Diving outside the club

[will swift]

What is the position of a trained diver, trained through multiple organisations, who is also a BSAC member who wishes to dive at a location disliked by their club or to a depth (within their BSAC and other training and BSAC guidelines) but disliked by their club, where the diver also maintains their own insurance?

Does this diving, having nothing to do with the club, have to be sanctioned by the club? can the club attempt to limit this diving or repremand the diver at all?

Thoughts.
Wills.

[Alan Taylor]

What is the position of a trained diver, trained through multiple organisations, who is also a BSAC member who wishes to dive at a location disliked by their club or to a depth (within their BSAC and other training and BSAC guidelines) but disliked by their club, where the diver also maintains their own insurance?

Does this diving, having nothing to do with the club, have to be sanctioned by the club? can the club attempt to limit this diving or repremand the diver at all?

Thoughts.

As far as i am aware one can dive 'privately' outside the club at any time, but i don't see the point. Club divers have been doing it since the club was founded.
This does sound very much like a 'private' dive to dorethea?

Safety first, Keep on BSAC diving you know it makes sense.

Alan
Wills.

[terryh]

What is the position of a trained diver, trained through multiple organisations, who is also a BSAC member who wishes to dive at a location disliked by their club or to a depth (within their BSAC and other training and BSAC guidelines) but disliked by their club, where the diver also maintains their own insurance?

Does this diving, having nothing to do with the club, have to be sanctioned by the club? can the club attempt to limit this diving or repremand the diver at all?

Thoughts.

Three points.
What is a "branch dive" is described in both BSAC and your own
branch constitution. So as long as it falls outside of these
parameters then the branch can have no say whatsoever in you
dive.

But ........ you say you have your own Insurance. Do you?
If we are talking a certain site in Wales, then BSAC has
advised it's divers NOT to go there. The insurance will usually
have a clause like and is valid if "you dive within the
standards and recomendations of the organisation to which you
belong". So BSAC say no. The club says No. Are you giving
the Insurance company the excuse to say No. Think about
it.

Finally. You joined a club to dive with a bunch of mates. If
it's common practice to go off and do your own thing, then
no problem. If you have a club which provides shedloads of
trips there really is no excuse to dive "outside" of the
branch. It could be seen as a slap in the face to those that
only have your welfare at heart. After all if its banned it
must be for a good reason.

End of the day it's your choice.

As a club we have only banned one part of one site in the UK
(and it's not Dorothea).
In Rolfs voice. "Can you guess what it is yet?"

TerryH

[will swift]

But ........ you say you have your own Insurance. Do you?
If we are talking a certain site in Wales, then BSAC has
advised it's divers NOT to go there. The insurance will usually
have a clause like and is valid if "you dive within the
standards and recomendations of the organisation to which you
belong". So BSAC say no. The club says No. Are you giving
the Insurance company the excuse to say No. Think about
it.


Terry, followed to a conclusion then, a club could effectively invalidate private insurance if they didn't like some diving you were doing outside of the club.

You would have to argue symatics over 'belong' and 'recommendation' to have a hope of being insured.

It is this principle I'm interested in, the extent of control of the club over private diving activities.

I would have thought that some divers would want to perform dives within their external (non BSAC) training - caving / wreck penetration which their club would feel uneasy about and not want to sanction due to their own lack of experience or knowledge.

thoughts?

[terryh]

Terry, followed to a conclusion then, a club could effectively invalidate private insurance if they didn't like some diving you were doing outside of the club.


Sort of, more that they are following a directive from the
National body and as such relaying there "disaproval".


I would have thought that some divers would want to perform dives within their external (non BSAC) training - caving / wreck penetration which their club would feel uneasy about and not want to sanction due to their own lack of experience or knowledge.


Yep that's right, but they wouldnt be diving BSAC would they?
If I have BSAC/TDI certs and dive ouiside of my BSAC club,
then as long as I dive within the standards of TDI. A
professional (not BSAC) 3rd party Insurance will cover me.

This is in fact what the heirarcy of BSAC have been doing for
years. Diving outside of BSAC, but within (and thus insured)
the alternate organisations standards.

Nothing wrong (IMO) with diving outside of the club, as long as
you dive within the standards of an agency that you have a valid
cert for.

TerryH

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

But ........ you say you have your own Insurance. Do you?
If we are talking a certain site in Wales, then BSAC has
advised it's divers NOT to go there. The insurance will usually
have a clause like and is valid if "you dive within the
standards and recomendations of the organisation to which you
belong". So BSAC say no. The club says No. Are you giving
the Insurance company the excuse to say No. Think about
it.

You've got slightly the wrong end of the stick here Terry, insurance doesn't really come into it. Saying that trespassing at Dorothea invalidates diving insurance is like saying parking on a yellow line invalidates your car insurance - it doesn't.

The BSAC position over Dorothea remains unchanged, see the article in BSAC Talk from 2002 (link below). The issue is one of civil trespass, the BSAC requests that members comply with the wishes of the owner.

Regards

Keith L

[terryh]

:=But ........ you say you have your own Insurance. Do you?
:=If we are talking a certain site in Wales, then BSAC has
:=advised it's divers NOT to go there. The insurance will usually
:=have a clause like and is valid if "you dive within the
:=standards and recomendations of the organisation to which you
:=belong". So BSAC say no. The club says No. Are you giving
:=the Insurance company the excuse to say No. Think about
:=it.

You've got slightly the wrong end of the stick here Terry, insurance doesn't really come into it. Saying that trespassing at Dorothea invalidates diving insurance is like saying parking on a yellow line invalidates your car insurance - it doesn't.

The BSAC position over Dorothea remains unchanged, see the article in BSAC Talk from 2002 (link below). The issue is one of civil trespass, the BSAC requests that members comply with the wishes of the owner.



Nope I have it exactly right. Your link in full.

"DIVING IN DOROTHEA QUARRY BANNED
A meeting, chaired by Dafydd Wigley of The National Assembly for Wales, in Caernarfon on 1st February discussed the question of diving in Dorothea Quarry, North Wales. The HSE, Gwynedd Police, County surveyors and Legal department were all present, as was the owner Glyn Small. The BSAC was represented by Alistair Reynolds, Technical Manager.

The conclusion to the meeting was that, despite the quarry being regarded as an excellent diver training venue by the diving organisations for a full range of diver training, diving must not take place except with the 'express written permission of the owner, Mr Glyn Small.'

As a result of this decision by the Welsh Assembly, the BSAC must stand by its original statement to the membership that they respect the owner's request that diving does not take place at the quarry, except with his express written permission. Any changes to this directive will be communicated as soon they are received."

So BSAC have banned diving without the permission of the owner.
If I decide to go against this directive, then I am NOT
following the rules and reccomendations etc. of BSAC and so
fall foul of the "As long as you comply with the rules
regulations etc, etc." clause in every dive Insurance on the
planet.

Lets look at BSAC's own Insurance page ....
"When are they covered? - All BS-AC members are covered when engaged on Club activities"

So is a dive on a site banned by BSAC a "Club activity"?
The awnser must very much be NO. So that means I'm not covered.

I'm very surprised at your repsonse here Keith. I'm saying quite simply that if you bide by BSAC rules etc. your covered.

TerryH

[derek perry]

Lets look at BSAC's own Insurance page ....
"When are they covered? - All BS-AC members are covered when engaged on Club activities"

Terry you have only partly quoted the insurance. If you read on the whole sentence says;

All BS-AC members are covered when engaged on Club activities and when they are diving anywhere in the world

Reading the sentence in full the diving does not have to be a club activity.



However I agree that you are right by default because of the next two sentences in the insurance;

Does the insurance include the use of Nitrox, Rebreathers and Trimix? ? Yes, where they are being used in accordance with BS-AC recommendations.

What happens when I am abroad and diving on holiday with other organisations at either a Dive Centre at a Hotel, or an independent Dive School at Resort? ? Your BS-AC member liability insurance still covers you, but if you are going to engage in speciality diving that is out side of the BS-AC recommendations please check with BS-AC Headquarters and their Insurance Advisors that the activity can be included in the member liability cover.

The above BOTH state you are covered provided you are diving within BSAC recommendations. As Dorothea is banned by BSAC recommendations the BSAC insurance, IMHO, would be invalid.

As would my private life insurance which also states I have to dive within BSAC recommendations


Derek

[Andy Wade]

:=:=But ........ you say you have your own Insurance. Do you?
:=:=If we are talking a certain site in Wales, then BSAC has
:=:=advised it's divers NOT to go there. The insurance will usually
:=:=have a clause like and is valid if "you dive within the
:=:=standards and recomendations of the organisation to which you
:=:=belong". So BSAC say no. The club says No. Are you giving
:=:=the Insurance company the excuse to say No. Think about
:=:=it.
:=
:=You've got slightly the wrong end of the stick here Terry, insurance doesn't really come into it. Saying that trespassing at Dorothea invalidates diving insurance is like saying parking on a yellow line invalidates your car insurance - it doesn't.
:=
:=The BSAC position over Dorothea remains unchanged, see the article in BSAC Talk from 2002 (link below). The issue is one of civil trespass, the BSAC requests that members comply with the wishes of the owner.
:=


Nope I have it exactly right. Your link in full.

"DIVING IN DOROTHEA QUARRY BANNED
A meeting, chaired by Dafydd Wigley of The National Assembly for Wales, in Caernarfon on 1st February discussed the question of diving in Dorothea Quarry, North Wales. The HSE, Gwynedd Police, County surveyors and Legal department were all present, as was the owner Glyn Small. The BSAC was represented by Alistair Reynolds, Technical Manager.

The conclusion to the meeting was that, despite the quarry being regarded as an excellent diver training venue by the diving organisations for a full range of diver training, diving must not take place except with the 'express written permission of the owner, Mr Glyn Small.'

As a result of this decision by the Welsh Assembly, the BSAC must stand by its original statement to the membership that they respect the owner's request that diving does not take place at the quarry, except with his express written permission. Any changes to this directive will be communicated as soon they are received."

So BSAC have banned diving without the permission of the owner.

I don't think they have Terry.
I read it as that the owner Glyn Small has banned diving.
BSAC are just complying with his wishes, and no-one could really expect them to do any different.
They are just recommending that members comply with the law.




.

[will swift]

You've got slightly the wrong end of the stick here Terry, insurance doesn't really come into it. Saying that trespassing at Dorothea invalidates diving insurance is like saying parking on a yellow line invalidates your car insurance - it doesn't.

Is this an official post?

Does BSAC really say that you shouldn't dive at dotty because of trespass law, but if you do you will still be covered by BSAC insurance?

[will swift]

:=Lets look at BSAC's own Insurance page ....
:="When are they covered? - All BS-AC members are covered when engaged on Club activities"

Terry you have only partly quoted the insurance. If you read on the whole sentence says;

All BS-AC members are covered when engaged on Club activities and when they are diving anywhere in the world

Reading the sentence in full the diving does not have to be a club activity.

Derek,

I read this to mean all BS-AC members are covered when engaged on Club activities AND when they are diving anywhere in the world.

So you would have to be on a club sanctioned dive anywhere in the world otherwise you are diving outside of BSAC/club recommendations.

So this brings me back to the 'club' if they do not sanction a dive could that invalidate your external insurance because you are diving outside of your club's recommendations. Now you couldn't expect BSAC to sanction dives outside of it's experience even if they were sanctioned by other agencies - because I could start the deep-air agency and nicely fall within it's recommendations.

confused!

[terryh]

I don't think they have Terry.
I read it as that the owner Glyn Small has banned diving.
BSAC are just complying with his wishes, and no-one could really expect them to do any different.
They are just recommending that members comply with the law.


Yep and it's that word "recommended" that's going to get you.
Take a look at ANY and I mean ANY dive insurance. There will
always be a clause that states you MUST dive within the rules
and reccomendations of the agency to which you belong.

Makes no diffrence what reason BSAC say no to dotty. Fact
remains they have and in my book anybody that dives there
under the BSAC banner is taking a hell of a chance with there
BSAC insurance.

TerryH

[Philip Smith]

Terry, at first you wrote that BSAC had not banned diving in Dorothea:

As a club we have only banned one part of one site in the UK
(and it's not Dorothea).

But later wrote that BSAC have in fact banned diving in Dorothea:

Nope I have it exactly right. Your link in full.

"DIVING IN DOROTHEA QUARRY BANNED

So BSAC have banned diving without the permission of the owner.

So what was the "one part of one site" you were referring to?

Philip

[terryh]

Terry, at first you wrote that BSAC had not banned diving in Dorothea:

:=As a club we have only banned one part of one site in the UK (and it's not Dorothea).


No I didnt. Come on Phil read it again. It says very clearly
that its NOT Dotty.


So what was the "one part of one site" you were referring to?


It's 30mts+ dark, cold and there's nothing there. We use it for
training and rather than have on site arguments of recently
qualified Sport divers wanting to go there it's easier to say a
blanket no to all diving. The site itself says experinced
divers only and that's open to interpretation. Rather than
find our interpretation is different to the insurance one, it's
easier to say no.

Any guesses?

TerryH

[will swift]

Any guesses?

TerryH


HydroBox?

[terryh]

:=
:=Any guesses?
:=
:=TerryH
:=

HydroBox?

Nope. Hydrobox is fine for doing those workup dives. It's
buoyed and getting there and back is good training.

Give you one more try.

TerryH

[Andy Wade]

:=
:=I don't think they have Terry.
:=I read it as that the owner Glyn Small has banned diving.
:=BSAC are just complying with his wishes, and no-one could really expect them to do any different.
:=They are just recommending that members comply with the law.
:=

Yep and it's that word "recommended" that's going to get you.
Take a look at ANY and I mean ANY dive insurance. There will
always be a clause that states you MUST dive within the rules
and reccomendations of the agency to which you belong.

Makes no diffrence what reason BSAC say no to dotty. Fact
remains they have and in my book anybody that dives there
under the BSAC banner is taking a hell of a chance with there
BSAC insurance.



I was just pointing out the fact that BSAC haven't banned diving at Dorothea, Glyn Small has.

[Nigel Hewitt]

Does BSAC really say that you shouldn't dive at dotty because of trespass law, but if you do you will still be covered by BSAC insurance?

Just put 'Getting nicked for trespass' in your risk assessment and 'Admit nothing and only give personal details to a uniformed police officer' in the actions column. If you're really so terrified of somebody making a third party claim against that you must have BSAC insurance dive solo.

HTH

nigelH

[Andy Wade]

:=
:=I don't think they have Terry.
:=I read it as that the owner Glyn Small has banned diving.
:=BSAC are just complying with his wishes, and no-one could really expect them to do any different.
:=They are just recommending that members comply with the law.
:=

Yep and it's that word "recommended" that's going to get you.
Take a look at ANY and I mean ANY dive insurance. There will
always be a clause that states you MUST dive within the rules
and reccomendations of the agency to which you belong.

Makes no diffrence what reason BSAC say no to dotty. Fact
remains they have and in my book anybody that dives there
under the BSAC banner is taking a hell of a chance with there
BSAC insurance.


I've had a bit of a think and I'm not sure about this now,
If I and a buddy dived at Dorothea Quarry, and kept strictly within BSAC safe diving practices, (but still had an unforseen incident), would I actually be in breach of the third party insurance simply because BSAC recommend that we respect Glyn Small's wishes?
Surely the third pary insurance is to do with diving safety issues and not trespassing?
I wouldn't mind knowing what the definitive answer is.



.

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Terry

You're still wrong - read the words again, just the words, DON'T put your own incorrect spin and extrapolation on it. Then go back and research the insurance threads of some months back. That will give you a better understanding of how insurance works and hopefully explain to you why your statement of "So that means I'm not covered" is also incorrect.

One of us is right here Terry and one of us is wrong. I'm not the one who is wrong BTW.

The BSAC cannot and do not condone trespass on private property, that is why we request that our members and clubs comply with the wishes of Mr Small. There is no "ban" by the BSAC, we are not the police force. Neither is there the threat of "you wont be insured" because insurance simply doesn't work like that.

Keith L

[will swift]

Just put 'Getting nicked for trespass' in your risk assessment and 'Admit nothing and only give personal details to a uniformed police officer' in the actions column.

Nice one.

If you're really so terrified of somebody making a third party claim against that you must have BSAC insurance dive solo.

Don't dive there so not a problem ;-)

[terryh]

Terry

You're still wrong - read the words again, just the words, DON'T put your own incorrect spin and extrapolation on it. Then go back and research the insurance threads of some months back. That will give you a better understanding of how insurance works and hopefully explain to you why your statement of "So that means I'm not covered" is also incorrect.

One of us is right here Terry and one of us is wrong. I'm not the one who is wrong BTW.

The BSAC cannot and do not condone trespass on private property, that is why we request that our members and clubs comply with the wishes of Mr Small. There is no "ban" by the BSAC, we are not the police force. Neither is there the threat of "you wont be insured" because insurance simply doesn't work like that.


Well there you go Keith. I probably got the idea from the
title. What was it again "DIVING IN DOROTHEA QUARRY BANNED".

One thing we BOTH know about insurance is that each and every
case is decided on its own merit. Its almost impossible even in
what is seen to be absolute cut and dried cases to gauge what
way the insurance company will go.

I'm sure you can come up with chapter, verse, ancedotal
evidence etc. etc. Guess what? So can I. Nobody wins here,
nor am I trying to.

My base argument is and always has been that if you belong to
ANY organisation (be it BSAC or PADI, TDI at al) then you
follow the rules regulations etc. of that organisation. If you
dont like it then fine, by all means complain, argue, winge,
lobby for change, but otherwise do it or get out.

So one of us is right and one of us is wrong.

Ok so lets say I am wrong. Diver has an incident at Dorothea
that involves BSAC insurance. If you are right BSAC will help.

What if you are wrong. Diver has an incident at Dorothea that
involves BSAC and they DONT help.

Tell you what easy end to this discussion.
Can you say right now, that if a BSAC diver does dive Dorothea
without written permission and has an incident BSAC insurance
will back him?

TerryH

[Dave]

If you're really so terrified of somebody making a third party claim against that you must have BSAC insurance dive solo.

Except that diving solo would contravene the recommendations :). Over all I agree with your sentiment; why do some people get so worked up about this insurance. Most people don't have it and have no paranoia about going diving.

Dave

[Lynn Jackson]

Back to the original point - I take it we're talking Branch club here.

You say that your club has banned diving at a particular site disliked by your club - why? Is it for safety reasons? Or something else? (it gets too busy at weekends or they don't like the site owner?)

Also your club dislikes diving to deeper depths within BSAC guidelines. Again why? Is it for safety reasons or lack of experience at those depths? Do members use ponys regularly?

I don't know the details, but if this club is cramping your diving style, you might have to find another club that suits you better.

[Philip Smith]

:=Terry, at first you wrote that BSAC had not banned diving in Dorothea:
:=
:=:=As a club we have only banned one part of one site in the UK (and it's not Dorothea).
:=

No I didnt. Come on Phil read it again. It says very clearly
that its NOT Dotty.

I think you should read your own text again. If you say BSAC had banned diving at only one site which was NOT Dorothea, then you were stating that they had NOT banned diving at Dorothea. Which is what I said you said. I suspect you simply made a slight mistake with your wording.

Any guesses?

I made a plain request for you to stop being cryptic. I'm not interested in your guessing game.

Philip

[terryh]

:=:=Terry, at first you wrote that BSAC had not banned diving in Dorothea:
:=:=
:=:=:=As a club we have only banned one part of one site in the UK (and it's not Dorothea).
:=:=
:=
:=No I didnt. Come on Phil read it again. It says very clearly
:=that its NOT Dotty.

I think you should read your own text again. If you say BSAC had banned diving at only one site which was NOT Dorothea, then you were stating that they had NOT banned diving at Dorothea. Which is what I said you said. I suspect you simply made a slight mistake with your wording.

:=Any guesses?

I made a plain request for you to stop being cryptic. I'm not interested in your guessing game.


Very confused and so I did read it all again and it just dawned
on me what your on about.

By "As a club" I am referring to my own local dive club and
not BSAC HQ.

I thought it was pretty obvious. If BSAC had banned anywhere
else, the world and his wife would know by now.

If it makes you feel better ......

My own club (local not National) has banned one part of one
site in the UK (and it's not Dorothea).

TerryH

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Hi Terry

With regards to the headline "DIVING IN DOROTHEA QUARRY BANNED" the headline is correct in that it relates to the OWNERS wishes, as backed up at the meeting referred to and as communicated by the BSAC to our members. No court, organisation or indeed the BSAC has banned diving at Dorothea, but the BSAC do request that our members and clubs do not dive there in accordance with the owners wishes.

?One thing we BOTH know about insurance is that each and every case is decided on its own merit.?

Exactly Terry, that was my point entirely. That is why your ?you wont be insured? statement was factually incorrect and misleading.

?Can you say right now, that if a BSAC diver does dive Dorothea without written permission and has an incident BSAC insurance will back him??

Given your statement above you know full well that I can give no such guarantee. I cannot say ?yes? with certainty, equally you cannot say ?no?. That?s the trouble with insurance, any insurance, you?re asking for a black or white answer, I can only give the standard (and correct) answer on all such matters of ?it?s grey?. But the one thing I can guarantee you is that Technical Services at HQ will NOT turn their backs on you, their expertise and advice is available to all BSAC members in all kinds of situations. Should any BSAC diver find themselves in any situation that may involve insurance or whatever then HQ?s advice is there for you.

Back to the original point about private dives, the BSAC insurance covers BSAC divers for third party claims against them both on club and private dives. If you were to be involved in an incident whilst diving somewhere against the advice or wishes of your DO then it may, or it may not, have an impact on any insurance issues ? it would depend entirely on the circumstances and as nobody can predict the future nobody can give you a black/white answer! Refer to previous threads about insurance for more background.

I think that just about sums it up Terry ? the correct answer to all points is of course ?it?s grey?.

Regards

Keith L

[Gordon Archer]

What is the position of a trained diver, trained through multiple organisations, who is also a BSAC member who wishes to dive at a location disliked by their club or to a depth (within their BSAC and other training and BSAC guidelines) but disliked by their club, where the diver also maintains their own insurance?

Does this diving, having nothing to do with the club, have to be sanctioned by the club? can the club attempt to limit this diving or repremand the diver at all?

Thoughts.


Your going diving outside of the club has nothing whatsoever to do with the club, it is a private dive. Most of all who have posted to this thread have probably done this at sometime and thought nothing of it.( I bet someone will disagree though). If you do go diving with your mates and enjoy it why not, it is just a courtesy to communicate with the DO not a requirement.
If as you say its within BSAC safe diving practices and depths then go, enjoy!

[Andy Wade]

:=
:=What is the position of a trained diver, trained through multiple organisations, who is also a BSAC member who wishes to dive at a location disliked by their club or to a depth (within their BSAC and other training and BSAC guidelines) but disliked by their club, where the diver also maintains their own insurance?
:=
:=Does this diving, having nothing to do with the club, have to be sanctioned by the club? can the club attempt to limit this diving or repremand the diver at all?
:=
:=Thoughts.
:=

Your going diving outside of the club has nothing whatsoever to do with the club, it is a private dive. Most of all who have posted to this thread have probably done this at sometime and thought nothing of it.( I bet someone will disagree though). If you do go diving with your mates and enjoy it why not, it is just a courtesy to communicate with the DO not a requirement.
If as you say its within BSAC safe diving practices and depths then go, enjoy!



The only time I ever objected as a DO to private dives was when I found out that some of our unqualified divers were taking some other unqualified divers on private dives. IMO Their safety was at risk, so I (as DO) explained it to them and so they stopped doing it until they had completed their training.
Then they were free to go on private dives whenever they wanted. I couldn't see a problem with it anyway.
Although IIRC at the time there was so much branch diving being organised that they didn't do a private dive for ages, because they were enjoying themselves so much diving with the branch.
Which is the general idea.

[terryh]

Hi Terry

With regards to the headline "DIVING IN DOROTHEA QUARRY BANNED" the headline is correct in that it relates to the OWNERS wishes, as backed up at the meeting referred to and as communicated by the BSAC to our members. No court, organisation or indeed the BSAC has banned diving at Dorothea, but the BSAC do request that our members and clubs do not dive there in accordance with the owners wishes.

?One thing we BOTH know about insurance is that each and every case is decided on its own merit.?

Exactly Terry, that was my point entirely. That is why your ?you wont be insured? statement was factually incorrect and misleading.

?Can you say right now, that if a BSAC diver does dive Dorothea without written permission and has an incident BSAC insurance will back him??

Given your statement above you know full well that I can give no such guarantee. I cannot say ?yes? with certainty, equally you cannot say ?no?. That?s the trouble with insurance, any insurance, you?re asking for a black or white answer, I can only give the standard (and correct) answer on all such matters of ?it?s grey?. But the one thing I can guarantee you is that Technical Services at HQ will NOT turn their backs on you, their expertise and advice is available to all BSAC members in all kinds of situations. Should any BSAC diver find themselves in any situation that may involve insurance or whatever then HQ?s advice is there for you.

Back to the original point about private dives, the BSAC insurance covers BSAC divers for third party claims against them both on club and private dives. If you were to be involved in an incident whilst diving somewhere against the advice or wishes of your DO then it may, or it may not, have an impact on any insurance issues ? it would depend entirely on the circumstances and as nobody can predict the future nobody can give you a black/white answer! Refer to previous threads about insurance for more background.

I think that just about sums it up Terry ? the correct answer to all points is of course ?it?s grey?.


If it's a grey area then clearly there is a greater chance
of not being insured then if it was well defined (Insurance
company says yes you are or no you are not).

So doesnt common sense say that to reduce the risk its better
not to dive there at all?

Or put another way, if I present an Insurance company with the
scenario that I knew BSAC have reccommended that we dont dive
Dorothea, would I expect the same treatment, if say I had a
problem in eg. Stoney?

Be honest. Even if Its a grey area, how on earth is directly
going against BSAC reccomendations going to help/support any
insurance claim?

TerryH

[Philip Smith]

By "As a club" I am referring to my own local dive club and
not BSAC HQ.

Oh, I see -- you meant your "branch". We're all in the same club, after all!

Philip

[Nigel Hewitt]

Be honest. Even if Its a grey area, how on earth is directly
going against BSAC reccomendations going to help/support any
insurance claim?

Hang on. This is third party insurance. I covers you for claims against you when you do it wrong badly enough for somebody to get hurt or be put to expense. If you do it all correctly you don't need insurance.

This argument is similar to saying my car insurance only covers me if I drive well and don't hit anybody.

nigelH

[Edward Haynes]

This is just my opinion.

What is the position of a trained diver, trained through multiple organisations, who is also a BSAC member who wishes to dive at a location disliked by their club or to a depth (within their BSAC and other training and BSAC guidelines) but disliked by their club, where the diver also maintains their own insurance?

Your insurance is a red herring; your insurance is between you and your insurance company, if you want to contravene it, ? that?s your choice ? it has no impact on your Branch given your scenario.

Your Branch will be concerned about THEIR cover. If there was an incident, your Estate Trustees may make a claim against the Branch Diving Officer in that ?he/she permitted you to continue diving in a way that was in their opinion unsafe?. With documented evidence that action was taking place to correct your diving practises, it would show they where not being negligent, but you where being reckless (diving in conditions against advice). Your Branch?s ultimate sanction can be to exclude you from the Branch or not accept your next BSAC renewal (which is the simplest way of removing someone from a Branch).

The people diving with you could be liable for a negligent claim in the above situation, as they are encouraging you.


Does this diving, having nothing to do with the club, have to be sanctioned by the club? can the club attempt to limit this diving or repremand the diver at all?

If the Branch Committee (and partially the Branch Diving Officer) gets to know about your reckless ?private? diving, as above, they have to take action to correct the situation. ?Private? dives done within the guidelines of the BSAC are not a problem and do not require the Branch Diving Officers approval.

Edward

Thoughts.
Wills.

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

If it's a grey area then clearly there is a greater chance
of not being insured then if it was well defined (Insurance
company says yes you are or no you are not).
So doesnt common sense say that to reduce the risk its better
not to dive there at all?
Or put another way, if I present an Insurance company with the
scenario that I knew BSAC have reccommended that we dont dive
Dorothea, would I expect the same treatment, if say I had a
problem in eg. Stoney?
Be honest. Even if Its a grey area, how on earth is directly
going against BSAC reccomendations going to help/support any
insurance claim?

Terry

If your personal risk assessment deems any risk too high then you are at liberty to personally mitigate those risks. That is your personal choice.

You can put as many hypothetical scenarios to any insurance company as you like, you will ALWAYS get back the answer ?it?s grey, it depends on the circumstances?. It is not up to you, me or even the insurance company to decide what is/isn?t valid ? that is ultimately up to a court of law and subject to the full legal processes.

On the subject of disregarding BSAC recommendations ? again it depends on the circumstances. The question will be ?did the breach of recommendations have a material affect on the incident??, if it did then it MAY have an impact on the insurance cover. For example : you drop your stage of 100% O2 on your buddies foot, any claim would probably be met because the fact that you were going against BSAC recommendations could be deemed as immaterial to the incident. However, if you lent your buddy your 100% O2 stage, they OxTox and sue you, then that may have an impact on your BSAC insurance (that would ultimately be for a court of law to decide).

There is nothing more to say Terry, that is the REALITY of insurance, any insurance. It doesn?t matter how many black/white or yes/no answers that you ask for ? every time you will get back the same answer of ?it depends, it?s grey?. Which is why your original ?you will not be insured? claim was wrong, the correct answer is that it depends on the circumstances.

Keith L

[tony dwyer]

Your going diving outside of the club has nothing whatsoever to do with the club, it is a private dive. Most of all who have posted to this thread have probably done this at sometime and thought nothing of it.( I bet someone will disagree though). If you do go diving with your mates and enjoy it why not, it is just a courtesy to communicate with the DO not a requirement.
If as you say its within BSAC safe diving practices and depths then go, enjoy!

When I go diving on holiday in the Red Sea and other nice places, it usually has nothing whatsoever to do with my club. It's my own private affair. I do chat with the D\O and he will know roughly what will be going on, but it's none of his business really, but he's a mate.

Sometimes we go abroad as a club group and we consider the diving done as 'Club Dives' as the D/O will have been consulted, if in fact he isn't part of the group going(unlikely, he's very keen).

No matter what, my BSAC 3rd party insurance is still in effect.

[frank spooner]

I read this to mean all BS-AC members are covered when engaged on Club activities AND when they are diving anywhere in the world.

So you would have to be on a club sanctioned dive anywhere in the world otherwise you are diving outside of BSAC/club recommendations.

So this brings me back to the 'club' if they do not sanction a dive could that invalidate your external insurance because you are diving outside of your club's recommendations. Now you couldn't expect BSAC to sanction dives outside of it's experience even if they were sanctioned by other agencies - because I could start the deep-air agency and nicely fall within it's recommendations.

confused!

I was also confused by this state of affairs. However, if you read the BSAC Branch Officers Handbook section 4.5.1, confusion takes on a whole different meaning.

First - Guarding Against Unsafe Dives indicates that NOT using Risk Assessment invalidates the insurance. Conversly using Risk Assessment validates the dive (if carried out within BS-AC recommendations).

Second - Non-Authorised Dives indicates that if the Branch DO, or any committee member, knows a branch member is likely to do an unsafe dive (in the opinion of the DO), if he/she does nothing its not the insurance that is in question, but the DO & committee's liability.

Now that's confusion.

Frank S

[frank spooner]

Hang on. This is third party insurance. I covers you for claims against you when you do it wrong badly enough for somebody to get hurt or be put to expense. If you do it all correctly you don't need insurance.

This argument is similar to saying my car insurance only covers me if I drive well and don't hit anybody.

nigelH

Now we are getting somewhere with this discussion. Third party insurance is (hopefully) a safety net for everyone involved in the event that injury, or worse, takes place during a dive in which you were involved. Read the insurance disclaimers you are asked to sign at any Red Sea dive centre, or read the insurance liability of an airline, or your own travel insurance. You will be amazed at just what you are covered for, or rather not covered for.

If a diving related accident (what is the the legal definition of accident)takes place and you are in some way involved and you are insured, there is a 90% chance that someone will take you to court. It is then up to the court to decide if you had any responsibility for the event, and it will be your lawyers expertese in court that will dictate your liability, the better your lawyer the less your liability. If you do not have 3rd party insurance there is a 100% chance of being sued for everything you've got and will have, and you will lose.

The game rules are these.
1. The insurance company will do all it can to remove its liability to you.
2. Your lawyers will do all they can to remove any liability from you.
3. The claimant's lawyers will do all they can to screw whoever is liable for as much as they can get.

There is new buzz word around the world of litigation - Duty of Care, and you can put any interpretation on it that you like. In these days of litigation fall foul of it at your peril, and you will fall foul of it. I'm sorry to say this, but your liability will be increased if there is the tinyest element the claimant's lawyers can exploit. It will be reduced if you follow the rules and the more you follow them to the letter the less your liability. Of course, the ultimate zero liability is do not dive. However, we do dive and so we must have 3rd party insurance.

The law, remember, is there to be used - by everyone who can afford it. Your 3rd party insurance gives you the ability to afford it, providing you don't beak the rules. Break the rules.....

And so, here we are back on the jolly old merrygoround again. What a sorry state of affairs we live in!

Frank S

[Edward Haynes]

Frank


First - Guarding Against Unsafe Dives indicates that NOT using Risk Assessment invalidates the insurance. Conversly using Risk Assessment validates the dive (if carried out within BS-AC recommendations).

As Keith has said a number of times; we cannot make an absolute assumption that this is the case, it's the Courts that will decide who is liable. Not having a "written" Risk Assessment might not be in a defendants best interests.

Second - Non-Authorised Dives indicates that if the Branch DO, or any committee member, knows a branch member is likely to do an unsafe dive (in the opinion of the DO), if he/she does nothing its not the insurance that is in question, but the DO & committee's liability.

What would the gentleman on, whatever bus it is, think; again it's not clear-cut. Certainly for a first occasion it would be quite difficult to prove the Branch Diving Officer (or other Committee Member) could have predicted the situation. The claimant would also have to prove these people 'know' about their 'private' dives.


Now that's confusion.

That's insurance

Edward

[Philip Smith]

As Keith has said a number of times; we cannot make an absolute assumption that this is the case, it's the Courts that will decide who is liable.

I think there is a risk of confusing two issues here: validity of insurance cover and liability. Firstly, will the insurance company cover you? Secondly and separately, will the courts find you liable? It is initially for the insurance company to decide if they will they cover you to the extent of providing legal representation. I suppose they may later withdraw cover as a result of facts brought out in a court case. If they refuse to pay out on legal costs or damages awarded against you, I presume the validity of insurance cover would only be decided by a court if you could afford to sue the insurance company.

Philip Smith

[frank spooner]

I agree that it is the courts that ultimately decide, but they will only do what they are told to do by the arguments of the claimant's and defendant's lawyers. However, the validation of the insurance will give any defendant, or claimant, the appearance of a safety net so vital in these days of litigation.

The courts will not decide who is covered or not, only who is to blame for an accident. Ultimately it is the insurance company that will decide if, and how hard, they are going to fight your case (your case? sorry, their case).

Frank

[terryh]

There is new buzz word around the world of litigation - Duty of Care, and you can put any interpretation on it that you like. In these days of litigation fall foul of it at your peril, and you will fall foul of it. I'm sorry to say this, but your liability will be increased if there is the tinyest element the claimant's lawyers can exploit. It will be reduced if you follow the rules and the more you follow them to the letter the less your liability. Of course, the ultimate zero liability is do not dive. However, we do dive and so we must have 3rd party insurance.


Err isnt this exactly what I have been bleating on about from the start? After all how easy would it be for a lawyer to exploit a diver who ignored BSAC reccomendations.

Not diving at all, well maybe a bit extreme, but would have thought the very least I could do would IMO to follow what BSAC say.

TerryH

[Bill Bird]

:=
:=There is new buzz word around the world of litigation - Duty of Care, and you can put any interpretation on it that you like. In these days of litigation fall foul of it at your peril, and you will fall foul of it. I'm sorry to say this, but your liability will be increased if there is the tinyest element the claimant's lawyers can exploit. It will be reduced if you follow the rules and the more you follow them to the letter the less your liability. Of course, the ultimate zero liability is do not dive. However, we do dive and so we must have 3rd party insurance.
:=

Err isnt this exactly what I have been bleating on about from the start? After all how easy would it be for a lawyer to exploit a diver who ignored BSAC reccomendations.

Not diving at all, well maybe a bit extreme, but would have thought the very least I could do would IMO to follow what BSAC say.

TerryH

I think it is important to dive within the limitations set within the rules of anyone's qualifications/agency recommendations, under whatever agency they choose to dive with. I do think it's fair to say that we all - as divers - accept that our sport is a sport with dangers, rather than a danderous sport. One has to be realistic and accept that death is a possibility - although for a very small minority of divers, and we wouldn't necessarily seek to blame anyone if we did die(unless there was gross negligence).

But we are not the ones left behind, and our non-diving loved ones may not be quite so tolerant of our sport and/or friends if they are deprived of their father, mother, son or daughter! I agree that there are more than enough lawyers out there who would try to prove some form of negligence/wrong doing against a surviving buddy, instructor, school or branch (have a look at the news posting for the SAA branch on the newsflash page).


Regards.


Bill

[PeteM]

The courts will not decide who is covered or not, only who is to blame for an accident. Ultimately it is the insurance company that will decide if, and how hard, they are going to fight your case (your case? sorry, their case).


Actually the courts can decide the level and existance of cover - you have a contract of insurance, if the insurance co decide not to cover you and you think they could you can sue them for breach of contract.

Pete

[Rob]

Why is it BSAC impose these rules and restrictions ?? Surely a qualified diver is capable of planning a dive and safely executing the plan ?? I am sure Padi don't have these trivial politics and restrictive rules. But then again I am only a club diver !!!

[Rob]

Regarding insurance, Bsac only offer a third party cover. Why not reduce the membership fee and allow members a free market option to take out their own insurance cover. Membership secretaties or dive officers could check that members are remewed each year as part of the club membership renewal. Has any one ever successfully made a claim against BSAC insurance ????
After all you have to buy additional cover when you dive abroard, that then brings into question the issue of being doubly insured ??Any thoughts ???

[Rob]

Teaspass is a civil offence and the police are unlikely to even want to get involved unless criminal damage had taken place eg cutting a padlock to gain access to a site. I fail to see how any one could make a claim against the 3rd party insurance, so I think the attitude of don't dive there is both negative and defeatist, after all would Rob Palmer have ever pioneered some cave penitrations if he had not dived "with out permission" ????
Diving is all about risk and adventure..........think about it. [COMMENT REMOVED]

[There is no need for that Rob. KL]

[Rob]

Sorry Terry I disagree with your interpritation of diving out side the club paramaters.
Duty of care only exists where there is any training taking place, or there is a mentor / student relationship such as in building experience. This has no relevance to 2 equally qualified divers going for a private dive in the likes of Dorothes, think about it, 2 National instructor diving together (do any of them still dive ??) who has a duty of care, whose insurance will be invalidated ?????????? Answers on a post card



:=:=
:=:=There is new buzz word around the world of litigation - Duty of Care, and you can put any interpretation on it that you like. In these days of litigation fall foul of it at your peril, and you will fall foul of it. I'm sorry to say this, but your liability will be increased if there is the tinyest element the claimant's lawyers can exploit. It will be reduced if you follow the rules and the more you follow them to the letter the less your liability. Of course, the ultimate zero liability is do not dive. However, we do dive and so we must have 3rd party insurance.
:=:=
:=
:=Err isnt this exactly what I have been bleating on about from the start? After all how easy would it be for a lawyer to exploit a diver who ignored BSAC reccomendations.
:=
:=Not diving at all, well maybe a bit extreme, but would have thought the very least I could do would IMO to follow what BSAC say.
:=
:=TerryH

I think it is important to dive within the limitations set within the rules of anyone's qualifications/agency recommendations, under whatever agency they choose to dive with. I do think it's fair to say that we all - as divers - accept that our sport is a sport with dangers, rather than a danderous sport. One has to be realistic and accept that death is a possibility - although for a very small minority of divers, and we wouldn't necessarily seek to blame anyone if we did die(unless there was gross negligence).

But we are not the ones left behind, and our non-diving loved ones may not be quite so tolerant of our sport and/or friends if they are deprived of their father, mother, son or daughter! I agree that there are more than enough lawyers out there who would try to prove some form of negligence/wrong doing against a surviving buddy, instructor, school or branch (have a look at the news posting for the SAA branch on the newsflash page).


Regards.


Bill

[Philip Smith]

Duty of care only exists where there is any training taking place, or there is a mentor / student relationship such as in building experience.

I don't think this is correct. There does not need to be an unequal relationship for a duty of care to exist. In any case, a trainee has a certain duty of care for her instructor too, commensurate with her prior training and experience, and the prevailing circumstances. Obviously the expectations of a trainee are much less than of an instructor.

This has no relevance to 2 equally qualified divers going for a private dive in the likes of Dorothes, think about it, 2 National instructor diving together (do any of them still dive ??) who has a duty of care, whose insurance will be invalidated ?????????? Answers on a post card

They both have a duty of care to each other; it is implicit in the buddy system. Whether diving in Dorothea amounts to a material breach of BSAC recommendations that invalidates insurance cover for both of them is a matter for the insurance company (probably with the advice of the NDC) and, perhaps, later for the courts.

Philip Smith

[Nigel Hewitt]

I am sure Padi don't have these trivial politics and restrictive rules. But then again I am only a club diver !!!

PADI don't have rules for non-proffesionals. They just issue certifications that you fulfilled all the requirements of a course at a specific date. IF somebody is interested in your competance to dive they MAY accept one of those cards as evidence. The cards don't even ALLOW you to do something. What you do is your business. They just state that you are QUALIFIED TO followed by a list.

There is nothing wrong with an OW diver, qualified to 18m, going to 40m. Stupid I grant you. Inadvisable certainly but not PADI's busineess.

nigelH

[tony dwyer]

They both have a duty of care to each other; it is implicit in the buddy system.

You are correct, but it is also a legal obligation. We all have a duty of care to one another, regardless of what activity we take part in.

Have a look at:

<a href="http://www.sport.ox.ac.uk/safety/dutyofcare.shtml" >http://www.sport.ox.ac.uk/safety/dutyofcare.shtml</a>

The greater ones experience/qualification in the activity in question the heavier the weight of duty of care. Thus a Dive Leader would be expected to exercise his or her experience and training to greater effect than an Ocean Diver would.

Expect more chain rattling from HSE in this regard.

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Regarding insurance, Bsac only offer a third party cover. Why not reduce the membership fee and allow members a free market option to take out their own insurance cover.

You would not get equivalent cover for what you pay via your subs. Who then pays for the insurance that covers your club officers? Who then pays for the insurance that covers your clubs pool hire etc.? Who then pays for the insurance that protects the club overall? All of that is included in the current BSAC TP insurance.

Membership secretaries or dive officers could check that members are renewed each year as part of the club membership renewal.

I suggest that you ask a few MS?s about that! What about insurance that ends part way through the year? One major benefit of the current scheme is that you KNOW that the BSAC diver you are diving with, and the club that you are diving with, has adequate TP insurance.

Has any one ever successfully made a claim against BSAC insurance ????

Yes, lots of people. It is not a claim ?against BSAC insurance?, our insurance settles claims against YOU on your behalf. The insurance also pays for legal representation etc.

After all you have to buy additional cover when you dive abroard, that then brings into question the issue of being doubly insured ??Any thoughts ???

Standard insurance rules apply for dual insurance. Travel insurance is NOTHING LIKE the BSAC TP insurance, it covers a whole range of personal issues such as cancellation, medical, repatriation etc. They are two completely different products.

HTH

Keith L

[Philip Smith]

:=They both have a duty of care to each other; it is implicit in the buddy system.

You are correct, but it is also a legal obligation. We all have a duty of care to one another, regardless of what activity we take part in.

Agreed.

Philip

[Philip Smith]

HTH

Well said Keith.
Philip

[derek perry]

:=:=Lets look at BSAC's own Insurance page ....
:=:="When are they covered? - All BS-AC members are covered when engaged on Club activities"
:=
:=Terry you have only partly quoted the insurance. If you read on the whole sentence says;
:=
:=All BS-AC members are covered when engaged on Club activities and when they are diving anywhere in the world
:=
:=Reading the sentence in full the diving does not have to be a club activity.

Derek,

I read this to mean all BS-AC members are covered when engaged on Club activities AND when they are diving anywhere in the world.

So you would have to be on a club sanctioned dive anywhere in the world otherwise you are diving outside of BSAC/club recommendations.

So this brings me back to the 'club' if they do not sanction a dive could that invalidate your external insurance because you are diving outside of your club's recommendations. Now you couldn't expect BSAC to sanction dives outside of it's experience even if they were sanctioned by other agencies - because I could start the deep-air agency and nicely fall within it's recommendations.

confused!


I raised this in another posting and it was pretty much agreed /assumed there were 2 seperate covers

1/ BS-AC members are covered when engaged on Club activities
ie Bar B Q's arranged by the club, Etc Etc

And

2/ when they are diving anywhere in the world

It was pretty much agreed/assumed that the first didn't relate to the second.
IE the dive does not have to be a club activity??

I have said before and I will say again, is this not the point at which someone OFFICIAL from BSAC should cut in and clarify.

Derek

[PeteM]

Yes, lots of people. It is not a claim ?against BSAC insurance?, our insurance settles claims against YOU on your behalf. The insurance also pays for legal representation etc.

I think the paying for legal representation has got to be one of the biggest benefits. If an accident happens then the land sharks often use a blunderbus approach to sueing people. Having a well funded co-ordinated defence team is likely to be very important

Pete

[terryh]

Sorry Terry I disagree with your interpritation of diving out side the club paramaters.
Duty of care only exists where there is any training taking place, or there is a mentor / student relationship such as in building experience. This has no relevance to 2 equally qualified divers going for a private dive in the likes of Dorothes, think about it, 2 National instructor diving together (do any of them still dive ??) who has a duty of care, whose insurance will be invalidated ?????????? Answers on a post card



Wrong again. ALL divers have a duty of care. In fact the only
situaton where you don't is solo and even then to be insured
you need to follow Agency rules (SDI solo diver etc).

So on a normal dive I could quite easily be sued by my buddy if
one of my actions caused/contributed towards an incident.

About two years ago in a well publicised case a widow took her
husbands buddy to court and came extremely close to winning
under the "duty of care" banner.

TerryH

[terryh]

Why is it BSAC impose these rules and restrictions ?? Surely a qualified diver is capable of planning a dive and safely executing the plan ?? I am sure Padi don't have these trivial politics and restrictive rules. But then again I am only a club diver !!!

They dont have Insurance either. Remember that many of the
rules and regs in force are not dictated by BSAC, but by a
meriad of other agencies.
How many of these are dictated by the Insurance company?

TerryH

[Frank Spooner]

Actually the courts can decide the level and existance of cover - you have a contract of insurance, if the insurance co decide not to cover you and you think they could you can sue them for breach of contract.

Pete

True, but we are discussing whether you are covered for a particular incident. And suing for breach of contract if the insurance company decide you have 'broken the rules' is a very dangerous, and extrememly expensive game. And a Breach of Contract claim will result in a counter claim for breach of contract on your part, this part of the game. The question now is, can you afford it. Can you find the money, and you will need a lot of it, to fight an insurance company.

Follow the rules and don't push the envelope - you can not win.

Frank

[John Williams]

Terry

If you're interested in reducing the risk incurred by diving (anywhere) then feel free to give it up!

In every case a Risk Assessment should be carried out.

If you assess the risk of a possibly reduced insurance cover important enough to cancel a dive then please do so.

I wont dive somewhere without permission from the owner - just like I don't allow people to live in my house without my permission. Insurance is not a factor for me there. If Mr Small does not want divers in HIS flooded quarry then I will respect his wishes.

I would ask other divers - from all agencies and those diving independently - to respect Mr Small's wishes in this matter.

But then...that's what the BSAC (as National Governing Body) has already done!


John

[terryh]

Terry

If you're interested in reducing the risk incurred by diving (anywhere) then feel free to give it up!

In every case a Risk Assessment should be carried out.

If you assess the risk of a possibly reduced insurance cover important enough to cancel a dive then please do so.

I wont dive somewhere without permission from the owner - just like I don't allow people to live in my house without my permission. Insurance is not a factor for me there. If Mr Small does not want divers in HIS flooded quarry then I will respect his wishes.

I would ask other divers - from all agencies and those diving independently - to respect Mr Small's wishes in this matter.

But then...that's what the BSAC (as National Governing Body) has already done!



But that wasnt what we were arg .. discussing!
The point was whether Insurance would be invalidated because
you dived against BSAC reccomndations.

Some think that it's such a grey area that each case needs to
be looked at on its own merits negating any black & white
awnser.

I on the other hand think that the FACT that BSAC have
reccomended we dont dive there, as enough of a Black & White
warning, that the insurance company wouldnt fail to use this as
ammunition if faced with a massive payout.

In all my experience of Insurance they have NEVER failed to use
ANY excuse to get out of paying. I see no reason to believe
that in such circumstances as above, the insurance company
wouldnt use going against BSAC advice as a pefectly valed
excuse to do the same.

I would dive Dorothea (I have), but only with a non-BSAC grade
and full non-BSAC Insurance.

I would not expect BSAC to bail me out when I activly went
against there recommendatsions. To me it's that simple.

TerryH