View Full Version : Lending Branch Kit - Round 2
Billy Muppet a newly qualified Ocean diver casually mentions in
the pub to a bunch of divers (including the DO) that he is
going on the weekend to dive the Salsette off his mate?s RIB.
He has only just started to buy kit so needs a few things like
regs and a couple of cylinders from the EO.
This is a private dive, outside of the club environment and
although the DO knows about it, Billy has not sought approval.
So would you lend this diver club kit?
The argument has been that this is a private, not branch dive.
As such there can be no control and responsibility lies
squarely with the individual no matter what the circumstances.
In fact it has been mentioned that the EO doesn?t even have to
the right to ask what it is being used
for. As a club member he has right to lend kit, right?
IMO ???
There is a very real possibly that Billy would in fact become a
cropper on this dive. He may in fact be able to hire or lend
kit from a third party and do the dive anyway, but you have
within your power as EO or if necessary DO to stop him by using
this kit on a potentially fatal dive.
Do you really care whether it is a ?branch dive? or not? Do you
really care if it complies to the letter of the BOH? Would you
be happier knowing that you did everything you could to ensure
this club member didn?t become another statistic?
Of course you could take him to one side and try a and persuade
him to think otherwise or even take him under your wing and
suggest a bit of training instead as a carrot to stop the dive,
but he can still ignore you and do his own thing anyway.
We can argue (has been done many times before) what constitutes
a ?branch dive?, but quite honestly I cannot see how you can
divorce the responsibility of the DO & therefore the EO when
you a) Know about what?s planned and b) Have a way of stopping
or hindering it, if you feel it necessary.
Your diver may just turn up and ask for kit, but again isn?t
the EO as an appointed club officer, just as responsible as the
DO? Isn?t it still within his remit to check with the DO first
once he learns of this divers plans?
You may feel that this is an extreme example and shouldn?t
apply to more experienced divers, but where do you draw the
line? You will come across a diver who doesnt fit the obvious
extreme of Billy and is a borderline case. You will also come
across the resentment caused by some being allowed kit and
others not.
So whether it?s a recognised course from another agency, a
couple of experienced divers wanting some extra regs for stages
or Billy Muppet, why not simply get the DO?s yes or no, prior
to lending kit?
It will in 66% of cases be a rubber stamp job, but in 30% there
may be a question mark and maybe 3% you actually say no. But
at least you have gone through a process, where you as a club
CAN say that you have done all you can to ensure the safety of
your fellow club members.
TerryH
It depends on the branch's specific rules for borrowing gear. If the branch has any specific rules governing the borrowing of kit which would not be met in this instance ; e.g. kit can only be used by divers on branch approved dives, then no. If the branch has no rules limiting access to club gear, then yes, since as a paid up club member he is entitled to use of the gear.
If you know he is doing something which you consider risky then you might well try to dissuade him from doing so.
Dave
It depends on the branch's specific rules for borrowing gear. If the branch has any specific rules governing the borrowing of kit which would not be met in this instance ; e.g. kit can only be used by divers on branch approved dives, then no. If the branch has no rules limiting access to club gear, then yes, since as a paid up club member he is entitled to use of the gear.
If you know he is doing something which you consider risky then you might well try to dissuade him from doing so.
Dave
So at the inquest it's.
"I did all I could to stop him and even refused his request
for club kit" vs "as a paid up club member he is entitled to
use of the gear"
The right of an individual to have club kit he in part owns,
should never be given priority over the sworn responsiblity of
the club officers, to ensure members safety.
The DO's job is after all to protect the safety of club
members. Yes, it should be within the club enviroment if
possible, but you cannot put your head in the sand and do
nothing when you may have an effect on the whole outcome by
simply refusing access to the kit.
TerryH
There would be no reason for the club to be involved in an inquest. The *club* did nothing more than provide a qualified diver that was a member, gear that he was entitled to borrow. There was no implicit or explicit approval of what he was doing.
As a person, you may have tried to dissuade him from going on a dive which you felt was inappropriate, but at the end of the day, it was nothing to do with you.
If your branch is that paranoid about these extreme cases, why not get a branch rule passed for your branch that may restrict gear to those doing dives approved by the DO?
Also, quite importantly, if you did give qualitative evidence regarding the dive being undertaken, would that not be giving expert testimony, which you shouldn't be doing anyway
Dave
andy lewin
20-05-2003, 19:24
Billy Muppet a newly qualified Ocean diver casually mentions in
the pub to a bunch of divers (including the DO) that he is
going on the weekend to dive the Salsette off his mate?s RIB.
He has only just started to buy kit so needs a few things like
regs and a couple of cylinders from the EO.
This is a private dive, outside of the club environment and
although the DO knows about it, Billy has not sought approval.
So would you lend this diver club kit?
The argument has been that this is a private, not branch dive.
As such there can be no control and responsibility lies
squarely with the individual no matter what the circumstances.
In fact it has been mentioned that the EO doesn?t even have to
the right to ask what it is being used
for. As a club member he has right to lend kit, right?
IMO ???
There is a very real possibly that Billy would in fact become a
cropper on this dive. He may in fact be able to hire or lend
kit from a third party and do the dive anyway, but you have
within your power as EO or if necessary DO to stop him by using
this kit on a potentially fatal dive.
Do you really care whether it is a ?branch dive? or not? Do you
really care if it complies to the letter of the BOH? Would you
be happier knowing that you did everything you could to ensure
this club member didn?t become another statistic?
Of course you could take him to one side and try a and persuade
him to think otherwise or even take him under your wing and
suggest a bit of training instead as a carrot to stop the dive,
but he can still ignore you and do his own thing anyway.
We can argue (has been done many times before) what constitutes
a ?branch dive?, but quite honestly I cannot see how you can
divorce the responsibility of the DO & therefore the EO when
you a) Know about what?s planned and b) Have a way of stopping
or hindering it, if you feel it necessary.
Your diver may just turn up and ask for kit, but again isn?t
the EO as an appointed club officer, just as responsible as the
DO? Isn?t it still within his remit to check with the DO first
once he learns of this divers plans?
You may feel that this is an extreme example and shouldn?t
apply to more experienced divers, but where do you draw the
line? You will come across a diver who doesnt fit the obvious
extreme of Billy and is a borderline case. You will also come
across the resentment caused by some being allowed kit and
others not.
So whether it?s a recognised course from another agency, a
couple of experienced divers wanting some extra regs for stages
or Billy Muppet, why not simply get the DO?s yes or no, prior
to lending kit?
It will in 66% of cases be a rubber stamp job, but in 30% there
may be a question mark and maybe 3% you actually say no. But
at least you have gone through a process, where you as a club
CAN say that you have done all you can to ensure the safety of
your fellow club members.
TerryH
Some interesting points there Terry, this subject has arisen a number of times in my club. Being in the military this was easily solved:
Would I lend this diver the kit? No.
With our regulations a club dive is, in it's basic terms: any dive or diving activity that utilises club equipment or funds. Both originate from the UK tax payer i.e. Public money. This then leads on to other regulations which must also be followed such as a Sub-Aqua Diving Supervisor (SADS)etc.
The bigger issue is that of "duty of care". As a responsible person we have a moral and perhaps legal responsibilty to ensure, were possible, the safety of all the club members. The fact that a club officer has lent out club equipment is an aknowledgement of the dive and therefore permission to go ahead. What do we say to his wife or parents?
He does have a right to use club equipment, but in line with the club regulations. When he chooses to dive outside of these regulations he relinquishes this right.
He also has the right to go ahead with the dive by other means but without the permission of the DO.
Food for thought eh
Andy
Mike Halligan
20-05-2003, 21:39
Hi, Terry,
I have every sympathy with your wish to "protect and survive", but cannot see how this can be achieved across the broad spectrum that is BSAC's Branch structure.
The authority held by the Equipment Officer and the responsibility (s)he bears depend on the instrument of delegation from the Diving Officer. This assumes the BOH is fully embraced in that Branch. The said instrument will have to take account of any pertinent Branch rule. That final proviso produces a wide range of possible outcomes.
Outwith the DO?s responsibility and authority, the relevant EO?s delegation and Branch practice, there may possibly be a very weak duty of care upon the more knowledgeable diver when conversing with the patently less knowing. So long as the knowing one says, for example, ?Look, I know you?re trained to a certain level but I am much more experienced than you and in my opinion you shouldn?t be trying that dive yet. Why not develop your experience gradually within the Branch, where your ability is known and recognised? That?s how I did it?, then I believe that duty has been discharged.
Our civil liberties lobby has fought hard for individual freedom to do just about anything, so long as it doesn?t directly threaten the property or health of others. Just how, then, in present-day England & Wales, could one stop Billy Muppet? (You can?t even get a total fruitcake sectioned until (s)he has threatened someone.) Now, I would venture that our inability to prevent someone doing something daft is not a symptom of uncaring individuals but of muddled government and a litigious nature (God bless America). In neighbouring fellow members of the EU, a more pragmatic approach is taken. The authorities will act, and will allow citizens to act, to protect fools and the foolish from themselves.
Here, if the EO interferes in members dive plans beyond his delegation, or the DO interferes beyond his authority, either or both will find the more liberal minded beating a path to the door. Should anyone in the Branch wish to see greater control exercised than that provided for in the BOH, I feel they must seek its establishment in a General Meeting and have it given to a duly authorised person. Denying an individual access to what is technically his/her own property, albeit held in common, is not a power to be assumed. Without duly authorised controls in place and understood by all, there is no authority to deny access. Thus, the circumstances in which loaned kit might be used would be irrelevant to the granting of the loan.
This is no more than my personal understanding of how things are in England & Wales. It does not represent how I would wish things to be.
Regards,
Mike
Hi Mike,
Along with Andy (Previous post) we do take the "duty of care"
very seriously and to the point where it is enshrined in our
branch constitution.
Our club and it's members all agree (they do vote on it every
year at the AGM), that the DO is the ultilmate safety officer
and that all dives that can be influenced or affected in any
way by the club ARE under his remit.
So before I (as EO) hand out ANY kit, I will make sure that
the club member has the DO's permission. In this electronic age
of email and text, this has never been a problem.
Nobody is excempt from this. Even if I go off on a private dive
and "borrow" a club cylinder, I will still tell the DO of my
plans and give him a dive plan as if it was a full on "BSAC
branch dive". Not only do I see this as common courtesy, but
as an example to other club members.
In reality no DO is going to stop kit being issued to club
members unless there really is an issue as in the Billy
example. So the suggested problem of infringing on liberty etc.
isnt really an issue asa long as the club agrees.
TerryH
edward haynes
21-05-2003, 00:12
Hi Terry
Focusing on the use of Branch kit in relation to ?Branch Dives? is IMHO a red herring. Why?
In your scenario the Diving Officer is aware that one of his Ocean Divers was about to go a dive not approved by the Diving Officer. The Diving Officer is responsible for ensuring Ocean Divers **ONLY** dive when they are ?Properly Marshalled?. In this particular situation, if the Diving Officer does not take some action (i.e. write to the Ocean Diver) to remind and discourage the Ocean Diver from diving outside BSAC guidelines, they could be held liable (by in-action) for any claim on the Ocean Diver? from other members of the dive party.
The Ocean Diver would not have the protection of BSAC?s 3rd Party / Public Liability insurance or, if they had taken it out, any other insurance as they would have to agree to dive within the guidance of their diving organisation. Which they where not doing.
The Diving Officer could find they also are not protected by BSAC?s 3rd Party / Public Liability insurance as they did not take action to prevent the Ocean Diver from diving outside the guidance of BSAC. If the Diving Officer was not aware in advance of the diving, whether Branch kit was used or not then full protection is provided.
Of cause this could never happen! Who wants to be a Diving Officer?
Just my opinion.
Edward
I disagree with your analysis that "The Diving Officer is responsible for ensuring Ocean Divers **ONLY** dive when they are ?Properly Marshalled?." . It is the diver is responsible for ensuring that they dive within the remits of their qualification. The branch has met their obligations since the training should make this clear to them and there will be records of the training being given.
Dave
So before I (as EO) hand out ANY kit, I will make sure that
the club member has the DO's permission. In this electronic age
of email and text, this has never been a problem.
This scheme appears to fit your branch. It simply would not fit ours. We have around 100 members the majority of whom are active divers and there is probably more private diving going on than organised branch dives of which we do more than most. I guess that in the busy period insisting that everyone ask the DO's permission could generate 50 to 100 e-mails, texts and phone calls a week. It would neither be fair to expect the DO to field that lot, or to prevent members from diving should they fail to contact the DO.
Nobody is excempt from this. Even if I go off on a private dive
and "borrow" a club cylinder, I will still tell the DO of my
plans and give him a dive plan as if it was a full on "BSAC
branch dive". Not only do I see this as common courtesy, but
as an example to other club members.
Half a dozen or so members of our club are also members of a voluntary rescue service (GAFIRS). They are often called out in the middle of the night with the intention of getting in the water as fast as possible. I am sure our DO appreciates not being called on these occassions.
In reality no DO is going to stop kit being issued to club
members unless there really is an issue as in the Billy
example. So the suggested problem of infringing on liberty etc.
isnt really an issue asa long as the club agrees.
Possibly not.
Our EO would have every right to refuse kit if they have reason to think we will not get it back. That would be sufficient reason to with hold kit from Billy. The club generally however would be far more worried over why Billy was contemplateing such a dive without reference to the more experienced first.
Regards
Matt
This scheme appears to fit your branch. It simply would not fit ours. We have around 100 members the majority of whom are active divers and there is probably more private diving going on than organised branch dives of which we do more than most. I guess that in the busy period insisting that everyone ask the DO's permission could generate 50 to 100 e-mails, texts and phone calls a week. It would neither be fair to expect the DO to field that lot, or to prevent members from diving should they fail to contact the DO.
But out of those 100 members, we are only talking about
private dives where members want to borrow kit.
In many clubs I am sure that the EO acts almost as a DO
delegate anyway. As you say the EO is unlikeley to hand out
kit if he thinks that its not coming back, so he would have to
make some sort of decison or drawn the line in the Billy
scenario.
It wasnt so far fetched. I changed the details a bit, but the
real dive actually went ahead and the two divers on it were
extremely lucky to have survived.
:=
Half a dozen or so members of our club are also members of a voluntary rescue service (GAFIRS). They are often called out in the middle of the night with the intention of getting in the water as fast as possible. I am sure our DO appreciates not being called on these occassions.
So he delegates his responsiblity to someone in the group and doesnt get woken up.
Still that's your club Matt and it obviously works for you.
Rgds
TerryH
edward haynes
21-05-2003, 23:23
Hi Dave
A few years ago I would have agreed whole-heartedly with you. However, today we live in a litigation society. As the Diving Officer in the scenario WAS privy to the Ocean Diver's intent they have a Duty (IHMO) to take action to discourage the activity if it is likely to be outside the qualification or experience of the individual.
Edward
I disagree with your analysis that "The Diving Officer is responsible for ensuring Ocean Divers **ONLY** dive when they are ?Properly Marshalled?." . It is the diver is responsible for ensuring that they dive within the remits of their qualification. The branch has met their obligations since the training should make this clear to them and there will be records of the training being given.
Dave
Hi Dave
A few years ago I would have agreed whole-heartedly with you. However, today we live in a litigation society.
The laws haven't changed.
As the Diving Officer in the scenario WAS privy to the Ocean Diver's intent they have a Duty (IHMO) to take action to discourage the activity if it is likely to be outside the qualification or experience of the individual.
Is there any legal precedent to support this belief?
Dave
The Ocean Diver would not have the protection of BSAC?s 3rd Party / Public Liability insurance or, if they had taken it out, any other insurance as they would have to agree to dive within the guidance of their diving organisation. Which they where not doing.
Don't want to shoot holes in your argument, but my insurance does cover me to exceed my maximum depth limit. In fact, they claim it covers me for any underwater activity. I asked them about even if I could be proven to be negligent, and they told me they would still pay out. They showed me the lines in the small print, and I asked about several unlikely possibilities (such as rescuing an individual that was beyond my training, or effectively killing myself for another diver). They will pay out in almost any circumstance.
I am intrigued by this, though. What about if I wanted to dive mix and it was overheard by the DO in the pub? He knows I don't have a ticket, and I'm not formally trained to use it, but will he lend me kit for this weekends diving with it being returned after I've been away for my trimix week? He'd have trouble covering himself on that one, wouldn't he? He must have known I was going to use the equipment...
andy lewin
23-05-2003, 13:15
:=The Ocean Diver would not have the protection of BSAC?s 3rd Party / Public Liability insurance or, if they had taken it out, any other insurance as they would have to agree to dive within the guidance of their diving organisation. Which they where not doing.
Don't want to shoot holes in your argument, but my insurance does cover me to exceed my maximum depth limit. In fact, they claim it covers me for any underwater activity. I asked them about even if I could be proven to be negligent, and they told me they would still pay out. They showed me the lines in the small print, and I asked about several unlikely possibilities (such as rescuing an individual that was beyond my training, or effectively killing myself for another diver). They will pay out in almost any circumstance.
I am intrigued by this, though. What about if I wanted to dive mix and it was overheard by the DO in the pub? He knows I don't have a ticket, and I'm not formally trained to use it, but will he lend me kit for this weekends diving with it being returned after I've been away for my trimix week? He'd have trouble covering himself on that one, wouldn't he? He must have known I was going to use the equipment...
And this brings us full circle, "DUTY OF CARE". In a court of law , and believe me I am speaking from experience, the enphasis will be on what "reasonable" actions were taken to ensure all safety nets were in place. This includes a lack of action.
Do we carry out formal risk assessments prior to a dive, the answer should be yes. They should be in the planning; level of training, equipment, weather, type of dive for experience level and the list goes on. As a DO and any other club official for that matter this should be done continualy. If he then assess the risk is to great he should add or remove measures,NOT lend out the equipment to the individual.
I repeat my last, just because a member pays club fees it does not give them the right to use club equipment willy nilly. If it's unsafe practice and the club officer contributes towards it by lending the equipment out he is culpable.
Off course this will not stop the most determind of the Billys out there but atleast you can sleep at night in the knowledge you did you best.
I'm off my soap box now.
Safe diving
I repeat my last, just because a member pays club fees it does not give them the right to use club equipment willy nilly. If it's unsafe practice and the club officer contributes towards it by lending the equipment out he is culpable.
Which is exactly why you need to include the officer
elected/qualified for that role, the DO. After all the EO is
appointed and may be a great engineer/technician, but not
neccessrily the most knowledgable about diving practices.
So before you can verify if it is an unsafe practice you need
an indivdual who is qualified/designated to do so.
Therefore to be trully deemed to have done all you can to
ensure safety, lending club kit must have DO sancion even if it is a "supposed" private dive.
Rgds
TerryH
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.