BSAC's ppO2 rules

[Dominic Humphries]

At the risk of starting off another of those flame wars, I feel compelled to ask:

Does BSAC allow a ppO2 of 1.6 for decompression, or is 1.44 the maximum for all stages of a dive?

Just acquired some TDI qualifications, and whilst I know about the "No 100%" rule I'm not sure about the max ppO2 rule..

[janos]

Wotcha Dom,

According to my copy of the SDP (I'm not that sad, just received it a few days ago with my membership pack) BSAC "recommends a maximum partial pressure for Oxygen exposure when diving of 1.4 bar"

Laters,
Janos

PS - I think the 1.44 bar is a slight bend of this rule to allow 32% to be used to 35m. It's in one of the Sports Diver lecures, but the instructor manual says that this applies only to non-stop diving, as the slightly high ppO2 won't cause problems as the bottom period is too short. I know because someone picked me up on it!

[david lisk]

Out of interest, BSAC nitrox Table A; 32% oxygen at a 36m depth. This calculates as a ppO2 of 1.472. The table allows max decompression stops for a 51 minute dive of, 1 min at 9m and 18 min at 6m.

David



PS - I think the 1.44 bar is a slight bend of this rule to allow 32% to be used to 35m. It's in one of the Sports Diver lecures, but the instructor manual says that this applies only to non-stop diving, as the slightly high ppO2 won't cause problems as the bottom period is too short. I know because someone picked me up on it!

[Nigel Hewitt]

>>I think the 1.44 bar is a slight bend of this rule to allow 32% to be used to 35m.

>Out of interest, BSAC nitrox Table A; 32% oxygen at a 36m depth. This calculates as a ppO2 of 1.472.

Fresh water?
9.81bar/10 meters so 36m=4.5126bar absolute and 1.444bar ppO2 then a little rounding down to three figures and we have 1.44

I confess can't take 4 digit accuracy too seriously when dealing with biological things. I suspect my body can vary 10% either way on virtually any parameter aside from the length of my bones depending on the sea state and what I had for breakfast.

nigelH

[John Williams]

At the risk of starting off another of those flame wars, I feel compelled to ask:

Does BSAC allow a ppO2 of 1.6 for decompression, or is 1.44 the maximum for all stages of a dive?

Just acquired some TDI qualifications, and whilst I know about the "No 100%" rule I'm not sure about the max ppO2 rule..


To answer the question and not get caught up in advanced mathematics:


The BSAC maximum ppO2 is 1.4 bar for ALL dives involving either decompression or dives not involving the "standard" mixes of 32% and 36%.

When using standard mixes, and ONLY when doing a dive that does NOT involved any decompression stops (even safety stops!), the BSAC has allowed a Maximum operating depth of 35m for 32% and 30m for 36% - just to make those limits easier to remember.

This concession extends the 1.4bar limit to 1.44 - but this extention can ONLY be used

1) when using 32% or 36%
AND
2) when doing a dive that does not involve a deco stop.

HTH


John
BSAC Advanced Nitrox Instructor

[jens hucke]

This concession extends the 1.4bar limit to 1.44 - but this extention can ONLY be used

1) when using 32% or 36%
AND
2) when doing a dive that does not involve a deco stop.
John
BSAC Advanced Nitrox Instructor

3)... and if memory serves me well, none of the dives in the series must be deco, so if doing a deco dive in the morning and running on 1.4 ppo2 max, the afternoon dive must be 1.4 max, regardless of whether it is a deco dive or not.
On the other hand you could do 3 non-stop dives in a day, and use the 1.44 ppo2 as your maximum on all 3 dives if using either 32% or 36%.

regards
jens

[Philip Smith]

Fresh water?

Decompression tables are expressed in depths of 'sea water' (although depth gauges are often calibrated for fresh water).

Philip Smith

[Matt]

When using standard mixes, and ONLY when doing a dive that does NOT involved any decompression stops (even safety stops!),

You are kidding right!
Considering the last 20 years of deco research and the oxtox Vs DCI incident rates. How exactly does neglecting a safety stop for the sake of a 0.04 bar increase in PPO make diving safer?


Regards
Matt







the BSAC has allowed a Maximum operating depth of 35m for 32% and 30m for 36% - just to make those limits easier to remember.

This concession extends the 1.4bar limit to 1.44 - but this extention can ONLY be used

1) when using 32% or 36%
AND
2) when doing a dive that does not involve a deco stop.

HTH


John
BSAC Advanced Nitrox Instructor

[John Williams]

No-one said "don't do a safety stop". What was said was don't try and compensate for overstepping the ppO2 maximums by dropping in a safety stop. You should back off from the 1.4 AND do safety stops to be as safe as possible.

If you consider a dive to be provocative/dangerous enough to require stops (even safety stops) the BSAC recomendation is that you do not push the max ppO2 envelope as well.

Push one - but not both!

If you plan stops then back off from 1.4 and do extra stops.

If you plan 1.4+ to maximise bottom time/reduce nitrogen narcosis then dont push so far that you need stops too!

Any dive (or series of dives as Jens pointed out) that involves stops should treat a ppO2 of 1.4 as the maximum.

However - you should do, and document, your own risk assesments. If you choose to exceed limits recommended by your organisation then you should be prepared to pre-justify your reasoning. Working out an excuse after the fact is not really acceptable.

I know many who are trained to exceed these limits. Some of them do and get away with it. Some of them choose to back off from the limits and dive more conservatively than their training.

Please remember that a ppO2 of 1.4 is the Max that BSAC allow in "ideal conditions". If you are diving cold water, have any risk of CO2 build-up, or are simply not the young fit thing you once were then perhaps you should consider 1.3 or 1.2 as your personal max.

Of course - if you are diving bathwater, have zero chancce of CO2 build up and are a 23 year old male olympic athlete who will do a dive involving no work then by all mean do your risk assessment and justify exceeding the BSAC max recommendation of 1.4.

you decide

John

[Matt]

WARNING: I am in danger of going off on one!

No-one said "don't do a safety stop". What was said was don't try and compensate for overstepping the ppO2 maximums by dropping in a safety stop. You should back off from the 1.4 AND do safety stops to be as safe as possible.

The 'rules' as stated imply that divers making no-stop dives to 35m on 36% should ommit a safety stop to stay within SDPs.

The PPO limit is intended to prevent CNS tox. The safety stop is intended to prevent DCI. If you have pushed the PPO on the bottom and survived the CNS risk, neglecting a safety stop simply increases the DCI risk. Breathing 36% at 6m produces a PPO of 0.576 which is hardly going to feature in CNS calculations.

If you consider a dive to be provocative/dangerous enough to require stops (even safety stops) the BSAC recomendation is that you do not push the max ppO2 envelope as well.

You have done it again '(even safety stops)'. Do you think that safety stops are detrimental?

The purpose of a safety stop is to reduce the number of bubbles in the blood stream by providing time for them to travel to and be eliminated by the lungs. Personally I would say pretty much all dives are hazardous enough to warrant a safety stop. By doing the stop you make the dive less provocative in terms of DCI. PADI even have an acronym 'SAFE D' - Safe Ascent From Every Dive. BTW I have never been on a PADI course, I just happen to agree with them and DAN on this.

As to what makes a mandatory stop dive provocative. Well just compare 88 stop times and ascent rates with Buhlmann.

Push one - but not both!

I attempt to approach my diving by balancing the possible risk against the possible benefit. CNS tox and DCI are largely seperate risks. The meaures taken to reduce DCI risk, such as using an ideal mix or switching to a hi FO2 gas, increase CNS risk. It is not a matter of pushing one or the other. As far as I am concerned neither should be pushed.

If you plan stops then back off from 1.4 and do extra stops.

I mainly agree. However, the 'rules' encourage pushing the bottom PPO to 1.44 and not doing stops. The worst of both risks. In fact if you plan stops and have a deco gas available, you would be better off pushing the PPO to 1.44 at the gas switch rather than pushing it on the bottom.

If you plan 1.4+ to maximise bottom time/reduce nitrogen narcosis then dont push so far that you need stops too!

Which brings us back to; which is the more provocative deco table? You can stay within SDPs by using 1.44 and BSAC 88s. However by doing so you increase both CNS and DCI risks compared to using a lower bottom PPO, conservative tables and a higher deco PPO.

My second biggest problem with BSAC nitrox guidelines is that they make NO SENSE. If 1.44 is safe on the bottom then 1.44 is safe for deco.

My biggest problem is that wording in the BOH, equivalence statements and SDPs, indicate that these guidelines are rules. As an active branch diver, organiser, marshall and chairman of a 90 odd member branch I am placed in a very awkward position. The question mark is not over my safety but the status of my 3rd party insurance. The reason I get het up over this is that the logical answer is to leave BSAC and buy insurance which covers me without question; I really want to avoid having to do that.

However - you should do, and document, your own risk assesments. If you choose to exceed limits recommended by your organisation then you should be prepared to pre-justify your reasoning. Working out an excuse after the fact is not really acceptable.

I could take offence at the implication that I am looking for excuses, but I will put it down to bad wording. I believe my justifications are sounder than BSACs on this subject. The limits I use are well accepted and the diving I do is not particularly extreme. Certainly I hold the majority view as to what the PPO and FO2 limits are.

I know many who are trained to exceed these limits. Some of them do and get away with it.

How many ox-tox incidents were there last year involving divers breathing gas at PPOs between 1.4 and 1.6? Please quantify the risk we are all 'getting away with'.

Some of them choose to back off from the limits and dive more conservatively than their training.

You might want to take the trouble to check out the Yorkshire Divers thread which prompted the question on here. What surprised me was how little respect BSAC qualified Nitrox divers appear to have for BSAC Nitrox guidelines. It has even been sugested that Branch Officers should just shut up and get on with diving how they want. AFAIC making rules which few people follow is rather pointless.

Please remember that a ppO2 of 1.4 is the Max that BSAC allow in "ideal conditions".

BSAC allow 1.44, they even teach it on their courses.

If you are diving cold water, have any risk of CO2 build-up, or are simply not the young fit thing you once were then perhaps you should consider 1.3 or 1.2 as your personal max.

How many divers have ever toxed breathing < 1.4 bar PPO?

Of course - if you are diving bathwater, have zero chancce of CO2 build up and are a 23 year old male olympic athlete who will do a dive involving no work then by all mean do your risk assessment and justify exceeding the BSAC max recommendation of 1.4.

John, I would like to discuss this reasonably. Why do you need to continually patronoise me. Unfortunately some of your statements leave me thinking that you may misunderstand the issues and lack the knowledge to discuss this sensibly. I really do hope I am wrong.

As it is I am 38, make around 100 dives a year in the UK, with about two thirds involving accelerated decompression. I was taught a PPO limit of 1.4 for cold water/work and 1.6 for switching and have been using those limits since before BSAC were teaching Nitrox courses.

I have sat in on BSAC basic and advanced Nitrox courses on a few occassions. I have also discussed these limits with various coaches, none of whom are particularly willing to adhere to them or defend them.

So what do we have to do to start an informed dialogue with a view to bringing BSAC limits in line with the leading Nitrox agencies? I am neither stupid or un-informed, but I am rather tired of BSAC treating me as such every time this subject gets raised.

you decide

The only decision I have to make is whether to leave BSAC over this. That is not meant as a threat, just the way it is and something I think about a couple times a month.

[Vic]

> My second biggest problem with BSAC nitrox guidelines is that
> they make NO SENSE. If 1.44 is safe on the bottom then 1.44
> is safe for deco.

Safer. A diver is much less susceptible to toxing during the "resting" phase of the dive than during the "working" phase. AFAIK, there are very few agencies who don't make this distinction...

Vic.

[John Williams]

So what do we have to do to start an informed dialogue with a view to bringing BSAC limits in line with the leading Nitrox agencies? I am neither stupid or un-informed, but I am rather tired of BSAC treating me as such every time this subject gets raised.


You raise your issues in the correct forum...that of the BSAC Nitrox Working Group (and not this one!).

You should write a formal letter (email would be fine) to the Chairman of that working group asking for a full explanation of why the BSAC limits have been set where they are. It might also be beneficial if you offer your input into future development of the Nitrox guidelines.

Last time I checked it was still Jack Ingle (and yes - Jack does teach other agency nitrox courses with Max ppO2 in excess of 1.4)

It might be an idea to also cc the NDO.

Jack can be contacted via <a href="mailto:jack.ingle@bsac.com">jack.ingle@bsac.com</a> (inkeeping with the format of all volunteers who give up their time for the BSAC)
The NDO can be reached on <a href="mailto:ndo@bsac.com">ndo@bsac.com</a>

In a public forum such as this one (and also in any official BSAC forum - e.g. an ITS event or in a Coaching Scheme setting) anyone with a position if responsibility should advocate and support the official BSAC recommendations. If they do not agree/comply with those recommendations then they should simply state the rules in public without giving an opinion (as I have done in this thread). However they should also challenge those recommendations that they do not agree with through the accepted channels.

Since I am not part of that accepted channel (because I've not felt the need to challenge the recommendations, nor volunteered my services in this area), and because I am a BSAC ITS instructor and an Area Coach I cannot enter into any debate of BSAC recommendations. It's my job - as a volunteer who beleives in the organisation - to advocate them.

Incidentally, when I was diving as a non-HSE scientist I was limited to a max ppO2 of 1.2.

Go figure that one!

dives on the same day, from the same boat, with the same people, to the same site with different enforced max ppO2 because one was "official" and one was for fun.


John

[Dave]

In a public forum such as this one (and also in any official BSAC forum - e.g. an ITS event or in a Coaching Scheme setting) anyone with a position if responsibility should advocate and support the official BSAC recommendations. If they do not agree/comply with those recommendations then they should simply state the rules in public without giving an opinion (as I have done in this thread). However they should also challenge those recommendations that they do not agree with through the accepted channels.

So you are suggesting censorship of views on this forum then. There would be little point in contributions if nothing was allowed to question the way it is done


because I am a BSAC ITS instructor and an Area Coach I cannot enter into any debate of BSAC recommendations. It's my job - as a volunteer who beleives in the organisation - to advocate them.

I do not see it as a requirement of a BSAC representative to blindly state dogma. Has BSAC told you that you are not to discuss your views ?

Dave

[John Williams]

What is said on official BSAC fora by BSAC representatives is a very different thisng from what is said by the same people over a pint in a pub.

One must be mindful of ones responsibilities when "on duty".

In this case I know the BSAC rules... and have never felt the need to challenge them in my own diving practice, so I simply cannot contribute beyond restating the recommendations.

The original question was about what the rules allowed. When people disagreed I expanded on the reasoning behind the rules and directed those who still take issue to the correct forum.

What more do you want?

John

[Dave]

What more do you want?


No censorship would be a start. If you are saying, which you seem to imply, that BSAC officials should not be able to give their own views on the fora, then that seems to me, to be wrong.

Dave

[tas]

:=What more do you want?
:=

No censorship would be a start. If you are saying, which you seem to imply, that BSAC officials should not be able to give their own views on the fora, then that seems to me, to be wrong.

Dave

I understood him to be saying that a "BSAC official" CAN give his own views in the forums, but, where those views contradict or undermine accepted BSAC recommendations he SHOULD not do so, unless (I suspect John would add) the recommendations are clearly wrong and dangerous. Seems perfectly sensible to me. If a BSAC official thinks that 1.4 ppO2 is dangerous then he's going to say so where-ever he can, and if he thinks that 1.6 ppO2 is perfectly safe then he's going to try and persuade BSAC to say so.

Or have I misunderstood


tas

[Dave]

:=
:=:=What more do you want?
:=:=
:=
:=No censorship would be a start. If you are saying, which you seem to imply, that BSAC officials should not be able to give their own views on the fora, then that seems to me, to be wrong.
:=
:=Dave

I understood him to be saying that a "BSAC official" CAN give his own views in the forums, but, where those views contradict or undermine accepted BSAC recommendations he SHOULD not do so, unless (I suspect John would add) the recommendations are clearly wrong and dangerous. Seems perfectly sensible to me. If a BSAC official thinks that 1.4 ppO2 is dangerous then he's going to say so where-ever he can, and if he thinks that 1.6 ppO2 is perfectly safe then he's going to try and persuade BSAC to say so.

Or have I misunderstood

Unless an official is posting in an official capacity , then that person should be free to post their own opinions imo regardless of whether those opinions are toeing the party line.

Dave

[John Williams]

Unless an official is posting in an official capacity , then that person should be free to post their own opinions imo regardless of whether those opinions are toeing the party line.

Dave

Tas got it right!

There is a time, a place and a method for supporting the BSAC and the way it does things (or develops those things for the future)

Dave has a very naive perspective of the difference between an official viewpoint and an official's viewpoint. It is VERY difficult to tell them apart - hence the need for anyone chosen to represent the BSAC to do just that - represent the BSAC philosophy.

However those who are chosen to represent the BSAC in any official capacity are also expected to contribute to the development of BSAC policy...this should always be done behind the scenes (whilst taking into account the thoughts and feelings of the membership).

Therefore, as a representative of the BSAC, I must support current guidelines - whilst either debating the future of those guidelines with those who control them (if I feel strongly about an issue), or by bringing the strong feelings of other BSAC divers to the attention of the same people who control those guidelines.

In this case I have no strong feelings - but I directed those with strong feelings to the right place.

I feel my contribution is over - since I don't really care enough to see the guidelines further developed for my own use.

I do care enough to see that there is scope for development where others have strong feelings. So - if you get no joy when you ask questions in the right place then please come back to me and I'll see what further assistance I am able to offer.


John

[Dave]

Dave has a very naive perspective of the difference between an official viewpoint and an official's viewpoint. It is VERY difficult to tell them apart - hence the need for anyone chosen to represent the BSAC to do just that - represent the BSAC philosophy.

There is nothing naive about it. There are official posts made on the fora which are posted by usernames such as "Open Water Instructor Chief Examiner " . A post made in such a capacity , I would expect to be acting as an official mouthpiece of BSAC and for it to be giving official guidance.

A post made by John Doe, Who might well have an official standing, I would expect to be the opinion of that person and not be clased as an official statement.

Your opinion that persons with official capacity should not voice their own opinions , as long as they do not suggest that they are giving anything other than their oen opinion, is putting forward a suggestion that BSAC officials should be gagged.

Dave

[Vic]

&gt; There is nothing naive about it.

Absolutely.

If an official viewpoint is right, support it. If it's wrong, don't support it. Anything else is a betrayal of proper practice for political ends - there's words for things like that...


&gt; putting forward a suggestion that BSAC officials should be
&gt; gagged.

...although that could be argued as a Good Thing (tm) ;-)

Vic.

[Keith L]

&gt; There is nothing naive about it.

Absolutely.

If an official viewpoint is right, support it. If it's wrong, don't support it. Anything else is a betrayal of proper practice for political ends - there's words for things like that...

The word that immediately springs to mind is anarchy. Tell me Vic ? who is it who decides what is ?right? and therefore worth supporting?

FWIW I personally feel that the BSAC 1.4ppO2 policy is wrong, I have said so many times and made representations to get it changed. But it is not up to me alone to decide that it is right or wrong for the BSAC, I acknowledge and respect the authority of the NDO in such matters. Therefore I respect the current policy of the BSAC and will support that policy until it can be democratically changed.

&gt; putting forward a suggestion that BSAC officials should be
&gt; gagged.

...although that could be argued as a Good Thing (tm) ;-)

Oi! I resemble that remark ;-)

Keith L

[Dave]

:=&gt; There is nothing naive about it.
:=

The word that immediately springs to mind is anarchy. Tell me Vic ? who is it who decides what is ?right? and therefore worth supporting?

The members *should*. If you believe something to be wrong, you should be quite free to put it forward as your view. It doesn't make it official policy , just your view.


FWIW I personally feel that the BSAC 1.4ppO2 policy is wrong, I have said so many times and made representations to get it changed. But it is not up to me alone to decide that it is right or wrong for the BSAC, I acknowledge and respect the authority of the NDO in such matters. Therefore I respect the current policy of the BSAC and will support that policy until it can be democratically changed.

As you say, you believe it to be wrong and are saying so here. Following John Williams credo, you shouldn't even be admitting as such here. You should be following the BSAC dogma that 1.4 is right and that everything else is wrong. Do you think that BSAC members , who hgappen to be officials, should be gagged in such a way on these fora?

Any official should be free to post in a personal capacity without having to toe the BSAC line. Obviously, if running a course, posting in an Official capacity, that is different and BSACs recommendations should be put forward, I wouldnt suggest otherwise.

Dave

[Vic]

&gt;&gt; If an official viewpoint is right, support it. If it's wrong,
&gt;&gt; don't support it. Anything else is a betrayal of proper
&gt;&gt; practice for political ends - there's words for things like
&gt;&gt; that...
&gt;
&gt; The word that immediately springs to mind is anarchy.

Why? Do you not support the idea of free speech?

&gt; Tell me Vic ? who is it who decides what is ?right? and
&gt; therefore worth supporting?

The person forming the opinion, of course!

I have no problem with people having differing opinions. I have a *serious* issue with people trotting out the "party line" when they know it to be wrong, but don't want to break protocol by disagreeing in public.

&gt; FWIW I personally feel that the BSAC 1.4ppO2 policy is wrong,
&gt; I have said so many times and made representations to get it
&gt; changed. But it is not up to me alone to decide that it is
&gt; right or wrong for the BSAC

That's fine. Whilst your approach might be marginally different from mine, I have nothing but respect for how you wish to address this.

What I do not respect is the idea (per John's post) that you should be pressured into publicly supporting something you do not believe.

Vic.

[TerryH]

I have no problem with people having differing opinions. I have a *serious* issue with people trotting out the "party line" when they know it to be wrong, but don't want to break protocol by disagreeing in public.


I dont have any qualms about a senior club officer spouting
the party line and not voicing personal opinons. After all
where do you draw the line? I've no doubt that Keith et al are
privy to sensitive and private information that would be
extremely harmful to BSAC in the public domain. There may even
be possible litigation issues if some of this info is aired on
a public forum.

I do however have major reservations about same actually diving
outside/against BSAC recommendations etc.
That IMO does/has done more harm than any off the cuff
statement.

TerryH

[John Williams]

Any official should be free to post in a personal capacity without having to toe the BSAC line. Obviously, if running a course, posting in an Official capacity, that is different and BSACs recommendations should be put forward, I wouldnt suggest otherwise.

Dave

And what is this other than a BSAC forum?

The origin of this thread asked about BSAC policy...it was "trotted out" with no opinion of corectctness or otherwise.

As it happens, and as I have said. I have no personal axe to grind here since I find the BSAC policy quite liberal enough for my own diving.

However - I do value the right to free speech. I have not discouraged debate here - just cautioned those who have accepted responsibility to support BSAC policy by accepting an official post to stand by their agreement.

I have also referred those who disagree with policy to the correct fora for challenging it.

By all means use these fora to guage support for and to crystalise your collective concerns before going to the correct fora to challenge BSAC policy - but whilst doing so remember that this is NOT that place.

As also stated previously: If you find that by going to the correct fora you do not get a reasoned explanation (whether you agree with it or not) then please come back to me and I shall champion the right of any BSAC member to challenge policy and to receive a coherent response to that challenge.

HTH


JOHN

[John Williams]

:=
:=I have no problem with people having differing opinions. I have a *serious* issue with people trotting out the "party line" when they know it to be wrong, but don't want to break protocol by disagreeing in public.
:=

I dont have any qualms about a senior club officer spouting
the party line and not voicing personal opinons. After all
where do you draw the line? I've no doubt that Keith et al are
privy to sensitive and private information that would be
extremely harmful to BSAC in the public domain. There may even
be possible litigation issues if some of this info is aired on
a public forum.

I do however have major reservations about same actually diving
outside/against BSAC recommendations etc.
That IMO does/has done more harm than any off the cuff
statement.

TerryH

Now...on this particular point I am going to violently AGREE with Terry.

It is simply not good enough to put forward
"do as I say" dogma and combine it with "but not as I do" caveat.

If the rules/recommendations are not good enough for Senior BSAC members then they should not be good enough for ANY BSAC member.

Those in Senior positions, especially those with the authority/position to change the guidelines, should follow them - or change them if they find them to be innaplicable.

There is NO excuse for Senior BSAC officials to ignore the guidelines that they expect you and me (the rank and file) to adhere to. (unless they are actively engaged in an official BSAC working party that is challenging those gusielines on behalf of us all!)

John

[Keith L]

And I am going to disagree with both of you.

The BSAC SDP and recommendations are not about telling you how you WILL dive, they are about advising you how you SHOULD dive if you wish to conduct the dive as an official BSAC dive within the umbrella of the club and its insurance. If I am on a club dive then that is how I will conduct myself and how I would expect other members to conduct themselves.

Nobody is telling you ?thou shalt not...?, all they are doing is advising you what is and what isn?t a BSAC dive. You are free to ignore those recommendations if you so wish, nobody is going to stop you or complain about it, but you will NOT do so on a BSAC dive.

I freely admit that I have dived outside of the BSAC SDP recommendations. It was my personal choice to do so, agreed with my companions, in a private manner and nothing whatsoever to do with the BSAC. With all due respect it is nothing whatsoever to do with you, the fact that I am a BSAC official is irrelevant. I expect to be extended to me exactly the same courtesy as extended to you, the freedom of personal choice.

If you cannot accept that concept of me having a personal choice then you better call for my resignation now.

Keith L

[John Williams]

Keith,

If the guidelines do not permit ordinary BSAC members to go about their ordinary diving within the BSAC umbrella - then they are a waste of time.

What we need is a set of guidelines that steer us in the right direction (wihout forcing us to comply) - BUT ....and it's a BIG but .... whilst we have those that set the guidelines clearly stating, on public fora and by their actions that the guidelines do not fit normal diving practice then you are inviting us

*as you did in your post*

to ignore them.

This is clearly unacceptable!

When a judge (the guardian of the law) gets drunk and drives home - he should be subject to the same rules as us and be prosecuted for the offence...and it should hit the headlines and the judge should consider his position. The same should apply to BSAC Council Members - the guardians of our "laws".

In ANY other sports organisation there are sets of rules - and if you break them you are pulled up for it.

What you are advocating makes a mockery of all the hard work and effort that goes into creating a BSAC training programme.

Why set a maximum operating depth of 20m for Ocean Divers if a Council member says it os OK to ignore it and take them to 50m?

Why set a Max ppO2 of 1.4 (or 1.44 for no stop dives) if a Council member says - ignore it if you want and push it to 1.8?

Whilst people are members of the BSAC they should follow the recommendations of the organisation. The members ARE the BSAC and if they disagree with the recommendations then they should canvass for them to be changed to fit their requirements. They should not simply ignore them. This applies equally to ALL members regardless of their position in the organisation.

For a Council Member (were you posting as Keith (person) or Keith (Council Member)) to advocate ignoring the rules is at best undesirable and at worst dangerous - since it amounts to official approval to break the rules.

Please clarify the position to all us members out here;

1) Should all BSAC members adhere to the recommednations?
2) Can we safely ignore them - with the official approval of a Council Member?

John

[Dave]

:=Any official should be free to post in a personal capacity without having to toe the BSAC line. Obviously, if running a course, posting in an Official capacity, that is different and BSACs recommendations should be put forward, I wouldnt suggest otherwise.
:=
:=Dave

And what is this other than a BSAC forum?

It is not a BSAC mouthpiece forum afaik , rather "This on-line forum is intended for the use of BSAC Members to discuss diving related issues" . It does not say it is there to promote the party line

Dave

[neil carter]

This thread now seems to be moving dangerously close to the hoary old "When is a dive not a Club Dive??" question. AFAIUI, if a well experienced group of Club members dive with the foreknowledge of the dive by the DO, this is a Club Dive. So this same group of divers want to go out and Nitrox dive to 1.6 ppo2, air dive to 65mts, or all go their separate ways on Solo Dives. On the Club boat, this would still be a Club Dive, (by default the DO, through his appointed EO would know of the dive), on a hard boat it could be argued this is not a Club Dive. But we all belong to the same Club, we don't even go diving with non Club members, and we only discuss our diving trips during Club Meetings. So are we doing a BSAC dive, or are we doing a private dive. A somewhat moot point that I'm sure the lawyers would love to spend our money discussing!! So what problems are we facing here?? At the end of the day it comes down to possible litigation &/or lack of personal or third party insurance cover when TSHTF. As adults we make up our own minds about acceptable levels of risk, if we dive outside of the SDP reccs, then we accept the possible increased level of post dive risk outlined above.

Where this leaves the actions of the PTB is another moot point. Certainly "senior" divers, and the PTB, were diving Nitrox, TriMix, and Rebreathers long before BSAC officially accepted these "advances" in diving practise, which brings me back to my many times broached question of "Why the **** aren't BSAC leading from the front, as we always used to do in our much vaunted, and maybe over fondly remembered, pioneering days??" Why is it that we continually have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty first century of diving??

I don't neccessarily have a problem with the PTB diving outside of the SDP reccs, but if it's good enough for them, or seen to be the way forwards, then why oh why does it take so long for these diving technology "advances" to be introduced to us mere mortals. As was discussed in an earlier thread last year, this is one of the main reasons that senior and experienced divers are not renewing BSAC Membership. Diving practises for which they have paid to be qualified elsewhere, simply take too long to be even grudgingly accepted by BSAC. Stay and dive, and try to change from the inside and you're a hypocrite, leave and dive and you're a plonker - heads we lose, tails we lose!!!

Not being an RB diver, I can't remember how long it took BSAC to even accept RB diving after the UK launch and official certification of the Inspiration (?? Vic??), although anecdotal evidence suggests that various BSAC luminaries were in the vanguard of the rollout long before the "official" acceptance, and it has taken until today to announce that the first trial BSAC RB courses have been completed. How much more credibility we would have gained if the initial Training Agency qualifications had been accepted from the outset, irrespective of whether a BSAC course was subsequently created or not.

So where am I going with this rambling post?? Simply this. If as a diver, I have a non BSAC, A N other Agency recognised qualification for a given level of diving, or a specific type of equipment, then all these problems caused by the introduction of new "ideas" would be swept away if BSAC recognised my ability to dive to my other Agency certification. BSAC could then still take their time deciding on the validity, or cost effectiveness, of introducing our own competing or complementary package of courses and qualifications, taking all the time in the world, without losing valuable experienced members along the way. It's always worth remembering that if BSAC's founding fathers had not accepted, or indeed created the latest ideas and up to date technologies in diving in BSAC.s earliest days, there would never have been a BSAC in the first place.

As a final aside, I happen to agree with Keith about diving beyond the 1.4PPO2 limit, and of course my non BSAC Nitrox/TriMix certifications qualify me so to dive, as long as I am not doing a BSAC Club Dive - difficult as all my dive buddies are also BSAC divers - however what to do when I want to Solo Dive, that's a different question.

Neil Carter

Posting personally, and not as AI & DO of ISIS Divers

[terryh]

And I am going to disagree with both of you.

The BSAC SDP and recommendations are not about telling you how you WILL dive, they are about advising you how you SHOULD dive if you wish to conduct the dive as an official BSAC dive within the umbrella of the club and its insurance. If I am on a club dive then that is how I will conduct myself and how I would expect other members to conduct themselves.

Nobody is telling you ?thou shalt not...?, all they are doing is advising you what is and what isn?t a BSAC dive. You are free to ignore those recommendations if you so wish, nobody is going to stop you or complain about it, but you will NOT do so on a BSAC dive.

I freely admit that I have dived outside of the BSAC SDP recommendations. It was my personal choice to do so, agreed with my companions, in a private manner and nothing whatsoever to do with the BSAC. With all due respect it is nothing whatsoever to do with you, the fact that I am a BSAC official is irrelevant. I expect to be extended to me exactly the same courtesy as extended to you, the freedom of personal choice.

If you cannot accept that concept of me having a personal choice then you better call for my resignation now.

Keith L

I'm the TO and therefore one of the Instructor team for a Uni
club teaching a large turnover (and number) of very
impressionable 18-22 year olds. Eventually they will leave the
club, dive/meet other divers on holiday etc. and get to know
different techniques, ideals, directions. But ........

Until then WE are there diving world. We expect them to follow
our example at this critical stage and that means (as a BSAC
club) the BSAC way. As an Instructor I have the fabled "duty
of care" and that includes acting in a manor that does not
endanger any student by following my non-BSAC example.

As long as I am a club officer I have a responsibilty to follow
BSAC SDP. To do anything else will (IMO) endanger the lives of
students and I have enough personal anecdotal evidence to
confirm that this is indeed true.

So at club level, as a club officer I have a "duty" to show
good BSAC dive practices by example and if that means not
diving outside of the club, then that's my personal choice.


TerryH

[Matt]

Sorry not to have got back on this sooner but I have to work sometime.

First off let me make it clear that how John chooses to react is entirely up to him and for the most part I respect his choice.

My last post objected to the manner in which John replied to me whilst not answering my somewhat glib question. I thought his argument relied more on his position in BSAC than on knowledge, hence my detailed reply indicating that I may know enough about the subject not to be 'bullied' into silence.

I dont have any qualms about a senior club officer spouting
the party line and not voicing personal opinons.

Agreed. IMVHO the professional response would have been to refer me straight to the NWG without attempting to make me look like an irresponsible idiot first.

After all
where do you draw the line? I've no doubt that Keith et al are
privy to sensitive and private information that would be
extremely harmful to BSAC in the public domain. There may even
be possible litigation issues if some of this info is aired on
a public forum.

I can understand that council may be privy to operational information that is best kept within a closed circle. What I can not accept is that the technicalities of BSAC Diving Policy is inappropriate for public debate on the BSAC 'in depth forum'. If our diving policy makes sense then it will stand on it's own merits and we have nothing to fear from public discussion. If policy does not make sense it needs changing because we have enough practical hazards in this sport without contending with ridiculous, indefensible rules.

Debate is not what damages the organisation. It is the non-sensical policies being debated which do the damage.

So where do you draw the line Terry?
+ Teaching best practice
+ Teaching what is convenient
+ Being insured

Take the NX policy. Are you seriously going to insist that someone ommits a safety stop, ascends faster than they planned, or increases the O2 in their bottom mix in order to stay within SDPs?

For one moment lets play devils advocate. You do in fact change someones dive plan and they subsequently end up hurt. Of course there is no way of proving whether your action actually caused the result. But is it really so improbable to imagine that a clever lawyer could not wheel out a string of expert witnesses who will all tell the judge/coroner that the max bottom PPO for cold water diving is 1.4, 32% is a touch hot for a 35m dive in tidal conditions and that we have known for the last 10 years that slow ascents and safety stops may be beneficial in avoiding DCI.

So possibly our choice is between being bankrupt and innocent or solvent and guilty.

Personally I am entirely uncomfortable with messing with the dive plan of a diver operating within accepted good practice and the limits of their training (wherever they happen to get it).

I do however have major reservations about same actually diving
outside/against BSAC recommendations etc.
That IMO does/has done more harm than any off the cuff
statement.

I don't entirely agree or entirely disagree. The establishment of, lets say middle of the road, guidelines is appropriate for a mainstream sporting organisation. Implementing rules which prevent us from being all we can be within our chosen sport is inappropriate for an organisation who's objective is to promote, encourage and develop. I would say this is the difference between instructing and coaching. Whilst our students are learning, then yes we do need to place limits around what they are allowed to do. We also have a duty to inform people of what is considered safe for the mainstream. But at some point, some people will surpass both the mainstream and the abilities of their teachers; at which point our role needs to change.

[Philip Smith]

If the guidelines do not permit ordinary BSAC members to go about their ordinary diving within the BSAC umbrella - then they are a waste of time.

Only if they are viewed as a rigid set of rules. If they are viewed as guidance that can be varied according to the judgement of those responsible for the dive (with the awareness that that judgement may need to justified later), we have recommendations that need not be followed in all circumstances.

When a judge (the guardian of the law) gets drunk and drives home - he should be subject to the same rules as us and be prosecuted for the offence...and it should hit the headlines and the judge should consider his position. The same should apply to BSAC Council Members - the guardians of our "laws".

In ANY other sports organisation there are sets of rules - and if you break them you are pulled up for it.

That is very revealing. The discussion had turned to the SDP. The SDP document is not our "laws" or "rules". The preface to the SDP explicity acknowledges that the recommendations are not "a set of rigid rules" and "can be amended depending upon the particular type of diving being planned and the experience and capabilities of the two divers carrying out the dive."

Philip Smith

[terryh]

I can understand that council may be privy to operational information that is best kept within a closed circle. What I can not accept is that the technicalities of BSAC Diving Policy is inappropriate for public debate on the BSAC 'in depth forum'. If our diving policy makes sense then it will stand on it's own merits and we have nothing to fear from public discussion. If policy does not make sense it needs changing because we have enough practical hazards in this sport without contending with ridiculous, indefensible rules.


Agreed. I was reffering to financially sensitive, commercial,
and personal/disciplinary information and not what should be
the open discussion of BSAC SDP's.

Take the NX policy. Are you seriously going to insist that someone ommits a safety stop, ascends faster than they planned, or increases the O2 in their bottom mix in order to stay within SDPs?


Nope I fully agree with you that the blanket approach has
caused some anomolies that need rectifying. It will happen eons
down the line. Unfortunateley it is often these minor
irritations that end up loosing BSAC members.

Personally I am entirely uncomfortable with messing with the dive plan of a diver operating within accepted good practice and the limits of their training (wherever they happen to get it).


Absolutley. Time to go off on one ......

And that really is the main issue. The technical agencies are
by there very nature cash rich and will be able to push the
boundaries faster and more efficently than BSAC. Playing catch
up is IMO about the best BSAC can do. We will never be at the
cutting edge again. We simply do not have either the
infrastructure or the funding. So instead of pretending we are,
why not just accept that these "other agencies" are good at
what they do and accept ther SDP in there entirity. If BSAC
then want to add ther own course (which historicly will be much
later) fine. Then finally, we can have the happy situation
where 2x divers of different agencies can be on a BSAC boat/dive
without any conflicts etc.

Rgds
TerryH

[neil carter]

Obviously I needed that Uni education upon which I missed out all those years ago!!

And that really is the main issue. The technical agencies are
by there very nature cash rich and will be able to push the
boundaries faster and more efficently than BSAC. Playing catch
up is IMO about the best BSAC can do. We will never be at the
cutting edge again. We simply do not have either the
infrastructure or the funding. So instead of pretending we are,
why not just accept that these "other agencies" are good at
what they do and accept ther SDP in there entirity. If BSAC
then want to add ther own course (which historicly will be much
later) fine. Then finally, we can have the happy situation
where 2x divers of different agencies can be on a BSAC boat/dive
without any conflicts etc.

Terr'ys managed to sum up in one paragraph what I rambled through a whole page to achieve, but basically, my thoughts exactly.

I seem to remember that the point of illustrating our diving qualifications by showing the relevant pages from our QRB, or the original credit card sized Q cards, was to be able to confirm our BSAC Q's when diving outside , or maybe inside different, Club environments. In other words, we expect Joe Average Dive Business manager or guide, or Joe Average DO to recognise and respect our hard won BSAC certification level, wherever in the world we happen to show it.

I might be slightly lost here , but what is so different about expecting BSAC to recognise and respect our hard won non BSAC Agency certification level????? Or am I losing the plot somewhere???

Neil Carter

[Ric Morte]

This thread now seems to be moving dangerously close to the hoary old "When is a dive not a Club Dive??" question. AFAIUI, if a well experienced group of Club members dive with the foreknowledge of the dive by the DO, this is a Club Dive. So this same group of divers want to go out and Nitrox dive to 1.6 ppo2, air dive to 65mts, or all go their separate ways on Solo Dives. On the Club boat, this would still be a Club Dive, (by default the DO, through his appointed EO would know of the dive), on a hard boat it could be argued this is not a Club Dive. But we all belong to the same Club, we don't even go diving with non Club members, and we only discuss our diving trips during Club Meetings. So are we doing a BSAC dive, or are we doing a private dive?

If as a diver, I have a non BSAC, A N other Agency recognised qualification for a given level of diving, or a specific type of equipment, then all these problems caused by the introduction of new "ideas" would be swept away if BSAC recognised my ability to dive to my other Agency certification. BSAC could then still take their time deciding on the validity, or cost effectiveness, of introducing our own competing or complementary package of courses and qualifications, taking all the time in the world, without losing valuable experienced members along the way.

Neil Carter

Posting personally, and not as AI & DO of ISIS Divers

Although this thread is specifically about the ppO2 limits, it seems to me that the argument could equally be about any other limits set by BSAC (for example, 35m for fully qualified Sports Divers) or any number of the guidelines set out in the SDPs.

I agree that a Club Dive not only should, but absolutely must stay within the guidelines, irrespective of whether any diver likes those guidelines or is qualified through a different agency to dive beyond those limits. The position of DO is not an enviable one and it is simply not fair to put the DO in the position where his or her foreknowledge and prior sanction of a dive leads him/her wide open to litigation if it turns out those limits are exceeded or, worst still, disregarded. Whether an incident occurs or not is not the issue: I think a DO absolutely must be able to trust his members to conduct their diving completely within the rules. Frankly I would have the greatest sympathy if a DO were to resign his or her post because he/she could not rely on members to dive within the BSAC rules and guidelines. Further, I would expect the DO, TO, senior divers and instructors to reinforce this view at all times.

The issue of free speech is a quite separate one. I have no problem with anyone within the club, officer or otherwise, arguing in favour of a change to those rules. Indeed much can be learnt by challenging the thinking of others and this, though not the sole method, is one of the ways the sport evolves. Further I find it most refreshing when I hear a senior BSAC officer or Council member putting forward views that challenge my thinking and make me look again at the way that I dive. This is healthy. It is stimulating. It also makes me realise that my experience does not stand alone; the experience of others is there to be debated, argued, reviewed.

John, I think you polarised your argument too strongly. The 'you are either with us or against us' attitude, so easily annunciated when views become polarised, has no place here (I am not accusing you of saying this, only that polarisation of views can so easily lead to this. In fact I'm not accusing anyone of anything!). This is a forum. It is where we debate issues. It is where we accept the widest possible scope of views and then decide where each of us stands having considered the arguments.

Where a group of divers intend to dive beyond the limits/guidelines set out by BSAC, perhaps because they have other agency qualifications that recognize their competence to do so, then to me the issue is simple: it must not be a club dive. In such situations I see no need to inform the DO, nor to put that responsibility unfairly on his or her shoulders. If, to achieve that dive, all the divers are members of a club, using club equipment and a club boat, then I think those divers are trying to have it both ways. It isn't fair either to the club and especially to the DO. If those divers want to do something different, then make it a truly independent dive. And don't just rely on BSAC insurance - sort out your own. If those divers are still not happy then do as John states: use the appropriate channels - but BSAC must make sure those channels are open and are given a timely response.

Meanwhile I agree with Neil: BSAC could do much to take on board other agency qualifications much much sooner, perhaps by initiating a review team to explore the implications and to do so within a short timescale. If BSAC has a sound reason for not accepting that qualification then it will have to justify its position; if accepted, then those divers can immediately benefit from the additional qualifications they possess. Whilst membership retention IS an important issue, I don't think it should be the driving force for accepting other agency qualifications, at least not the main one. If another agency has a recognized qualification, then what's the problem? And if that qualification is to a standard that is higher than BSAC currently award then isn't that a good thing?

Ric

[Vic]

&gt; Where a group of divers intend to dive beyond the
&gt; limits/guidelines set out by BSAC, perhaps because they have
&gt; other agency qualifications that recognize their competence to
&gt; do so, then to me the issue is simple: it must not be a club
&gt; dive.

So what do we do when the DO is one of those divers?

From the BOH :-

The National Diving Committee has defined an official Branch dive:

?As one that is carried out with the prior knowledge and approval of the Branch Diving Officer.?


So if a DO is diving, then by definition the dive is being carried out with his prior knowledge and approval. Thus any diving the DO does *has to be* a Branch Dive.

That's a less-than-enviable position to put our DOs in, is it not?

Vic.

[Ric Morte]

Matt, nicely argued. With you all the way on your main points. To your specific question:

Take the NX policy. Are you seriously going to insist that someone ommits a safety stop, ascends faster than they planned, or increases the O2 in their bottom mix in order to stay within SDPs?

I don't think anyone would argue in favour of such a position. (Well... they might but I'd be interested to hear their argument). Isn't part of the problem interpreting the SDPs too rigidly? Surely the overriding principle is one of safety? If the divers concerned agreed that undertaking an additional stop increased their safety margins, then I don't see this as a problem. Does doing an additional safety stop suddenly make a 'non-stop' dive a 'stop-dive'?

I subscribe to the view that the cut-off between 'stop' and 'no-stop' is always an arbitrary binary datum - arbitrary in that biological organisms do not operate on yes/no or on/off principles. What about the situation where the diver is right on the edge of the tissue compartment limit? In reality is there any difference between that diver and another who sits fractionally on the other side of the cut-off and has gone into deco, even though the two divers have almost the same nitrogen loading?

I've heard divers saying that at depth their computers clicked into deco for a moment but that the computer cleared during the ascent so they ignored their stops. It makes me cringe to hear this. Litigation apart, it shows woefully inadequate understanding of the physiology of diving and a cavalier attitude towards personal safety.

Flail me if you will anyone, but I'd go for the stops every time, regardless of the SDP.

Ric

[Ric Morte]

&gt; Where a group of divers intend to dive beyond the
&gt; limits/guidelines set out by BSAC, perhaps because they have
&gt; other agency qualifications that recognize their competence to
&gt; do so, then to me the issue is simple: it must not be a club
&gt; dive.

So what do we do when the DO is one of those divers?

From the BOH :-

The National Diving Committee has defined an official Branch dive:

?As one that is carried out with the prior knowledge and approval of the Branch Diving Officer.?


So if a DO is diving, then by definition the dive is being carried out with his prior knowledge and approval. Thus any diving the DO does *has to be* a Branch Dive.

That's a less-than-enviable position to put our DOs in, is it not?

Yes, agreed. Interesting point!

So a DO can never dive privately? If a Council member can argue a point of view privately and not in their position of being a BSAC Officer then why can't a DO dive privately? Surely he/she can be allowed to some moments being 'off-duty'?

Ric

[terryh]

I'd go for the stops every time, regardless of the SDP.

As would most of us, but what if I tell that (or show same by
example) to a club student/diver who then has an incident?

It could be argued (successfully I would have thought) that I
was not only diving outside of the SDP, but encouraging others
to do the same. Whether my example/advice was or wasnt followed
may be irrelevant. The fact I did, may be enough.

TerryH

[Vic]

&gt; So a DO can never dive privately?

Under our current definitions, no.

&gt; If a Council member can argue a point of view privately and not
&gt; in their position of being a BSAC Officer then why can't a DO
&gt; dive privately? Surely he/she can be allowed to some moments
&gt; being 'off-duty'?

A far better solution IMHO would be a statement in the SDPs to the effect of "a diver with qualifications from other agencies in BSAC's list of approved qualifications may, at the DM's discretion, dive to the limits of those qualifications in the event that they conflict with BSAC's SDPs". A bit wordy, perhaps, but it solves all these arguments at a stroke...

Vic.

[Ric Morte]

:=I'd go for the stops every time, regardless of the SDP.

As would most of us, but what if I tell that (or show same by
example) to a club student/diver who then has an incident?

It could be argued (successfully I would have thought) that I
was not only diving outside of the SDP, but encouraging others
to do the same. Whether my example/advice was or wasnt followed
may be irrelevant. The fact I did, may be enough.

TerryH

(Terry, starting a new thread - this one's right at the edge of my computer screen already!)

[Ric Morte]

At the risk of starting off another of those flame wars, I feel compelled to ask:

Does BSAC allow a ppO2 of 1.6 for decompression, or is 1.44 the maximum for all stages of a dive?

Just acquired some TDI qualifications, and whilst I know about the "No 100%" rule I'm not sure about the max ppO2 rule..

(OK, started a new thread because the last one from above was too far to the right for my computer screen!)

This thread has highlighted an anomaly: the SDPs recommend a MAX ppO2 of 1.4. There is only one instance as far as I can see where this limit is explicitly exceeded and that is the OxTox lookup tables where a max ppO2 of 1.44 is allowed ON THE CONDITION that the dive is a non-stop dive. It has been said earlier that the higher 1.44 limit is a 'fudge' to allow a rounded MOD of 35m on EANx32 and 30m on EANX36. No one seems to disagree with this reason, though I haven't heard a formal BSAC response confirming this.

First, the 'fudge' (If that's what it is) is unhelpful. 1.4 Bar can be a rule because it does not depend on physiology, only on depth of sea water. If 1.44 Bar is safe, then the SDP should be amended. If 1.44 Bar is not safe, then the OxTox Lookup table should be amended. Simple. Currently, any diver faced with a situation of deciding which limit to use has only to ask the one question: Is this a 'stop' dive? If yes, then the limit is 1.4 Bar ppO2. Also simple. Or is it?

The question as to whether a diver requires stops is a question of their nitrogen loading.

Scenario 1: I do a 32 min dive to 30m on EANx36. It is a no-stop dive. My ppO2 max is 1.44 Bar and I have exceeded the SDP limit of 1.4 Bar, but this is allowed according to the lookup table. I can ascend without incurring any deco stops.

Scenario 2: I do a 33 min dive to 30m on EANx36. It is a stop dive and I should do a 1 min stop in addition to my ascent check. The ppO2 conditions are as before.

The problem to me is that we are at the limits of tables that are relatively coarse with Surfacing Codes A through F only. Codes A-F are in white, Codes G are in green (or yellow on the air tables, the principle is the same). But I cannot believe the human body suddenly switches over into 'deco'. Nitrogen loading has to be progressive and 'continuous' with increasing risk the higher the loading.

In the above threads we really have been making quite fine distinctions as to whether we are diving within the SDPs by ensuring a dive is a 'no-stop' dive (and not doing stops) or doing a 'stop' and being more prudent - but at the expense of diving against recommendations. I cannot help but feel that the argument AT THIS LEVEL OF DISTINCTION is academic. For me the reality is that there is virtually no difference between a 32 min or a 33 minute dive as described earlier. The nitrogen loading is essentially the same whether I flip over onto a 'G' (or my dive computer clocks up a 'deco' condition) or not.

What would be more helpful is a set of guidelines that show the progressive risk and the increasing need for decompression the higher the nitrogen loading. Even traffic lights that regulate a genuine go/no-go situation have an intermediate 'amber' to improve the margins and hence reduce the risk of two conflcting traffic streams colliding. A set of tables that shows the increased risk through a graded tint (or the equivalent on a computer) would perhaps foster the frame of mind where a diver is increasingly encouraged to consider undertaking safety stops, even if they are 'advisory' the closer they get to 'deco' (however that is defined).

There is too much talk of stop/no-stop as if a diver is sudddenly more safe (yes even at a ppO2 of 1.44) within a 'no-stop' situation than by the fractional increase in nitrogen loading required to push him or her over into a 'stop' dive. Physiology: my hydration, fitness, fat content do much to blur these boundaries let alone the exertion, temperature and stress conditions of the dive itself.

To me the caveat in the ppO2 lookup tables regarding 'no-stop' diving is dangerous - it fosters the wrong attitude to dealing prudently with increased nitrogen loading - whether on nitrox or not. The SDPs should highlight a 'grey' area where stops should be increasingly considered as prudent, ultimately mandatory, for personal safety the further a diver goes into 'deco' territory. This would put the emphasis back where it should be: divers actively being encouraged to think about their diving and being free to make judgements about those factors that reduce the risks they face.

Final thought: when I first took up diving there was very little discussion about litigation, insurance cover, liabilities, rules, etc...., etc..... I dive for fun, I guess we all do, but all this talk of legalities is thoroughly depressing. Somehow the devil's got in on the act. Got a feeling he's here to stay. Odd really, because the conclusion I'm drawn to is that everyone will end up solo diving for fear of being sued by their buddy/student/passer by/and anyone else who thinks he can make a few bucks out of the situation. What will that do for the SDPs?

Ric

[John Williams]

Ric,

I tend to present things in black and white when posting to this forum. Anything with shades of grey is immediately pounced upon. Whilst I recognise shaes of grey personally posting them would just cause confusion.

I agree with your assertions about the responsibility of a DO and the responsibilities of divers within a branch protecting the DO who serves them.

I also agree that the BSAC is often slow to adopt new practice. One of the main reasons for this is that the proponents of new practice fail to put their views through the correct channels and it takes a while for the bsac to
a) pick up on them
b)get people qualified and experienced enough to take on the development of new guidelines (those who bring the new ideas and demand instant change are rarely willing to participate in the process of evolving the guidelines by joining an official working party to review existing guidelines)

It is also difficult to get people who have not found the need to challenge existing guidelines to go to the trouble/time/expense of putting themselves in a position to challenge existing guidelines (on behalf of others)

However, in my opinion there are FAR too many people out there who think that they are above, or exempt from BSAC guidelines.

The idea of a private dive is laughable. Your BSAC membership cannot be suspended for next Saturday afternoon!!! Even if your DO is not aware of your "private" dive it is still your DO who will be called to account for your training and conduct should TSHTF (as was so delicately put earlier in the thread).

The BSAC is a group of members run by very few volunteers. If we had more volunteers to change the way we do things through careful consideration and via the proper channels this debate would go away. We would be leading from the front rather than p[laying catchup. However whilst we have so few people volunteering to help the workload on those few is so high that that is all we can expect them to do...catch up!

If you want change...then PLEASE come forward and be a part of the process. Don't expect others to do it for you.

And PLEASE...don't just change/ignore the rules to suit yourself. It is simply not fair to your DO to expect them to carry the can for your problems when diving outside of the parent body's recommendations.

John

[John Williams]

A far better solution IMHO would be a statement in the SDPs to the effect of "a diver with qualifications from other agencies in BSAC's list of approved qualifications may, at the DM's discretion, dive to the limits of those qualifications in the event that they conflict with BSAC's SDPs". A bit wordy, perhaps, but it solves all these arguments at a stroke...

Vic.

There is merit to this argument. However you would then be putting the DM in the unenviable position of having to know the limits of every other qualification available...or to tust the divers in his party to follow them.

The aim of the BSAC limits is to give a level playing field and simplify the decisions made by a DM to those covered in his/her training. Even non-nitrox qualified DMs are given enough information to manage nitrox divers in the DPM SDC that is required of them.

Another possibility is that the DM passes all responsibility for managing Nitrox use (inside or outside BSAC limits)to a Deputy DM who holds a qualification permitting them to use it (and therefore understand it sufficently to manage it effectively). Dives without such a DDM would not need to exceed 1.4 since anyone who wanted to use 1.4+ could be appointed DDM. You do not need to be DL+ to act as DDM.

The working parties need constructive ideas/alternatives to work with. They do not need repeated demands without new reasoning or options.

However, until changes are approved by the NDO and adopted by the BSAC divers should not ignore existing recommendations.

John

[Ric Morte]

The idea of a private dive is laughable. Your BSAC membership cannot be suspended for next Saturday afternoon!!! Even if your DO is not aware of your "private" dive it is still your DO who will be called to account for your training and conduct should TSHTF (as was so delicately put earlier in the thread).

Ah, now I understand what TSHTF means!

Sometimes there's just too many acrim, er, acromin, er, you know... criminal thingys!

R

[Vic]

&gt; However you would then be putting the DM in the unenviable
&gt; position of having to know the limits of every other
&gt; qualification available...

No you wouldn't. The DM has discretion. If he's not sure about the extent of a given qualification, he can insist on BSAC SDPs.

&gt; or to tust the divers in his party to follow them.

He's doing that anyway.

&gt; The working parties need constructive ideas/alternatives to
&gt; work with. They do not need repeated demands without new
&gt; reasoning or options.

They're getting constructive ideas. To progress, we need to discuss thse ideas - kick them about, see if they make sense.

To date, there's been something of a deeathly hush when anyone's called for debate on this issue...

&gt; However, until changes are approved by the NDO and adopted by
&gt; the BSAC divers should not ignore existing recommendations.

Divers *are* ignoring the recommendations. It doesn't make them an less safe - just more liable to legal hussle if anything were to go wrong. BSAC has the opportunity to sort out *all* these problems and keep *everyone* safe and content, by the addition of just one sentence to one document. Isn't that worth looking at?

Vic.

[Philip Smith]

&gt; So a DO can never dive privately?

Under our current definitions, no.

A DO can legitimately do non-own-branch dives: they may be a member of more than one branch or organisation, they may be diving as a visitor to another club, they may voluntarily instruct for a school, they may dive for their work. Equally they could dive with friends or family outside their only branch, i.e. a private dive. I think it is implicit in the definition of "branch dive" that it is an event organised under the auspices of the branch, in addition to having the prior knowledge and approval of the DO. However, the key point is that the SDP is not a set of rigid rules, so while the guidelines should be applicable to the vast majority of branch diving, they can be amended at the DO's discretion according to the type of diving planned and the competence of the divers involved. Providing the DO genuinely considers the intended diving practice to be safe and can justify that view, there should be no need to do it as a private dive only to avoid breaching the letter of particular recommendations in the SDPs. In coming to a decision about safety, however, the DO would also need to consider whether an undesirable example was being set for less-experienced and less-qualified members of the branch.

A far better solution IMHO would be a statement in the SDPs to the effect of "a diver with qualifications from other agencies in BSAC's list of approved qualifications may, at the DM's discretion, dive to the limits of those qualifications in the event that they conflict with BSAC's SDPs". A bit wordy, perhaps, but it solves all these arguments at a stroke...

There is more general wording to that effect in the preface to the SDPs already.

Philip Smith

[Dave]

&gt; Where a group of divers intend to dive beyond the
&gt; limits/guidelines set out by BSAC, perhaps because they have
&gt; other agency qualifications that recognize their competence to
&gt; do so, then to me the issue is simple: it must not be a club
&gt; dive.

So what do we do when the DO is one of those divers?

From the BOH :-

The National Diving Committee has defined an official Branch dive:

?As one that is carried out with the prior knowledge and approval of the Branch Diving Officer.?


So if a DO is diving, then by definition the dive is being carried out with his prior knowledge and approval. Thus any diving the DO does *has to be* a Branch Dive.

But as DO he need not approve his own dive to be a branch dive since he is diving outside recommendations.

Dave

[iainmsmith]

So where am I going with this rambling post?? Simply this. If as a diver, I have a non BSAC, A N other Agency recognised qualification for a given level of diving, or a specific type of equipment, then all these problems caused by the introduction of new "ideas" would be swept away if BSAC recognised my ability to dive to my other Agency certification.

[applause]

The only caveat that I would add to the above is that a dive within a Branch on the basis of another agency's qualification should be permitted only where the equivalent dive by a BSAC member would not require them to have additional skills not covered by the other agency.

In other words, if we're going to argue that we should be able to do O2/1.6 on the above basis, then a PADI AOW diver could argue by the same logic that they should be allowed to do 40m without further training.

However, to do this dive as a BSAC diver one would have to learn additional skill sets (ie rescue skills and leadership skills) and it seems reasonable to insist on similar training before permitting such dives.

That is not the case for (as an example) other agency trimix divers. A gas switch is a gas switch is a gas switch and the ability to hold a stop depth is independant of the gas being breathed.

Iain

[iainmsmith]

There is more general wording to that effect in the preface to the SDPs already.

Philip,

Assuming you're referring to the paragraphs:

"Diving is an adventure sport and like all adventure sports its participants require differing levels of enjoyment and challenge. At one extreme we have the equivalent of the Himalayan mountaineer who, in peak condition accepts the challenge of new routes and exploration. At the other extreme we have the equivalent of the weekend summer climber who potters around on popular well-climbed rock faces.
What is safe diving practice for the former may well be very perilous for the latter and so the contents of this booklet are not a set of rigid rules but recommendations for safe diving practices. These recommendations can be amended depending upon the particular type of diving being planned and the experience and capabilities of the two divers carrying out the dive."

Have you discussed these with BSAC's Insurers? I have. In their email answer to me, they essentially suggested that it wasn't worth the ink it was written on.

I quote:
"As far as the BS-AC Block Liability Insurance is concerned it is a condition present to giving coverage to the membership that there will be ?no coverage given for liability claims as a result of deliberate breaches of the recommendations for safe diving practices?"

Now I know that this contradiction (and the inherent danger of a DO relying on the accuracy of the written word of the Introduction to Safe Diving Practices) was brought to the attention of Very Senior People within BSAC in June of last year...

Iain

[iainmsmith]

The idea of a private dive is laughable. Your BSAC membership cannot be suspended for next Saturday afternoon!!! Even if your DO is not aware of your "private" dive it is still your DO who will be called to account for your training and conduct should TSHTF (as was so delicately put earlier in the thread).

And PLEASE...don't just change/ignore the rules to suit yourself. It is simply not fair to your DO to expect them to carry the can for your problems when diving outside of the parent body's recommendations.

John,

Either I have completely misunderstood what you are saying, (and I don't think I am because you don't leave a lot of room for ambiguity) or your position is completely untenable.

If I understand you correctly, there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable to deviate from BSAC SDPs while remaining a BSAC Member. I suggest to you that this incorrect and that if it were, in fact, correct, it would be nothing but a massive own goal which would succeed only in forcing experienced divers out of the Club.

For example, if I wanted to go and do a technical diving course with AN Other Agency, whose approach to certain issues differs from that of the BSAC, should I refuse to follow the guidance of my instructor from that other Agency because it conflicts with BSAC SDPs, even where those SDPs make less/little/no sense purely on the basis that I "can't suspend my BSAC membership" for that course. How do you think the instructor would react to such arrogance on my part? (ie effectively telling him that he is unsafe.)

If it is acceptable to do that training with AN Other Agency because there's an instructor there, why is it then not acceptable to continue to follow that instruction and training after the course on dives conducted outside the BSAC structure?

What happens when one is a member of both the BSAC and the SAA? The latter give full recognition to my qualifications, the BSAC do not. Why should my BSAC membership prevent me from diving in a context where that diving would be within the limits of the qualification held and the limits accepted by the organisation under whose auspices the diving is being conducted?

I've got some diving planned for a fortnight's time, which will be done within the limits of my technical qualificaions. It will be done with a group of similarly qualified divers and is being done under the banner of an agency which fully recognises my qualifications.

Are you telling me that my BSAC DO should be forbidding me from doing these dives (which would be amusing, given that he's my buddy for them!) or that we should resign our BSAC memberships in the next two weeks?

Or perhaps you think that the BSAC would rather insist that we shelve our other agency qualifications and SAA Club Memberships until the BSAC finally removes its proverbial head from its fundament over certain issues? In which case I have a number of possible very short, very simple and very blunt answers, the only one of which that needs to be posted is, "I will resign".

Fortunately, I don't expect to have to resign, because BSAC SDPs only apply on dives outside the framework of the BSAC where I want to guarantee BSAC Third Party Insurance cover.

Finally, you stated that, "If we had more volunteers to change the way we do things through careful consideration and via the proper channels this debate would go away."

I suggest to you that if BSAC stopped digging its heels in and ignoring issues that are raised over and over again by official, semi-official and unofficial means, it might find rather more volunteers willing to spend their time constructively, rather than wasting it pursuing issues which the BSAC seems determined to ignore.

Iain

[Keith L]

:=The idea of a private dive is laughable...

John,

Either I have completely misunderstood what you are saying, (and I don't think I am because you don't leave a lot of room for ambiguity) or your position is completely untenable...

Thank you Iain - VERY well put and justified!!

Keith L

[Philip Smith]

Assuming you're referring to the paragraphs:

Yes.

Have you discussed these with BSAC's Insurers? I have. In their email answer to me, they essentially suggested that it wasn't worth the ink it was written on.

I know we have been through this loop before and you have shown me some of the correspondence from the insurers. I thought it was worth airing again, since it is still unclear
how the insurance company would decide if it is willing to provide cover in particular cases.

I quote:
"As far as the BS-AC Block Liability Insurance is concerned it is a condition present to giving coverage to the membership that there will be ?no coverage given for liability claims as a result of deliberate breaches of the recommendations for safe diving practices?"

But they have also said something else which contradicted this categorical statement (you asked me not to reveal the details). Hence the uncertainty. It would make sense for the insurers to rely on the advice of the NDC about whether a particular 'amdendment of the recommendations' was justifiable or uninsurable. If they really are going to enforce the attitude in the above quote, the SDP becomes a set of rigid rules, which it explicitly was not intended to be. The SDP document would also need to be edited, because, as noted previously on the forum, the expressions "recommend", "strongly recommend" and "very strongly recommend" are not used consistently in relation to the severity of the hazards in question.

Philip Smith

[Matt]

In other words, if we're going to argue that we should be able to do O2/1.6 on the above basis, then a PADI AOW diver could argue by the same logic that they should be allowed to do 40m without further training.

How about DOs discretion? We already have the deep diving guidelines. If they are followed no one should be going straight to 40m without a checkout and a number of workups with other branch divers. I think most DOs would prefer to take the decision, rather than the current situation whereby the PADI recruit can make a private dive and the DO might still be found liable.

We already have an issue with PADI trained AOW + Deep who are experienced at 30m+ diving. Unsurprisingly they get a tad annoyed at the idea they will be restricted to 20m until they have completed SD and AD. We usually tell them to go and do RD then come back.

However, to do this dive as a BSAC diver one would have to learn additional skill sets (ie rescue skills and leadership skills) and it seems reasonable to insist on similar training before permitting such dives.

I guess a branch could impose a bye-law which requires divers to have particular skills and qualifications. The other option is that BSAC state they do not recognise the Deep speciality; on the grounds you need leadership and rescue skills when diving in a club environment.

That is not the case for (as an example) other agency trimix divers. A gas switch is a gas switch is a gas switch and the ability to hold a stop depth is independant of the gas being breathed.

There is a major difference when it comes to how BSAC treat 'technical' divers. The current situation is that there is NO WAY I can convert my other agency limits to a BSAC equivalent. If I plan an 80% gas switch at 9m I potentially make the DO liable and invalidate my 3rd party insurance.

[Matt]

John said;
:=:=The idea of a private dive is laughable...

I agree with that...suprisingly.

:=:=If you want change...then PLEASE come forward and be a part of the process. Don't expect others to do it for you

Six months ago our VC invited a few of us to make our views known. Sadly the NWG were not willing to discuss the subject. I have no objections to helping, but I refuse to bang my head against a wall.

:=If I understand you correctly, there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable to deviate from BSAC SDPs while remaining a BSAC Member. I suggest to you that this incorrect and that if it were, in fact, correct, it would be nothing but a massive own goal which would succeed only in forcing experienced divers out of the Club.

I agree with that as well. The question as I see it is; why has a need to make private dives been allowed to develop?

BSAC's greatest contribution to safe diving has always come from encouraging experienced divers to mix with the less experienced. I do not understand why BSAC themselves want to stand in the way of that process.