similar, so there's no problem in the first place.
If your asking for some level of "Equivalency" for GUE courses within BSAC's structure of grades, then that is clearly and quite obviously never going to happen. There is no possible equivalency as the training and skillset is entirely different.
The fact remains that just about any GUE trainied diver will have received their basic diver training from an agency that is recognised by BSAC, so its simply doesnt matter either way. Come and dive with us, it's ok. Honest.
Someone somewhere is playing the devils own game by inserting the bracketed word (recognised) into statements, quite unneccesarily. The intent is to confuse and outrage and to sew seeds of doubt, and the result is plain to see.
My question would be why are those bracketed words there in the first place?
Do they illuminate or explain or clarify or do they make meaning obscure, unclear and add confusion?
Now clearly its the latter - and it is this that I would want to ask the executive about on May 22nd.
Oliver the problem is that there an increasing number of people who have gained their nitrox and trimix diving qualifications and hog-loop training through GUE without going through PADI or BSAC or any other training agency.
I personally have a nitrox ticket from TDI but my trimix is through GUE.
I know people who have PADI OW (no Nitrox), done Fundies and then AOW/DM, so have a nitrox cert without going through the 'recognised' route for nitrox. In addition, they could move onto Tech 1 (which I am sure there are people who are now in this boat (;) ) and have had no 'mainstream' trimix training. GUE now provides a recreational level course which is sort of equivalent to Rescue Diver and Nitrox Diver (in PADI parlance).
No-one is asking about SALT in the way SALT is traditionally recognised because, as has been repeated many times, GUE courses are not equivalent to BSAC courses for a whole variety of reasons.
Regards
Oliver T
04-05-2010, 21:54
But no ones saying that you cant hog loop or dive tri-mix on a BSAC boat if you did those courses with GUE. Or dive Nitrox, or do a metre a minute from 6m.
I suppose its sensible to wear a computer if your diving on a BSAC boat, but otherwise....its as you were isnt it? So where's the problem?
Those divers will still have done their basic training with a basic agency.
How many have done GUE's basic level training and nothing but? Five or fifty?
If its nearer 5000 (or even 500 for that matter), then I agree there's an immediate problem with integrating divers, but if its only 20 or so, then there's better things to spend time on than work out how to fit GUE's basic training in with BSACs.
Oliver the problem is that there an increasing number of people who have gained their nitrox and trimix diving qualifications and hog-loop training through GUE without going through PADI or BSAC or any other training agency.
I personally have a nitrox ticket from TDI but my trimix is through GUE.
I know people who have PADI OW (no Nitrox), done Fundies and then AOW/DM, so have a nitrox cert without going through the 'recognised' route for nitrox. In addition, they could move onto Tech 1 (which I am sure there are people who are now in this boat (;) ) and have had no 'mainstream' trimix training. GUE now provides a recreational level course which is sort of equivalent to Rescue Diver and Nitrox Diver (in PADI parlance).
No-one is asking about SALT in the way SALT is traditionally recognised because, as has been repeated many times, GUE courses are not equivalent to BSAC courses for a whole variety of reasons.
Gareth mate,
I'm a bit confused what you want. Perhaps a practical suggestion would be for you to come up with which BSAC courses the appropriate GUE courses should allow you to enroll in.
Janos
The 'recognised' training agency thing comes from the BSAC Safe Diving Practices book (amongst other places)
Training and qualification (Technical diving)
All divers who wish to undertake technical diving activities must have completed a technical training course with one of the BSAC recognised agencies
British Sub Aqua Club (BSAC)
Technical Diving International (TDI)
International Association of Nitrox and Technical Divers (IANTD)
International Technical Diving Association (ITDA)
American Nitrox Divers International (ANDI)
Professional SCUBA Association International (PSAI)
All divers wishing to participate in technical diving should hold a minimum qualification of Sport Diver and a relevant nitrox certification.
As has been discussed before, this is about recognising GUE to allow those divers with only GUE certifications to dive within BSAC. As has also been raised, the issue is the DO who does not understand the qualifications from GUE and therefore has to refer to the master list from HQ listing which training agencies are recognised by BSAC (I note that DSAT is missing from here too, along with some other CCR agencies...).
According to the BSAC website, to dive with a trimix qualification from another agency, you need to fill in the form http://www.bsac.com/core/core_picker/download.asp?id=9993&filetitle=Mixed+Gas+Diver+-+Registration+Form but it does not say what the equivalence for those training agencies is; presumably now that BSAC have a SMG course, they will produce some equivalencies. Looking at the Nitrox certification http://www.bsac.com/core/core_picker/download.asp?id=13410&filetitle=Alternative+Nitrox+qualifications shows which agencies are recognised and it does list what equivalence there is. SDI and SAA are missing from here - do people dive with these qualifications on BSAC dives?
I am trying to point out anomalies in the system which have been ignored by BSAC since 2002 when Andy Kerslake first submitted the paperwork to get GUE recognised by BSAC to allow those GUE trained divers to dive within a BSAC environment; arguably one of the best club and mentoring environments out there.
Oliver, I would agree there are more pressing things which need to be addressed by BSAC (who are in the main volunteers) but I think 8 years is pushing it a little!
Janos, it isn't about which courses I want to enrol in to further my BSAC qualifications. I am a member of BSAC club and if I go on a BSAC club trip, according to the letter of the law above, I cannot dive trimix or hog-looped because GUE are not recognised by BSAC. If I want to complete my Advanced Diver on a dive which I think needs mix (personal decision below 35m), I am not allowed to dive trimix because my mix qualifications are not recognised by BSAC. This is what I am on about. I am not the only person who has these concerns, although because of the sort of person I am, I am a little more vocal about it.
Regards
Oliver T
04-05-2010, 22:41
Ok, I'm getting what your getting at, but honestly Gareth, your ****ing up a tree with this stuff.
BSAC is about 5 years behind (or more) with updates and modernising some of its materials and ideas without GUE coming along and reinventing everything and putting it all in the wrong order.(joke)
In the meantime we're still going diving. You can still join us. Just dont rely on our shoddy sounding 3rd party insurance.
And dont dive with a DO that doesnt understand your basic GUE Nitrox cert.
Life's too short isnt it?
Thanks Oliver (no offence taken, I have a very thick skin) and Janos.
Fortunately my DO has an open mind towards this sort of thing...not necessarily the same for other DOs (or the military who I would like to dive with...)
Regards
Oliver T
04-05-2010, 22:53
Hmmn, I can see your problem with the military then. They like their boxes ticked in the properest* way dont they.
Still, you could always do some proper courses, just to tick the boxes. That's what every one else is doing! :D :D :D
*I'm glad this isnt YD - I'd get crucified for that.
Janos, it isn't about which courses I want to enrol in to further my BSAC qualifications. I am a member of BSAC club and if I go on a BSAC club trip, according to the letter of the law above, I cannot dive trimix or hog-looped because GUE are not recognised by BSAC. If I want to complete my Advanced Diver on a dive which I think needs mix (personal decision below 35m), I am not allowed to dive trimix because my mix qualifications are not recognised by BSAC. This is what I am on about. I am not the only person who has these concerns, although because of the sort of person I am, I am a little more vocal about it.
Thanks for the clarification Gareth - I think I see where you are coming from now.
Am I right in thinking that you want to ask the question: "Can someone with a GUE / DSAT / IART qualification dive within the limits of that qualification as part of a BSAC club's trip" and you want the answer "Yes"
And I suspect there's a second question: "Can a GUE trained diver primary donate within a BSASC environment?" to which you'd also like the answer "yes".
Whatever the history - I think the sensible thing to do is to see what can be done to make all parties happy. Have you tried emailing Jeff - he's a sensible bloke but there's so much chaff flying around at the moment that it may bot be that he's immediately understood your concerns.
Let me know if there's anything I can do to help.
Janos
Ok, I'm getting what your getting at, but honestly Gareth, your ****ing up a tree with this stuff.
BSAC is about 5 years behind (or more) with updates and modernising some of its materials and ideas without GUE coming along and reinventing everything and putting it all in the wrong order.(joke)
In the meantime we're still going diving. You can still join us. Just dont rely on our shoddy sounding 3rd party insurance.
And dont dive with a DO that doesnt understand your basic GUE Nitrox cert.
Life's too short isnt it?
I know you're only joking, but this is the sad thing about the PD debacle. Last October I would have said that BSAC was one of the most forward thinking agencies: The CCR course materials are the best I've seen; The trimix trydive is a great idea; The gas-blending courses are great for in branch blending and dealing with BOC; incorporating Nitrox into entry-level training.
Janos
I cannot dive trimix or hog-looped because GUE are not recognised by BSAC...
Just a small point of detail, but the issue is about Primary Donate - not hog-looping.
Janos
Just a small point of detail, but the issue is about Primary Donate - not hog-looping.
Janos
I thought it was about HL and primary donate. i.e. I can primary donate if I bungee but not if I HL...therefore the issue is the way I route the hose, not what I do with it?
Or maybe I have just read the thread out of context.
ChristianG
05-05-2010, 11:18
I thought it was about HL and primary donate. i.e. I can primary donate if I bungee but not if I HL...therefore the issue is the way I route the hose, not what I do with it?
I forget, was it the chicken that came first, or the egg?
Nigel Hewitt
05-05-2010, 11:28
I thought it was about HL and primary donate. i.e. I can primary donate if I bungee but not if I HL...therefore the issue is the way I route the hose, not what I do with it?
Or maybe I have just read the thread out of context.
We've had so many clarifications I've totally lost the plot on this one.
I thought the real angst was about 'Primary Take'.
Woz
congratulations, I always read your postings and I think you are the right man for the job, well done, not sure how you get from there to NDC presume it’s a subcommittee and you need an invite, If that the case I hope the invite turns up (hint to NDO), please keep us all informed.
OK on GUE I am also a DO and would do exactly the same, it’s called decision making and why clubs have DO's
Oliver T
05-05-2010, 11:41
"Can someone with a GUE / DSAT / IART qualification dive within the limits of that qualification as part of a BSAC club's trip" and you want the answer "Yes"
The answer is Yes
And I suspect there's a second question: "Can a GUE trained diver primary donate within a BSASC environment?" to which you'd also like the answer "yes".
Again, the answer is Yes.
The issue now is about PD and not about where you put your hose.
Are you trained in PD?
You are? Excellent, well providing you can do the next bit too then your laughing.
You have to make sure that your DO is happy and that the DM is happy, and you have to make sure your buddy is happy and understands how your Hose and PD works. Job done. You can go diving.
Can we go diving now?
ps, why not find a place where Jeff Reed will be and ask him directly. He's a nice guy and very helpful.
We've had so many clarifications I've totally lost the plot on this one.
I thought the real angst was about 'Primary Take'.
I think the real angst is Primary Take and with good reason.
I've always mooted that HL was just the messenger that got shot but I still have been told that I can't dive with an OD unless I bungee which I believe is a poorly taken and delivered decision.
Anyway, I just ignore it now. I dive how I want and point any OD's at the DO/Dive Manager for clarification or tell them to dive outside of Branch. Sorted.
Probably not what BSAC intended but I just want to dive...I've asked for clarification a number of times and given up with the different answers.
Technical diving and BSAC seems to be a difficult place to live so I wont bother although membership of BSAC has other benefits I like so I've kept my membership going for that reason.
Nigel Hewitt
05-05-2010, 11:51
Technical diving and BSAC seems to be a difficult place to live so I wont bother although membership of BSAC has other benefits I like so I've kept my membership going for that reason.
I'm a member of a local club.
I get BSAC as part of the deal.
It's fun.
Admittedly there are lots of snags, eg I only dive with a buddy if it's a club dive.
Probably nobody other than a confirmed BSACie would put up with me.
But I can't hog loop a rebreather and I can't primary donate it either.
This is a total farce and still BSAC hasn't answered the question. :rolleyes:
Dear BSAC
GLOC contacted you on 23rd March and it is now 5th May
What timescales are we now looking at to expect a response to GLOC?
All the points raised by GLOC are valid and its amazing that the BSAC decision makers have failed to make a decision!!!!
I await (as do we all) a clear and concise answer which is not ambiguous or open to various interpretations. ;)
Woz
congratulations, I always read your postings and I think you are the right man for the job, well done, not sure how you get from there to NDC presume it’s a subcommittee and you need an invite, If that the case I hope the invite turns up (hint to NDO), please keep us all informed.
OK on GUE I am also a DO and would do exactly the same, it’s called decision making and why clubs have DO'sThanks.
The NDO and NDC are there to advise Council on technical and diving matters. Dunno how you get onto NDC unless it's via an invitation from the NDO.
ChristianG
06-05-2010, 13:33
But I can't hog loop a rebreather and I can't primary donate it either.
What you, probably rather carefully, failed to mention however is that, at least when you're diving with a "buddy", you do nevertheless make sure that you have bail out available. In fact you even, or rather more particularly, do that when you're diving on your Pat Malone.
For those unaware, that last is an Oztrailyernism for "on your own". :D
Nigel Hewitt
06-05-2010, 14:32
What you, probably rather carefully, failed to mention however is that, at least when you're diving with a "buddy", you do nevertheless make sure that you have bail out available. In fact you even, or rather more particularly, do that when you're diving on your Pat Malone.
Huh?
'Bailout' is for blowing lift bags.
Andy Moll (BSAC Council)
06-05-2010, 15:02
Thanks.
The NDO and NDC are there to advise Council on technical and diving matters. Dunno how you get onto NDC unless it's via an invitation from the NDO.
NDC is appointed by the NDO
Just as in many branches the NDO choose a TO and training team
Role of NDO too much for one individual hence there are multiple teams and all managed by the NDO
http://www.bsac.com/landing.asp?section=1154§ionTitle=National+Diving+Committee
northern_diver
06-05-2010, 16:05
What you, probably rather carefully, failed to mention however is that, at least when you're diving with a "buddy", you do nevertheless make sure that you have bail out available. In fact you even, or rather more particularly, do that when you're diving on your Pat Malone.
For those unaware, that last is an Oztrailyernism for "on your own". :D
'What about your bailout?'...thats a Northern way of saying what we mean, not just adding extra, needless words;)
John
ChristianG
06-05-2010, 16:58
'What about your bailout?'...thats a Northern way of saying what we mean, not just adding extra, needless words;)
Huh?
I thought it was about HL and primary donate. i.e. I can primary donate if I bungee but not if I HL...therefore the issue is the way I route the hose, not what I do with it?
Or maybe I have just read the thread out of context.
Sorry Darren, but it's definitely about Primary Donate and not Hog-looping.
The MARCH 2010 STATEMENT (http://www.bsac.com/page.asp?section=3201§ionTitle=Clarification+statement+on+Alternativ e+Supply+training+and+going+diving) effectively tells you to ignore the previous two letters (in very tactful language ;) and says):
1) You can dive how you want to.
2) But BSAC suggests you have been properly trained by a "recognised agency" in the techniques you use
3) Primary Donate is not part of the BSAC syllabus
4) Hence BSAC instructors cannot teach PD as part of the BSAC DTP (but they can teach PD as part of another agency's syllabus if they are qualified with that agency).
Janos
Sorry Darren, but it's definitely about Primary Donate and not Hog-looping.
The MARCH 2010 STATEMENT (http://www.bsac.com/page.asp?section=3201§ionTitle=Clarification+statement+on+Alternativ e+Supply+training+and+going+diving) effectively tells you to ignore the previous two letters (in very tactful language ;) and says):
1) You can dive how you want to.
2) But BSAC suggests you have been properly trained by a "recognised agency" in the techniques you use
3) Primary Donate is not part of the BSAC syllabus
4) Hence BSAC instructors cannot teach PD as part of the BSAC DTP (but they can teach PD as part of another agency's syllabus if they are qualified with that agency).
Janos
Oh how I wish that were true....
That is what I think (thought?) it means too, but for purposes of clarity I asked HQ and was told...
No. You cannot Hog Loop with Ocean Diver's.
So I think what you have said above is true, except for diving with OD's (and that I have issue with). As an aside, if you are going to "ban" diving HL with OD's because they haven't been trained in it then you should ban it for all divers that are not trained in it, right up to Advanced Diver and beyond. Making a stance at the OD level has no basis or logic. Feels like someone just "felt" like it.
Doesnt make a great deal of difference. We just dive outside of BSAC now when its an issue. Its easier.
Just to clarify, none of my diving regarding this involves instruction and I have asked for another "clarification" on the OD point and haven't had a reply from the NDO or HQ yet. Hopefully the 22nd will bring some constructive discussion on it.
Oh how I wish that were true....
That is what I think (thought?) it means too, but for purposes of clarity I asked HQ and was told...
No. You cannot Hog Loop with Ocean Diver's.
So I think what you have said above is true, except for diving with OD's (and that I have issue with). As an aside, if you are going to "ban" diving HL with OD's because they haven't been trained in it then you should ban it for all divers that are not trained in it, right up to Advanced Diver and beyond. Making a stance at the OD level has no basis or logic. Feels like someone just "felt" like it.
Doesnt make a great deal of difference. We just dive outside of BSAC now when its an issue. Its easier.
Just to clarify, none of my diving regarding this involves instruction and I have asked for another "clarification" on the OD point and haven't had a reply from the NDO or HQ yet. Hopefully the 22nd will bring some constructive discussion on it.
Sorry - on reflection I may have confused the issue.
The statement IS about Primary Donating, NOT Hog-Looping.
However, hog-looping requires primary donate, so yes, you cannot hog-loop with Ocean Divers as it would require you to Primary Donate.
Janos
However, hog-looping requires primary donate, so yes, you cannot hog-loop with Ocean Divers as it would require you to Primary Donate.
Agreed. That would appear to be the case.
But you can dive with a single primary reg and an AIR-II with an OD? Yup. No ban on that and that also requires Primary Donate?
So why single out HL? Why single out OD's?
1) You can dive how you want to.
2) But BSAC suggests you have been properly trained by a "recognised agency" in the techniques you use
3) Primary Donate is not part of the BSAC syllabus
4) Hence BSAC instructors cannot teach PD as part of the BSAC DTP (but they can teach PD as part of another agency's syllabus if they are qualified with that agency).
Janos
I hope that we get some clarification, if the above is true does that mean instruction cannot be carried out if either the student or the instructor is using Air 2 which requires PD
I thought the original statemente was PD ok PT (primary take) no
If its just the loop and a bungee would fix it could they please just say so
Like the film says a short statement is needed
Nigel Hewitt
08-05-2010, 13:17
But you can dive with a single primary reg and an AIR-II with an OD? Yup. No ban on that and that also requires Primary Donate?
Does it? I've breathed a buddy's APV AutoAir as a test. There were some complications but it worked and it would certainly work for those first few vital breaths after an OOA swim over to you. However if you necklace a reg right up under your chin I can't get to it so I have to primary take or drown.
The problem come that we teach 'take' so we need a takeable reg and we don't teach 'primary take' because if you buddy is a newbie we will end up with two divers in trouble.
The current position isn't ideal but it is consistent with the DTP. If we want to practice primary take between consenting adults that's OK too but we just don't teach it or require it of anybody.
Oliver T
08-05-2010, 13:26
snip
...you can dive with a single primary reg and an AIR-II with an OD? Yup. No ban on that and that also requires Primary Donate?
You point above is a really good example of the glaring inconsistancy of the current situation, and should be one of the main points of the discussion on the 22nd. I think the answer might be 'Cos thats how WE dive'
Not doing PD with newbie divers is not a bad thing in my book, you want kit that reflects what they've been trained in I reckon. Just put the long hose on a yellow rubber necklace. Easy.
Does it? I've breathed a buddy's APV AutoAir as a test. There were some complications but it worked. However if you necklace a reg right up under your chin I can't get to it so I have to primary take or drown.
Nigel I think the Idea behind air 2 is the person equiped with it uses it and donates his primary air to the out of gas diver
I have never had to use one and we don't have any instructors or students in the club equiped with air 2. I would perfer to keep it that way.
I was using it as an example to break this blanket ban into sections to try to find out where the problem is, as i suspect are others.
I wonder if it will be possible to step the NDO through this at the AGM their must be a Q and A
You point above is a really good example of the glaring inconsistancy of the current situation, and should be one of the main points of the discussion on the 22nd. I think the answer might be 'Cos thats how WE dive'
Not doing PD with newbie divers is not a bad thing in my book, you want kit that reflects what they've been trained in I reckon. Just put the long hose on a yellow rubber necklace. Easy.
Thanks Oliver
I am with you on PD and newbie divers, just thinking of ways to put the argument across.
I don't think 'Cos thats how WE dive' is going to be a good enough reply on the day
Nigel Hewitt
08-05-2010, 14:15
In simple words the problem isn't 'hog looping' or 'primary donate' the problem is 'primary take'.
If your rig forces 'take' to be 'primary take' I think that is what the words say they want to stop. Everything else is just kicking up silt.
It has been consistently badly worded from the NDC but the other side has been worse. If you have a reg that an OOA diver can take that isn't in your mouth then what we teach in the DTP works.
There is a completely separate issue with recognising GUE nitrox and trimix cards but I suspect that one can be sorted out once the vis clears a bit.
ChristianG
08-05-2010, 17:33
I am reluctant, nowadays, to jump into this type of breech, if only because some of you seem to think that I have no right to do so.
I have however used an AIRII since the very early nineties and a Hog rigged long hose since, about, '99 IIRC. I principally do so because (a) I usually carry a camera, (b) therefore I am usually diving "self sufficient" and (c) a Hog rigged long hose is, by my perception, a good thing to have in an OOA situation. Incidentally, controlling such a long hose is an important consideration: if a diver comes up to you panicked and OOA. IMO it is much easier to control the length of hose you deploy in order to keep that diver where you have presumably secured them by grabbing their webbing, hopefully at the shoulder with full eye contact.
The AIRII is there for me, solely me. It, and its cousins, are not now and never were designed for anyone other than the diver carrying them. Having said that I did once share one around '92 when the hubby of a husband and wife team ran OOA very early in a dive, promptly followed by his wife. The problem was that he resolutely refused to give the Octopus hose back and so she and I had to share the AIRII. It's doable, but barely.
Now, before someone says to me "wot about a necklaced 1st stage" remember that I am a photographer and necklaced 1st stages and photographers do not get on - at all - the bluddy things get in the way of the camera with monotonous regularity. Yes, I do look through the viewfinder of mine, in fact it doesn't have "live view" anyway.
bythesea
08-05-2010, 18:19
I think everyone needs to go back and read the first letter, people are forgetting what this was all about, refer to the definition of terms which I recall were, HL, PD, PT
Dave Whitlow
09-05-2010, 23:13
I think everyone needs to go back and read the first letter, people are forgetting what this was all about, refer to the definition of terms which I recall were, HL, PD, PT
Who cares?
I (and probably many others) am tired of this nonsense (a silly mistake we hoped would just go away) and I have resolved to focus on the diving I want to do with the configuration I have chosen (hog loop).
Sadly, that will be to the detriment of others (was that intended?). However, as common sense has not prevailed, I have better things to do than present arguments to people who have yet present any coherent argument to support their position!
Agreed. That would appear to be the case.
But you can dive with a single primary reg and an AIR-II with an OD? Yup. No ban on that and that also requires Primary Donate?
So why single out HL? Why single out OD's?
Hog looping is not singled out. It is not mentioned in the last letter.
BSAC recommend that you do not primary donate with ODs, whether your alternate is an air II, necklaced back-up, or a very long snorkle. I agree with this - we should be teaching trainees a single consistent method - take the secondary.
Janos
I hope that we get some clarification, if the above is true does that mean instruction cannot be carried out if either the student or the instructor is using Air 2 which requires PD
This is my understanding.
Janos
I think everyone needs to go back and read the first letter, people are forgetting what this was all about, refer to the definition of terms which I recall were, HL, PD, PT
You should also read the last letter which says (in not so many words) ignore the first letter.
Janos
Hog looping is not singled out. It is not mentioned in the last letter.
The one in the mag? Does that supercede the website thing that is still there then? If it does, cool :)
BSAC recommend that you do not primary donate with ODs, whether your alternate is an air II, necklaced back-up, or a very long snorkle. I agree with this - we should be teaching trainees a single consistent method - take the secondary.
Janos
OD's are not trainees. They are qualified divers.
I "discharged my duty of care" on Saturday with primary donate. In shallow water, we did a OOG drill. It went everso well. So well, in fact, that on the way up, on the 3 min safety stop, we did it again.
Adrian Kelland
11-05-2010, 17:41
OD's are not trainees. They are qualified divers.
An Advanced Diver doing SMG is a trainee...
An Advanced Diver doing SMG is a trainee...
and the last person you would let near a HL ;)
(cant HL on the SMG course?)
But yeah, point taken :)
Ok like the rest of you I wonder what it happening at NDC
we are about to elect a new NDO
Would this not be an opportunity for some sort of feedback from this group more than a sometimes insert in the mins of the of council
Perhaps even an occasional mention in Scuba
as to where we are going and why
Ok like the rest of you I wonder what it happening at NDC
we are about to elect a new NDO
With only one candidate its a forgone conclusion Jeff will be the NDO.
Would this not be an opportunity for some sort of feedback from this group more than a sometimes insert in the mins of the of council
Within the limitations of the election process I think Jeff made it clear where he wanted to take the NDC.
NDC is not part of Council it is the NDO's body of technical specialist whom assist him in his role of advising Council on diving issues, so BSAC business decisions are adequately considered. As a Council member I have witnessed Jeff doing this (extremely well) a number of times.
Perhaps even an occasional mention in Scuba
as to where we are going and why
Have you requested such content from Simon (simon at scubamagazine dot co dot uk) - he's the editor. That's what we pay for.
I e-mailed Jeff about the GUE crossover recognition question almost 2 months ago. I had been asked the question by a GUE Tech 1 qualified colleague who wanted to cross over to BSAC and participate in Armed Forces expeditions (I am the Expeditions Officer for RN and RM Sub Aqua).
To date I have not received a reply, but will update this thread if I hear anything. I am not holding my breath.
Steve in Sharm
18-03-2012, 10:50
I am not holding my breath.
Good, cos if you were this should be in the snorkelling section ;)
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.