What is classed as a club dive? [Archive]

Mike Halligan

14-05-2004, 18:10

Hi, Bill,

Let's kick off debate, then.
Recently discussion has been raging in our branch over what constitutes a club dive.
Not surprised.

This has been brought to a head when my wife - who had organised a private trip to the Red Sea for seventeen people (sixteen members of our branch, and one from Jersey) was presented by the Dviving officer with Dive Marshalling sheets and risk assessment sheets.
Hmmm. I can see the DO's point. Was the production of these papers purely innocent helpfulness? Was it asking the obvious question, "How does the group see the position?" in a subtle manner?

This was not booked through the branch, was not opened up (it was invitation only)and was really a holiday that was booked for the seventeen people.
But of them, 16 might rely on BSAC 3rd-party insurance and thus be bound by SDP - which brings in the BOH section attached.

I've read what the branch handbook says, and have qualified this with HQ, who seemed to think that the DM sheets and Risk Assessment sheets were over the top, which contradicts the advice that our Committee have recieved from BSAC HQ.
Yeah, well I can envisage HQ being encouraged to answer either way, by the manner in which the question is put and for that matter the person to whom it is put.

The inference is that if any divers from the branch - even two on holiday - go away and the D.O. is aware of it, it consitutes a branch dive.
That has to be the literal interpretation of the BOH "like wot she is wrote". However, if both are diving, who is marshalling? I think even the BOH throws that one up.

When you go on overseas trips there is invariably a "Dive Leader" - ours was the redoubtable Peter Collings, and therefore surely they take that responsibility?
As my lawyer sister says "Never, ever, assume. You make an ASS of U and ME." In my own experience, neither "invariably" nor "surely they take responsibility" can be implied before (some might say even after!) the event.

I'd be interetsed to find out what fellow members feel, and I'd REALLY (sorry for emphasing) apprecate definitive guidance from HQ.
As I wrote yesterday, it is nigh-impossible to be definitive when the population is subject to both English Law and American cultural influence.

No comfort, I'm afraid, but I might have prompted someone else to help.

Mike

terryh

14-05-2004, 19:46

Recently discussion has been raging in our branch over what constitutes a club dive.

This has been brought to a head when my wife - who had organised a private trip to the Red Sea for seventeen people (sixteen members of our branch, and one from Jersey) was presented by the Dviving officer with Dive Marshalling sheets and risk assessment sheets.

This was not booked through the branch, was not opened up (it was invitation only)and was really a holiday that was booked for the seventeen people.

Well without going into the minefield of what is and isnt.
IMO the fact that you have 16 members on it means that at the
very least it might have been curteous to inform the DO and agree on a basic marshalling exercise.

Or look at it this way. If it wasnt for the club would you know
these people? Wasnt it all those pool/teaching sessions and
training/workup dives that got many of your 16 in a
position to go on there hols?

Seems to me that it was the mechanism of the club that enabled
you to get 16 members together and at the very least common
curtesy says that it should be treated as a club dive.

After all it's not exactly rocket science and as you have
16 you can easily rotate the DM each day (each AM/PM if you
like).

So play the good guy, agree a plan with the DO and call it a
club dive.

TerryH

PS: Wouldnt matter if it was Jacques Cousteau himself, we all
make mistakes and the larger the party the greater the odds
someone is going to **** up!

David Walker

14-05-2004, 21:57

This has been brought to a head when my wife - who had organised a private trip to the Red Sea for seventeen people (sixteen members of our branch, and one from Jersey) was presented by the Dviving officer with Dive Marshalling sheets and risk assessment sheets.

16 out of 17 does seem very branch-oriented - probably would have been good to let the DO know, whatever the real 'requirement' or where the authority lies.

I've read what the branch handbook says, and have qualified this with HQ, who seemed to think that the DM sheets and Risk Assessment sheets were over the top, which contradicts the advice that our Committee have recieved from BSAC HQ.

Yeah, in reality in the Red Sea everyone will be diving together, and so the only option to have marshalling is for someone to miss out on diving - if someone is sat around doing nothing then fine, if they want to they can, but I wouldn't expect people to miss dives to tick a few boxes on a sheet.

The inference is that if any divers from the branch - even two on holiday - go away and the D.O. is aware of it, it consitutes a branch dive.

No - I do not at all agree with that position, for one reason alone: What if say 6 people book a holiday together, 3 from one branch, 3 from another? There is no way there can be rules saying that if so many members go then its a club dive. You'd have clubs fighting for authority, if two people from different branches dived together would they have to fill in a different log sheet for each diver? Put simply, no rule would work - it just needs common sense.
However, I would think that in your case it would have been appropriate to let the DO know, although I think trying to force you to fill in logs is excessive. If all else fails, take them, smile and say thank you, and then fill them all in on the plane on the way home from your log books! :O)

David

Philip Smith

14-05-2004, 23:38

This was not booked through the branch, was not opened up (it was invitation only)and was really a holiday that was booked for the seventeen people.

To me, that seems not to be a club dive. It was not organised under the auspices of the branch, it does not need the DOs permission to go ahead and the DO cannot be held responsible for it. However, with so many members involved, one might ask why it was not organised as a branch holiday, since this sort of thing tends to undermine the club ethos, and create divisions and resentment within branches.

The inference is that if any divers from the branch - even two on holiday - go away and the D.O. is aware of it, it consitutes a branch dive.

The definition in the BOH uses the words "with the prior knowledge and approval of the Branch Diving Officer". I think that wording is intended to protect BDO's from being held responsible for dives they did not know about or which they disapproved of. In my opinion, the wording is not intended to indicate that BDOs can claim control over any dive done by a branch member. For example, experienced divers may over time develop associations with more than one club or group, or may dive professionally. A branch DO is not responsible for these extra-branch activities and therefore does not need control of them (although he may wish to offer advice), unless they use branch resources.

It is a free country -- it is not credible to attempt to ban "private" dives. BSAC insurance applies to private dives as well as official branch dives. There is a possibility that members declare that dives are private simply to avoid safe diving practices and organisation imposed by the branch. In that case, the branch could consider whether it wishes to retain those members.

Philip Smith

Firestorm

14-05-2004, 23:59

Recently discussion has been raging in our branch over what constitutes a club dive.

This has been brought to a head when my wife - who had organised a private trip to the Red Sea for seventeen people (sixteen members of our branch, and one from Jersey) was presented by the Dviving officer with Dive Marshalling sheets and risk assessment sheets.

This was not booked through the branch, was not opened up (it was invitation only)and was really a holiday that was booked for the seventeen people.

I've read what the branch handbook says, and have qualified this with HQ, who seemed to think that the DM sheets and Risk Assessment sheets were over the top, which contradicts the advice that our Committee have recieved from BSAC HQ.

The inference is that if any divers from the branch - even two on holiday - go away and the D.O. is aware of it, it consitutes a branch dive.

When you go on overseas trips there is invariably a "Dive Leader" - ours was the redoubtable Peter Collings, and therefore surely they take that responsibility?

I'd be interetsed to find out what fellow members feel, and I'd REALLY (sorry for emphasing) apprecate definitive guidance from HQ.

Thanks.

Bill

If this holiday was not booked through the branch & the branch's name has nothing to do with it/appears on any of the paper work then it is not a branch dive & is nothing to do with the branch or the DO.
I don't see why you should inform/get the permision of anyone in the branch as it's a private holiday, regardless of how many people from the branch are going.
Anyway, all divers will probably have to sign some sort of declaration on the boat with regard to their qualification & all diving will be the responsibility of a divemaster or equivalant.

F.

edward haynes

15-05-2004, 15:37

Recently discussion has been raging in our branch over what constitutes a club dive.

The definition of a Branch (club) Dive is:
*** ?As one that is carried out with the prior knowledge and approval of the Branch Diving Officer.? ***

This has been brought to a head when my wife - who had organised a private trip to the Red Sea for seventeen people (sixteen members of our branch, and one from Jersey) was presented by the Dviving officer with Dive Marshalling sheets and risk assessment sheets.

The completion of Marshalling and Risk Assessment Sheets is good practice whether diving privately or as part of a Branch. The Branch Officers Handbook gives guidance on non-branch dives to both individuals and Branch Diving Officers:

4.7.4 Non-Branch Dives
"When diving is conducted without the Branch Diving Officer?s knowledge or prior approval, see ?What is a Branch Dive?? (Section 4.5.1) it is recommended that, the organiser / most experienced member of the group carry out a Risk Assessment as a matter of course. Failure to do so could affect their BSAC Third Party / Public Liability cover should a claim be made against them."

This was not booked through the branch, was not opened up (it was invitation only)and was really a holiday that was booked for the seventeen people.

I've read what the branch handbook says, and have qualified this with HQ, who seemed to think that the DM sheets and Risk Assessment sheets were over the top, which contradicts the advice that our Committee have recieved from BSAC HQ.

The Branch Diving Officer, not the committee, is responsible for all matters relating to diving in your Branch. If you do your own thing and not inform the Branch Diving Officer of your dive plan, that?s your choice. However, your Branch Diving Officer has a duty to ensure all Branch members follow BSAC recommendations, see the sub-sections ?Guarding Against Unsafe Dives:? and ?Non-Authorised Dives:? under 4.7.4. of the Branch Officers Handbook.

The inference is that if any divers from the branch - even two on holiday - go away and the D.O. is aware of it, it consitutes a branch dive.

Not so, see definition above.

When you go on overseas trips there is invariably a "Dive Leader" - ours was the redoubtable Peter Collings, and therefore surely they take that responsibility?

A few things here (IHMO):

1. The Red Sea dive operator will follow his legal obligation under ?local? laws, he has no obligation to comply with British laws.

2. Your Branch Diving Officer has a duty-of-care to ensure (as far as reasonably practical) Branch members dive to BSAC recommendations. The completion of Marshalling and Risk Assessment sheets by your dive party helps your Branch Diving Officer fulfil his obligation, but this doesn?t mean they are ?Branch Dives?.

3. Any claim made against an individual on your holiday is likely to be easier to defend when BSAC recommendations are followed (and a record is available), whether or not it is/was a Branch Dive.

I'd be interetsed to find out what fellow members feel, and I'd REALLY (sorry for emphasing) apprecate definitive guidance from HQ.

There is good advice from others about speaking to your Branch Diving Officer about the trip, some members might want to have skills ?signed-up? which should ideally be sanctioned before you go.

Thanks.

Bill

Edward

bill bird

16-05-2004, 20:19

:=This was not booked through the branch, was not opened up (it was invitation only)and was really a holiday that was booked for the seventeen people.

To me, that seems not to be a club dive. It was not organised under the auspices of the branch, it does not need the DOs permission to go ahead and the DO cannot be held responsible for it. However, with so many members involved, one might ask why it was not organised as a branch holiday, since this sort of thing tends to undermine the club ethos, and create divisions and resentment within branches.

The situation is that if it's a branch dive you may have to open the dive up to all members of the branch.
If you have no issues with all members of the branch fine. But think about it. Could you honestly say that there isn't somebody in your branch that wouldn't drive you round the bend if they signed up for it? That's why it was by invitation only! If I'm going on a week's holiday, I don't want to "ruined" by somebody who I don't feel comfortable with booking on the dive! It's one thing to put up with someone over a weekend, quite another to be on a 32 metre liveaboard for a week with no escape!

However, the principle is really on what should be the requirements for documentation. I'm looking for opinions on how you'd feel about it.

Cheers.

Bill

n

Mike Rowley

16-05-2004, 23:08

=However, the principle is really on what should be the requirements for documentation. I'm looking for opinions on how you'd feel about it.

Its always seemed very simple to me. If the dive is booked through the branch, the DO is informed of it and is invited to approve it and the dive is advertised within the branch then it clearly is a branch dive.

I have always understood that if the dive is booked by an individual and that individual fills the places by invitation then it is not a branch dive. The person responsible for that dive is the individual who organises it, takes the money and makes the bookings.

Take the hypothetical situation of a trimix rebreather diver organising a dive to 120 metres. The dive is filled by invitation. This diver's DO may be an open circuit Advanced Diver. How could he/she offer any usefull advice or take any responsibility for the dive, which in any case is far beyond any BSAC Safe Diving Practices.

The situation with regard to BSAC third party insurance as I understand it is that providing you make every effort to dive within BSAC Safe Diving Guidlines you are covered as long as you are acurrent member. This applies whether it is a branch or private dive. If you are diving outside BSAC Safe Diving Guidlines then to be sure you have third party cover you must take out your own insurance.

Philip Smith

17-05-2004, 00:14

However, the principle is really on what should be the requirements for documentation. I'm looking for opinions on how you'd feel about it.

If it is not a branch dive, the DO is not responsible and has no authority, and there is no need for branch documentation. Completing branch documentation, even if only as an intended courtesy, could make it appear to be a branch dive in the eyes of the law. Whoever is responsible would be advised to complete equivalent documentation, however.

Philip Smith

john kendall

17-05-2004, 01:18

=However, the principle is really on what should be the requirements for documentation. I'm looking for opinions on how you'd feel about it.

Its always seemed very simple to me. If the dive is booked through the branch, the DO is informed of it and is invited to approve it and the dive is advertised within the branch then it clearly is a branch dive.

I have always understood that if the dive is booked by an individual and that individual fills the places by invitation then it is not a branch dive. The person responsible for that dive is the individual who organises it, takes the money and makes the bookings.

Take the hypothetical situation of a trimix rebreather diver organising a dive to 120 metres. The dive is filled by invitation. This diver's DO may be an open circuit Advanced Diver. How could he/she offer any usefull advice or take any responsibility for the dive, which in any case is far beyond any BSAC Safe Diving Practices.

What about if the DO is one of the Deep Trimix divers, and has organised a trip that is beyond the BSAC SDPs? Obviously it is a dive "With the Knowledge and agreement of the DO" but is it a branch dive?

I know that this is not pertinant to the original question, but it is something I thought I'd throw into the mix.

Thanks
John

David Walker

17-05-2004, 02:46

What about if the DO is one of the Deep Trimix divers, and has organised a trip that is beyond the BSAC SDPs? Obviously it is a dive "With the Knowledge and agreement of the DO" but is it a branch dive?

I'd imagine not, since in reality the dive isn't within the remit of the DO, and is essentially acting outside of their authority as DO for that dive - just think, if that were true then any DO would be responsible for every dive they ever knew about involving anyone from their branch, and thats could be way beyond BSACs authority. Of course at this level it is all pretty much academic, since the only problems with the definition would arise if there was an accident, and in those circumstances people are going to be looking to whether the dive was planned and carried out safely within their training and that due precautions were taken - clearly for any dive you'd want to make sure you are making it safe for yourselves, and whether or not the DO of a club is involved there should be a responsibility on all to look after their own and their buddy's safety.
In your example, whether or not the DO was acting as a DO on that dive, the fact remains that in whatever capacity someone should be planning the dives, and especially for something like that i'd imagine you'd already have lots of carefully drawn up plans for every stage of the dive - basically as long as the DO isn't negligent, whether he knew of a dive or not, and whatever forms he is filling in, none of this thread should be an issue for anyone. All we can do is best protect ourselves, and hope that no one really believes that you could reasonably have done something different to prevent an accident from having occurred.
As with everything, its all very much what-if and uncertainty. As long as DOs act with some responsibility there shouldn't be anything serious to worry about.

David

edward haynes

17-05-2004, 09:21

Whoever is responsible would be advised to complete equivalent documentation, however.

The above is consistent with the BOH recommendations for non-branch dives.

Edward

Bill Bird

17-05-2004, 10:07

:=Whoever is responsible would be advised to complete equivalent documentation, however.

The above is consistent with the BOH recommendations for non-branch dives.

Edward

I think that issuing a set of recommendations from the branch on the running of private dives is probably good practice, and I don't see any problems with that. This could make recommendations from the Branch Officers Handbook, and include safety elements. If the trip leaders are running something on the boat, then a lot of the work will be deferred to them. I think if people choose to ignore those recommendations then they may - and it's a big may - need to ensure that they've got their backs covered. I don't believe the organisers of private dives have any obligation to let the D.O. have this info back, unless they want to.

Cheers.

Bill

Bill Bird

17-05-2004, 10:11

"I'd be interetsed to find out what fellow members feel, and I'd REALLY (sorry for emphasing) apprecate definitive guidance from HQ.

There is good advice from others about speaking to your Branch Diving Officer about the trip, some members might want to have skills ?signed-up? which should ideally be sanctioned before you go."

I have no problem with clearing training with the D.O. before a private trip, and I'd agree that if somebody is undergoing training on such a trip I agree that this should be cleared with the D.O. before the trip took place. At that point the whole emphasis of the trip would change, but we are talking about purely a diving holiday.

Cheers.

Bill

edward haynes

17-05-2004, 10:54

Bill

Should a BDO receive dive documentation for private dives?

I don't think so.

I plan and conduct private dives here on the Scottish West coast. As it happens I do complete DM sheets and carry out a Risk Assessment before each set of dives. To date I have had SSAC, SAA and PADI qualified buddies, who would I send documentation to?

I just keep it myself, after all I'm the one who would need to show I followed the SDP.

Have some great dives on your holiday.

Edward

I think that issuing a set of recommendations from the branch on the running of private dives is probably good practice, and I don't see any problems with that. This could make recommendations from the Branch Officers Handbook, and include safety elements. If the trip leaders are running something on the boat, then a lot of the work will be deferred to them. I think if people choose to ignore those recommendations then they may - and it's a big may - need to ensure that they've got their backs covered. I don't believe the organisers of private dives have any obligation to let the D.O. have this info back, unless they want to.

Cheers.

Bill

Mike Rowley

17-05-2004, 11:46

What about if the DO is one of the Deep Trimix divers, and has organised a trip that is beyond the BSAC SDPs? Obviously it is a dive "With the Knowledge and agreement of the DO" but is it a branch dive?

As I understand things, it makes no difference whether the DO is one of the divers. This dive is well beyond BSAC Safe Diving Guidlines so it cannot be a BSAC dive. The person organising the dive becomes the person responsible. The issue is whether the person/s organising the dive decide to make it a branch dive and if the branch DO decides to approve it as one, not whether the branch DO knows about it. If the dive is beyond BSAC Safe Diving Guidlines it cannot be a branch dive anyway.

Philip Smith

17-05-2004, 14:03

If the dive is beyond BSAC Safe Diving Guidlines it cannot be a branch dive anyway.

Well, according to the SDP document, it is permissible to "amend" the recommendations sensibly in appropriate circumstances, but according to the insurance company, we are told, it is not.

Philip Smith

Mike Rowley

17-05-2004, 16:47

:=If the dive is beyond BSAC Safe Diving Guidlines it cannot be a branch dive anyway.

Well, according to the SDP document, it is permissible to "amend" the recommendations sensibly in appropriate circumstances, but according to the insurance company, we are told, it is not.

Philip Smith

Have you checked this with the BSAC insurers or are you making an assumption? Whenever I have spoken to them they always aswer "it depends on the circumstances".

Since third party insurance covers you for circumstances where things have gone wrong and there may be a claim against you it follows that it is possible you may have been negligent in some way in the eyes of the law. Therefore the BSAC third party insurance is precisely for this type of occurance. We are all human and we all make mistakes. All except the people at the HSE and lawyers of course.

In addition, you may be required to go beyond the BSAC SDP to save someones life. This would not be a problem I think.

If you set out to deliberately plan a dive that is beyond the BSAC SDP or specifically against BSAC teaching (Such as adopting DIR techniques)then clearly you have wilfully either disregarded the BSAC guidence or chosen to take that responsibility yourself. In the latter case you would be sensible to take out suitable insurance cover of your own.

I do most of my diving beyond the BSAC SDP recommendations and I choose to do these dives as private dives. I do not expect BSAC to be responsible for these dives. I carry DAN professional insurance.

PeteM

17-05-2004, 17:53

specifically against BSAC teaching (Such as adopting DIR techniques)

Interesting comment. Apart from the use of 100% as a deco gas what in DIR is specifically against BSAC teaching?

Mike Rowley

17-05-2004, 18:20

:= specifically against BSAC teaching (Such as adopting DIR techniques)

Interesting comment. Apart from the use of 100% as a deco gas what in DIR is specifically against BSAC teaching?

I should have said some DIR techniques. I don't particuarly wish to reopen this can of worms again, its been done to death already. I was thinking specifically about donating primary regs in out of gas situations and stowing hoses by wrapping then around the neck, also carrying offboard gas all on the left side. None of these fit well with BSAC techniques.

PeteM

17-05-2004, 19:18

I was thinking specifically about donating primary regs in out of gas situations and stowing hoses by wrapping then around the neck

That's again very interesting, as it was specifically said at the DOC that this was OK and a statement was promised for early this year. Has the position changed?

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

17-05-2004, 19:39

Matt

17-05-2004, 19:48

I do most of my diving beyond the BSAC SDP recommendations and I choose to do these dives as private dives. I do not expect BSAC to be responsible for these dives. I carry DAN professional insurance.

Similarly I spend a great deal of my time intentionally diving beyond BSAC SDPs. I suspect that a significant proportion, if not the majority, of divers that have been in the sport over 5 years do the same from time to time. It begs the question, why are we expected to pay for the same insurance twice?

ATEOTD I want to go diving with my mates and not worry about whether I happen to be insured or will have the funds to fight a negligence claim. Like most branch officers, my involvement primarily benefits others. The 3rd party insurance is the only important benefit I get from my BSAC subs, but what's the point if the cover is inadequate for some or all of my diving and I have to buy a seperate policy? Surely it must be possible to negotiate cover for BSAC members diving inside their qualifications but outside SDPs. I don't expect anyone to subsidise me, I expect to pay a premium on my subs for this level of service.

Interestingly, I recently called Dive Master to arrange IDEC cover for some ERD dives overseas. I was very specific about the fact I would be diving outside SDPs under the auspices of my IANTD qualifications. Dive Master only required that I dive inside *A* qualification and gave me the BSAC discount anyhow.

Maybe our newly elected committee would like to ask the insurers what the possibilities are.

john kendall

17-05-2004, 20:02

:=:= specifically against BSAC teaching (Such as adopting DIR techniques)
:=
:=Interesting comment. Apart from the use of 100% as a deco gas what in DIR is specifically against BSAC teaching?

I should have said some DIR techniques. I don't particuarly wish to reopen this can of worms again, its been done to death already. I was thinking specifically about donating primary regs in out of gas situations and stowing hoses by wrapping then around the neck, also carrying offboard gas all on the left side. None of these fit well with BSAC techniques.

Actually the only major issue where DIR techniques and BSAC come into conflict is Entry Level training, Where BSAC require the teaching of standard AAS, before any other OOA technique is taught. There is no real issue with using DIR techniques at all within BSAC, and once past Entry level, there is not an issue with teaching Primary Donate. At least that is what I got out of Lizzie when I discussed it with her after DOC last year. There is of course the 100% issue, but by the time you are doing dives where there is enough Deco to require other gases, then you are not really within the bounds of BSAC's expertise, and so it is likely that you will want your own insurance anyway (That is what I have had to to. The only reason I am still a BSAC member is because I enjoy teaching, and my only instructor qualification is a BSAC one)

Also, a small point, the long hose is not really wrapped AROUND the neck, it goes under the right arm, then BEHIND the neck into your mouth.

I don't see how or why you might have an issue with all stages on the left. Nothing I have ever had on a BSAC course has told me I must do something different (Admitedly I have not done the ERD course, but then I don't see the value in Deep Air, and so have Trimix Qualifications instead)

John

Mike Rowley

17-05-2004, 20:45

Actually the only major issue where DIR techniques and BSAC come into conflict is Entry Level training, Where BSAC require the teaching of standard AAS, before any other OOA technique is taught. There is no real issue with using DIR techniques at all within BSAC, and once past Entry level, there is not an issue with teaching Primary Donate.

There is in my opinion. As a rebreather diver I would certainly object to diving with someone whose conditioned response in an emergency would be to go for the equipment I happened to be breathing from.

There is of course the 100% issue

As far as I am aware there is nothing that says no to oxygen these days, just a maximum PO2 of 1.4 bars.

Also, a small point, the long hose is not really wrapped AROUND the neck, it goes under the right arm, then BEHIND the neck into your mouth.

Semantics!

I don't see how or why you might have an issue with all stages on the left. Nothing I have ever had on a BSAC course has told me I must do something different (Admitedly I have not done the ERD course, but then I don't see the value in Deep Air, and so have Trimix Qualifications instead)

Presumably your trimix course would have taught you the conventional wisdom of richest gas to the right, weakest to the left. I hold TDI OC trimix and IANTD CCR trimix and both courses were quite specific on this point. The logic is innescapable, the potential for confusion is obvious. I believe the ERD course teaches this too,I know for a fact that Jack advocates it. The only agency that teaches all on one side that I am aware of is DIR, but of course the may be others that I am unaware of.

Mike Rowley

17-05-2004, 21:50

Once trained we do not recommend or dictate any particular kit configuration over any other, that is a matter of personal style and personal and preference, so there is nothing ?non BSAC? or against the SDP in people configuring their equipment DIR style if they wish.

I would have to dissagree with you on this one Keith. There are clear and inescapable dangers associated with people who have been conditioned to take/donate AAS diving with people who have been conditioned to take/donate the primary regulator. The situation is at its worst if a dive leader who has chosen to adopt DIR techniques is leading a newly qualified BSAC Sports Diver who has been conditioned to BSAC techniques. The two are incompatible. If the BSAC has decided to accept those dangers in the interests of politics then my view is that they have got it wrong.

BSAC currently teaches the convention of richest gas to the right, weakest to the left on Advanced nitrox and ERD. This is in common with just about every other training agency with the exception of DIR. Again, there are clear dangers relating to confusion with placing all gases on the one side and opposite to the conventional wisdom. I cannot see this as compatible with BSAC teaching and diving practice.

Cheers

David Walker

17-05-2004, 22:55

I would have to dissagree with you on this one Keith. There are clear and inescapable dangers associated with people who have been conditioned to take/donate AAS diving with people who have been conditioned to take/donate the primary regulator. The situation is at its worst if a dive leader who has chosen to adopt DIR techniques is leading a newly qualified BSAC Sports Diver who has been conditioned to BSAC techniques. The two are incompatible. If the BSAC has decided to accept those dangers in the interests of politics then my view is that they have got it wrong.

The whole idea of doing a single method (ie taking the octopus) is that it should become an instinctive response. If we train everyone to do both, then which would they do in an emergency? If they're diving with someone unfamiliar, they're trying to think back to which they said was preferred during the briefing - its not a time for making decisions, and hence there is one set of training and one instictive response.
If you dive with a configuration which makes that response impossible for your buddy, surely both of you during a buddy check should make sure you understand what the others' AAS is, and how to use it. If that so happens to be that they take the one from your mouth then as long as you tell them that, then hopefully they would remember to do that.

Frankly I can see why BSAC don't condone taking from the mouth - imagine two inexperienced divers together. One runs out of air, and the other gets their regulator pulled out of their mouth. You now have two inexperienced divers, both with no air supply, both probably a little bit panicked, and that situation has the potential to go very very quickly out of control. At least if one keeps their reg, if the other has problems getting it in then they are still able to help. OK, once divers become more experienced they are probably better able to cope, won't panic, and can start changing configurations around. If they then start diving with inexperienced divers though, I think that they need to be careful to ensure that they both know what AASs are available.

BSAC currently teaches the convention of richest gas to the right, weakest to the left on Advanced nitrox and ERD. This is in common with just about every other training agency with the exception of DIR. Again, there are clear dangers relating to confusion with placing all gases on the one side and opposite to the conventional wisdom. I cannot see this as compatible with BSAC teaching and diving practice.

Again that is the responsibility of the divers before the dive to let each other know what kit configuration each is using. If they are using multiple mixes, then that is even more critical, and I don't believe anyone would dive and just assume what may be in their buddy's tanks.

Basically, on all dives both people in a buddy pair should ensure they know what their buddy is using. If there is something unknown to one of the divers, then it should be the responsibility of that diver to make sure they know how everything works should they need to use it - if they don't or can't use it, they should find alternative buddies. Anyone following the BSAC procedures and doing buddy checks etc shouldn't have any problems due to differences in kit.

David

Firestorm

17-05-2004, 23:48

:=:=:= specifically against BSAC teaching (Such as adopting DIR techniques)
:=:=
:=:=Interesting comment. Apart from the use of 100% as a deco gas what in DIR is specifically against BSAC teaching?
:=
:=I should have said some DIR techniques. I don't particuarly wish to reopen this can of worms again, its been done to death already. I was thinking specifically about donating primary regs in out of gas situations and stowing hoses by wrapping then around the neck, also carrying offboard gas all on the left side. None of these fit well with BSAC techniques.

Very slightly the wrong-end-of-stick there Mike, there is nothing in the SDP that specifies a particular technique. The discussions earlier about DIR related to training, some people wanted to teach primary donation INSTEAD of AAS take, that is not what is in our training materials and therefore is not acceptable.

Once trained we do not recommend or dictate any particular kit configuration over any other, that is a matter of personal style and personal and preference, so there is nothing ?non BSAC? or against the SDP in people configuring their equipment DIR style if they wish.

Kind Regards

Keith L

I was recently told that GUE(DIR) virtually begged BSAC to recognise their training because no other agency would.
Obviously a good sytem then!!!

F.

Philip Smith

18-05-2004, 00:08

:=Well, according to the SDP document, it is permissible to "amend" the recommendations sensibly in appropriate circumstances, but according to the insurance company, we are told, it is not.
:=
:=Philip Smith

Have you checked this with the BSAC insurers or are you making an assumption?

The SDP document says explicity that it is permissible to amend the recommendations depending, amongst other things, on the abilities of the divers involved. On the other hand, information obtained from the insurers by Iain Smith and discussed on the In Depth forum two months ago and back in October indicates that deviation from the recommendations will not be covered. The insurer's apparent position therefore has the effect of making the SDP a rigid set of rules, which (it says) it is not meant to be.

Philip Smith

john kendall

18-05-2004, 01:21

:=
:=Actually the only major issue where DIR techniques and BSAC come into conflict is Entry Level training, Where BSAC require the teaching of standard AAS, before any other OOA technique is taught. There is no real issue with using DIR techniques at all within BSAC, and once past Entry level, there is not an issue with teaching Primary Donate.

There is in my opinion. As a rebreather diver I would certainly object to diving with someone whose conditioned response in an emergency would be to go for the equipment I happened to be breathing from.

Ah, that is your issue, not a BSAC issue.

There is of course the 100% issue

As far as I am aware there is nothing that says no to oxygen these days, just a maximum PO2 of 1.4 bars.

I believe there is, I shall endevour to look it up.

:=Also, a small point, the long hose is not really wrapped AROUND the neck, it goes under the right arm, then BEHIND the neck into your mouth.

Semantics!

Maybe, but important, I know that there are people out there who think that the idea is to wrap the hose completely round the neck, That is both dangerous and foolish.

:=
:=I don't see how or why you might have an issue with all stages on the left. Nothing I have ever had on a BSAC course has told me I must do something different (Admitedly I have not done the ERD course, but then I don't see the value in Deep Air, and so have Trimix Qualifications instead)

Presumably your trimix course would have taught you the conventional wisdom of richest gas to the right, weakest to the left. I hold TDI OC trimix and IANTD CCR trimix and both courses were quite specific on this point. The logic is innescapable, the potential for confusion is obvious. I believe the ERD course teaches this too,I know for a fact that Jack advocates it. The only agency that teaches all on one side that I am aware of is DIR, but of course the may be others that I am unaware of.

Whether Jack Advocates it or not doesn't mean a thing to me. And What I think of a lot of what Jack advocates won't get through the language censor on this forum. My TDI Trimix course taught me Stages on one side. Why I wonder? Because it is not laid down in stone. And comes down to the instructor. My instructor had a DIR bias.
The confusion of Rich on the right, arrises if you are a little seasick, and don't do your checks properly on the boat. If your technique is to always check the stage before breathing it, then this won't be a problem, if you blindly assume that Rich on the Right is the way you're rigged then you might have an issue. I don't really care how anyone does it, it is down to them, but All stages on the left is not contrary to anything BSAC require.

Also, one more semantic, the Agency is GUE not DIR.

HTH
John

john kendall

18-05-2004, 01:27

:=
:=Once trained we do not recommend or dictate any particular kit configuration over any other, that is a matter of personal style and personal and preference, so there is nothing ?non BSAC? or against the SDP in people configuring their equipment DIR style if they wish.

I would have to dissagree with you on this one Keith. There are clear and inescapable dangers associated with people who have been conditioned to take/donate AAS diving with people who have been conditioned to take/donate the primary regulator. The situation is at its worst if a dive leader who has chosen to adopt DIR techniques is leading a newly qualified BSAC Sports Diver who has been conditioned to BSAC techniques. The two are incompatible. If the BSAC has decided to accept those dangers in the interests of politics then my view is that they have got it wrong.

Then try and get BSAC to change it if you dare. You can't actually disagree with Keith on this one. He isn't offering an opinion, it's fact. Once you are beyond entry level training you can do whatever you wish to with your config. I have my reasons for donating from the mouth, I'm not going to get into them here, but will gladly discuss it at length if you wish. These reasons don't have anything to do with my being DIR, and in fact I used a long hose and primary donate before I'd really heard of DIR.

BSAC currently teaches the convention of richest gas to the right, weakest to the left on Advanced nitrox and ERD. This is in common with just about every other training agency with the exception of DIR. Again, there are clear dangers relating to confusion with placing all gases on the one side and opposite to the conventional wisdom. I cannot see this as compatible with BSAC teaching and diving practice.

Um, Maybe in ERD, but I don't believe anywhere in Adv nitrox is there anything about Rich on the Right. It might have been in your course if that's how your instructor did things, but it sure wasn't in mine. Nor in any of the course I have assited/instructed on. You might find it difficult to do that, with people wearing stab Jackets where you can only fit a stage across the front.

John

john kendall

18-05-2004, 01:31

:=:=:=:= specifically against BSAC teaching (Such as adopting DIR techniques)
:=:=:=
:=:=:=Interesting comment. Apart from the use of 100% as a deco gas what in DIR is specifically against BSAC teaching?
:=:=
:=:=I should have said some DIR techniques. I don't particuarly wish to reopen this can of worms again, its been done to death already. I was thinking specifically about donating primary regs in out of gas situations and stowing hoses by wrapping then around the neck, also carrying offboard gas all on the left side. None of these fit well with BSAC techniques.
:=
:=Very slightly the wrong-end-of-stick there Mike, there is nothing in the SDP that specifies a particular technique. The discussions earlier about DIR related to training, some people wanted to teach primary donation INSTEAD of AAS take, that is not what is in our training materials and therefore is not acceptable.
:=
:=Once trained we do not recommend or dictate any particular kit configuration over any other, that is a matter of personal style and personal and preference, so there is nothing ?non BSAC? or against the SDP in people configuring their equipment DIR style if they wish.
:=
:=Kind Regards
:=
:=Keith L

I was recently told that GUE(DIR) virtually begged BSAC to recognise their training because no other agency would.
Obviously a good sytem then!!!

Really? and you heard that where exactly? I'm not quite sure what it is that you are trying to get at. It sounds to me like an anonymous troll trying to stir things up.

John

PeteM

18-05-2004, 10:16

Frankly I can see why BSAC don't condone taking from the mouth

They do! Lecture ST5 slide 10

PeteM

18-05-2004, 10:18

Very slightly the wrong-end-of-stick there Mike, there is nothing in the SDP that specifies a particular technique. The discussions earlier about DIR related to training, some people wanted to teach primary donation INSTEAD of AAS take, that is not what is in our training materials and therefore is not acceptable.

Once trained we do not recommend or dictate any particular kit configuration over any other, that is a matter of personal style and personal and preference, so there is nothing ?non BSAC? or against the SDP in people configuring their equipment DIR style if they wish.

Thanks for confirming my recollection Keith

Mike Rowley

18-05-2004, 11:26

:=
:=I was recently told that GUE(DIR) virtually begged BSAC to recognise their training because no other agency would.
:=Obviously a good sytem then!!!

Really? and you heard that where exactly? I'm not quite sure what it is that you are trying to get at. It sounds to me like an anonymous troll trying to stir things up.

What other training agencies recognise GUE training and certification? It may be that there are some out there but I have not heard of any.

Mike Rowley

18-05-2004, 11:44

:=There is in my opinion. As a rebreather diver I would certainly object to diving with someone whose conditioned response in an emergency would be to go for the equipment I happened to be breathing from.

Ah, that is your issue, not a BSAC issue.

As a BSAC member my opinion is as pertinent to BSAC as yours John.

:=There is of course the 100% issue
:=
:=As far as I am aware there is nothing that says no to oxygen these days, just a maximum PO2 of 1.4 bars.

I believe there is, I shall endevour to look it up.

I would be gratefull for you pointing it out if you can find it. The new Head of BSAC Technical is currently looking at SDPs and anomolies such as that need to be removed.

:=
:=Presumably your trimix course would have taught you the conventional wisdom of richest gas to the right, weakest to the left. I hold TDI OC trimix and IANTD CCR trimix and both courses were quite specific on this point. The logic is innescapable, the potential for confusion is obvious. I believe the ERD course teaches this too,I know for a fact that Jack advocates it. The only agency that teaches all on one side that I am aware of is DIR, but of course the may be others that I am unaware of.

Whether Jack Advocates it or not doesn't mean a thing to me. And What I think of a lot of what Jack advocates won't get through the language censor on this forum.

If you wish to descend to the level of personal insults I have no doubt that Jack has an interesting take on your thoughts. Given Jack's experience and knowledge at all levels of diving I think most people would tend to give credence to the views of experience and knowledge.

My TDI Trimix course taught me Stages on one side. Why I wonder? Because it is not laid down in stone. And comes down to the instructor. My instructor had a DIR bias.
The confusion of Rich on the right, arrises if you are a little seasick, and don't do your checks properly on the boat. If your technique is to always check the stage before breathing it, then this won't be a problem, if you blindly assume that Rich on the Right is the way you're rigged then you might have an issue. I don't really care how anyone does it, it is down to them, but All stages on the left is not contrary to anything BSAC require.

I'm sorry John but I just can't be bothered to get into that nonesense again. The practice and accepted wisdom of the majority is agaist you. I notice you avoid the question of which other agency teaches this practice.

PeteM

18-05-2004, 12:13

:=:=There is of course the 100% issue
:=:=
:=:=As far as I am aware there is nothing that says no to oxygen these days, just a maximum PO2 of 1.4 bars.
:=
:=I believe there is, I shall endevour to look it up.

I would be gratefull for you pointing it out if you can find it. The new Head of BSAC Technical is currently looking at SDPs and anomolies such as that need to be removed.

On page
<a href="http://www.bsac.org/techserv/o2use0304.htm" >http://www.bsac.org/techserv/o2use0304.htm</a>
It says that 100% is allowed providing 1.4 bar is not exceeded

On this page (see second paragraph of Oxygen)
<a href="http://www.bsac.org/techserv/sdpip.htm" >http://www.bsac.org/techserv/sdpip.htm</a>
It says 80% is the max

neil carter

18-05-2004, 12:25

On page
http://www.bsac.org/techserv/o2use0304.htm
It says that 100% is allowed providing 1.4 bar is not exceeded

Where, exactly???

On this page (see second paragraph of Oxygen)
http://www.bsac.org/techserv/sdpip.htm
It says 80% is the max

Indeed!!!

Neil Carter

PeteM

18-05-2004, 12:37

:=On page
:= http://www.bsac.org/techserv/o2use0304.htm
:=It says that 100% is allowed providing 1.4 bar is not exceeded

Where, exactly???

First line of final para before copyright notice "The recommendation for using Nitrox 80 was not in opposition to using 100% oxygen "

Rob Kelly

18-05-2004, 12:48

:=:=
:=:=I was recently told that GUE(DIR) virtually begged BSAC to recognise their training because no other agency would.
:=:=Obviously a good sytem then!!!
:=
:=Really? and you heard that where exactly? I'm not quite sure what it is that you are trying to get at. It sounds to me like an anonymous troll trying to stir things up.
:=
What other training agencies recognise GUE training and certification? It may be that there are some out there but I have not heard of any.

The SAA do. They certainly recognise GUE as a provider of Trimix instruction and allow SAA members to register their GUE trimix certifications.

HTH
Rob.

Bill Bird

18-05-2004, 14:00

That's precisely my point. If it's a private dive, nomonies are going through the branch, the DO's authority for running it is not being sought, then I think it's fine for a branch to suggest practices for running PD's, but I maintain that the DO cannot enforce this as it's outside there jurisdiction.

By the way the diving was super - made all the better by having Peter Collings on board giving us really good talks and briefings on the Ultimate Wreck Dive trip.

I'd throughly recommend it!

Cheers.

Bill

=Bill

Should a BDO receive dive documentation for private dives?

I don't think so.

I plan and conduct private dives here on the Scottish West coast. As it happens I do complete DM sheets and carry out a Risk Assessment before each set of dives. To date I have had SSAC, SAA and PADI qualified buddies, who would I send documentation to?

I just keep it myself, after all I'm the one who would need to show I followed the SDP.

Have some great dives on your holiday.

Edward

:=I think that issuing a set of recommendations from the branch on the running of private dives is probably good practice, and I don't see any problems with that. This could make recommendations from the Branch Officers Handbook, and include safety elements. If the trip leaders are running something on the boat, then a lot of the work will be deferred to them. I think if people choose to ignore those recommendations then they may - and it's a big may - need to ensure that they've got their backs covered. I don't believe the organisers of private dives have any obligation to let the D.O. have this info back, unless they want to.
:=
:=Cheers.
:=
:=
:=Bill

Firestorm

18-05-2004, 18:59

:=:=:=:=:= specifically against BSAC teaching (Such as adopting DIR techniques)
:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=Interesting comment. Apart from the use of 100% as a deco gas what in DIR is specifically against BSAC teaching?
:=:=:=
:=:=:=I should have said some DIR techniques. I don't particuarly wish to reopen this can of worms again, its been done to death already. I was thinking specifically about donating primary regs in out of gas situations and stowing hoses by wrapping then around the neck, also carrying offboard gas all on the left side. None of these fit well with BSAC techniques.
:=:=
:=:=Very slightly the wrong-end-of-stick there Mike, there is nothing in the SDP that specifies a particular technique. The discussions earlier about DIR related to training, some people wanted to teach primary donation INSTEAD of AAS take, that is not what is in our training materials and therefore is not acceptable.
:=:=
:=:=Once trained we do not recommend or dictate any particular kit configuration over any other, that is a matter of personal style and personal and preference, so there is nothing ?non BSAC? or against the SDP in people configuring their equipment DIR style if they wish.
:=:=
:=:=Kind Regards
:=:=
:=:=Keith L
:=
:=
:=I was recently told that GUE(DIR) virtually begged BSAC to recognise their training because no other agency would.
:=Obviously a good sytem then!!!

Really? and you heard that where exactly? I'm not quite sure what it is that you are trying to get at. It sounds to me like an anonymous troll trying to stir things up.

John

It's not a troll at all John, but being a DIR man I wouldn't expect you to accept it anyway.
But anyway it seems pretty obvious what I was getting at, the fact that nobody recognises or even wants to recognise GUE/DIR.

F.

Mike Rowley

18-05-2004, 19:07

Thanks for that. With the change in NDO there is now a new structure at NDC level. The NDO is a technical diver and trimix instructor so there is a lot of support for progress. We now have a new Head of BSAC Technical and he has appointed a new Rebreather Chief Instructor. You can take it as read that the SDPs are being looked at carefully at the moment, along with just about everything else from nitrox to trimix.

http://www.bsac.org/techserv/o2use0304.htm
It says that 100% is allowed providing 1.4 bar is not exceeded

On this page (see second paragraph of Oxygen)
http://www.bsac.org/techserv/sdpip.htm
It says 80% is the max

David Walker

18-05-2004, 19:22

:=Frankly I can see why BSAC don't condone taking from the mouth
They do! Lecture ST5 slide 10

Sort of - its listed as a disadvantage of that system, and in the instructor manual says it "may sound a simple procedure, in the stress of the moment it will be anything but and should be avoided if at all possible". So I suppose they do say that it might be necessary, but really aren't keen on it!

David

Firestorm

18-05-2004, 19:26

:=
:=
:=:=
:=:=Actually the only major issue where DIR techniques and BSAC come into conflict is Entry Level training, Where BSAC require the teaching of standard AAS, before any other OOA technique is taught. There is no real issue with using DIR techniques at all within BSAC, and once past Entry level, there is not an issue with teaching Primary Donate.
:=
:=There is in my opinion. As a rebreather diver I would certainly object to diving with someone whose conditioned response in an emergency would be to go for the equipment I happened to be breathing from.

Ah, that is your issue, not a BSAC issue.

Maybe, but a serious issue never the less, especially with a rebreather.

:=There is of course the 100% issue
:=
:=As far as I am aware there is nothing that says no to oxygen these days, just a maximum PO2 of 1.4 bars.

As has been proved later on in this thread.

I believe there is, I shall endevour to look it up.

:=:=Also, a small point, the long hose is not really wrapped AROUND the neck, it goes under the right arm, then BEHIND the neck into your mouth.
:=
:=Semantics!

Maybe, but important, I know that there are people out there who think that the idea is to wrap the hose completely round the neck, That is both dangerous and foolish.

Can't see any viable reason to wrap or put it around the neck, but maybe I have that rare commodity called common sense!

:=:=
:=:=I don't see how or why you might have an issue with all stages on the left. Nothing I have ever had on a BSAC course has told me I must do something different (Admitedly I have not done the ERD course, but then I don't see the value in Deep Air, and so have Trimix Qualifications instead)
:=
:=Presumably your trimix course would have taught you the conventional wisdom of richest gas to the right, weakest to the left. I hold TDI OC trimix and IANTD CCR trimix and both courses were quite specific on this point. The logic is innescapable, the potential for confusion is obvious. I believe the ERD course teaches this too,I know for a fact that Jack advocates it. The only agency that teaches all on one side that I am aware of is DIR, but of course the may be others that I am unaware of.

I've just witnessed 2 seperate TDI Trimix courses being taught & both advocated richest on the right.

Whether Jack Advocates it or not doesn't mean a thing to me. And What I think of a lot of what Jack advocates won't get through the language censor on this forum.

With Jack's considerable experience & knowledge I know who'd I'd rather be in the water with.

My TDI Trimix course taught me Stages on one side. Why I wonder? Because it is not laid down in stone. And comes down to the instructor. My instructor had a DIR bias.
The confusion of Rich on the right, arrises if you are a little seasick, and don't do your checks properly on the boat. If your technique is to always check the stage before breathing it, then this won't be a problem, if you blindly assume that Rich on the Right is the way you're rigged then you might have an issue. I don't really care how anyone does it, it is down to them, but All stages on the left is not contrary to anything BSAC require.

Also, one more semantic, the Agency is GUE not DIR.

Call it what you like, nobody seems to want to recognise it!!!

HTH
John

F.

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

18-05-2004, 21:34

Hi Mike

I would have to disagree with you on this one Keith.

I was not expressing an opinion. I was stating what, to the very best of my knowledge, was the current position of the BSAC. I felt that your comment of 17th May, which stated ?

?
If you set out to deliberately plan a dive that is beyond the BSAC SDP or specifically against BSAC teaching (Such as adopting DIR techniques)then clearly you have wilfully either disregarded the BSAC guidence or chosen to take that responsibility yourself. In the latter case you would be sensible to take out suitable insurance cover of your own.
?

was not an accurate representation of the situation as I understood it after extensive consultation with the (then) NDO. When this issue was raised at the end of last year the NDO issued an interim statement on Friday 21st November, I reproduce that statement in its entirety here for reference ?

"The BSAC's position on AAS is that as stated in our current Diver training materials - we do not teach donate/take of the primary DV. With queries that have been raised and some people known to be adding/replacing their own individual preferences to that training, is obviously a matter that needs serious consideration and discussion. To do this without consultation with other agencies would be foolhardy as diver training, whatever agency a diver trains through, they follow more or less the same skill procedures. When that process is completed a statement will be issued to our members that clarifies the position.

We cannot 'ban' divers from using a particular method if they so choose, we do not dictate what equipment configurations should be worn but, as a training and diving organisation we have to set out our training standards as well as recommendations regarding diving practise and expect that our members adhere to those. Our prime concern is that of safety and safety considerations to underpin an adventurous sport covering a broad spectrum of diving interest. "

As you can see the statement related primarily to BSAC training, with the clarification about equipment configuration that I alluded to in my initial response to your comment. Further clarification was promised at the time, with the change of NDO and the immense task of handing over responsibilities I can fully understand why it never got out of the ?To Do? list for Lizzie.

Your (and others) opinion and discussion is welcome on this issue Mike, but the official policy of the BSAC is as stated by the NDO above. As there is clearly still some confusion about this I will flag it up to the current NDO as an outstanding issue that may require further clarification, but given Clare?s priorities with the restructuring of the NDC it may take a while to reach publication.

I hope that clarifies the current position.

Kind Regards

Keith L

Rob Kelly

18-05-2004, 22:05

:=:=:=:=:=:= specifically against BSAC teaching (Such as adopting DIR techniques)
:=:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=:=Interesting comment. Apart from the use of 100% as a deco gas what in DIR is specifically against BSAC teaching?
:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=I should have said some DIR techniques. I don't particuarly wish to reopen this can of worms again, its been done to death already. I was thinking specifically about donating primary regs in out of gas situations and stowing hoses by wrapping then around the neck, also carrying offboard gas all on the left side. None of these fit well with BSAC techniques.
:=:=:=
:=:=:=Very slightly the wrong-end-of-stick there Mike, there is nothing in the SDP that specifies a particular technique. The discussions earlier about DIR related to training, some people wanted to teach primary donation INSTEAD of AAS take, that is not what is in our training materials and therefore is not acceptable.
:=:=:=
:=:=:=Once trained we do not recommend or dictate any particular kit configuration over any other, that is a matter of personal style and personal and preference, so there is nothing ?non BSAC? or against the SDP in people configuring their equipment DIR style if they wish.
:=:=:=
:=:=:=Kind Regards
:=:=:=
:=:=:=Keith L
:=:=
:=:=
:=:=I was recently told that GUE(DIR) virtually begged BSAC to recognise their training because no other agency would.
:=:=Obviously a good sytem then!!!
:=
:=Really? and you heard that where exactly? I'm not quite sure what it is that you are trying to get at. It sounds to me like an anonymous troll trying to stir things up.
:=
:=John

It's not a troll at all John, but being a DIR man I wouldn't expect you to accept it anyway.
But anyway it seems pretty obvious what I was getting at, the fact that nobody recognises or even wants to recognise GUE/DIR.

F.

Apart from the SAA of course...

HTH
Rob.

Rob Kelly

18-05-2004, 22:18

:=:=
:=:=
:=:=:=

:=Ah, that is your issue, not a BSAC issue.

Maybe, but a serious issue never the less, especially with a rebreather.

Agreed, but then rebreathers require different approaches on a variety of issues, not only in terms of gas donation. You can't knock out a perfectly reasonable method of donation just because someone might one day be paired up with a rebreather diver.

:=Maybe, but important, I know that there are people out there who think that the idea is to wrap the hose completely round the neck, That is both dangerous and foolish.

Can't see any viable reason to wrap or put it around the neck, but maybe I have that rare commodity called common sense!

Really? Feel free to demonstrate some and give us your critique of primary donation and wrapping the long hose. A technique that's used by a lot of divers worldwide, most of whom are not DIR

:=
:=:=:=
:=:=

I've just witnessed 2 seperate TDI Trimix courses being taught & both advocated richest on the right.

And this proves what exactly?

:=
With Jack's considerable experience & knowledge I know who'd I'd rather be in the water with.

Me Too.

:=
:=Also, one more semantic, the Agency is GUE not DIR.

Call it what you like, nobody seems to want to recognise it!!!

Errrr except the SAA of course. I know I've mentioned it before but you seem to be ignoring it.

F.

HTH
Rob.

Firestorm

19-05-2004, 00:09

:=:=:=:=:=:=:= specifically against BSAC teaching (Such as adopting DIR techniques)
:=:=:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=:=:=Interesting comment. Apart from the use of 100% as a deco gas what in DIR is specifically against BSAC teaching?
:=:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=:=I should have said some DIR techniques. I don't particuarly wish to reopen this can of worms again, its been done to death already. I was thinking specifically about donating primary regs in out of gas situations and stowing hoses by wrapping then around the neck, also carrying offboard gas all on the left side. None of these fit well with BSAC techniques.
:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=Very slightly the wrong-end-of-stick there Mike, there is nothing in the SDP that specifies a particular technique. The discussions earlier about DIR related to training, some people wanted to teach primary donation INSTEAD of AAS take, that is not what is in our training materials and therefore is not acceptable.
:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=Once trained we do not recommend or dictate any particular kit configuration over any other, that is a matter of personal style and personal and preference, so there is nothing ?non BSAC? or against the SDP in people configuring their equipment DIR style if they wish.
:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=Kind Regards
:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=Keith L
:=:=:=
:=:=:=
:=:=:=I was recently told that GUE(DIR) virtually begged BSAC to recognise their training because no other agency would.
:=:=:=Obviously a good sytem then!!!
:=:=
:=:=Really? and you heard that where exactly? I'm not quite sure what it is that you are trying to get at. It sounds to me like an anonymous troll trying to stir things up.
:=:=
:=:=John
:=
:=It's not a troll at all John, but being a DIR man I wouldn't expect you to accept it anyway.
:=But anyway it seems pretty obvious what I was getting at, the fact that nobody recognises or even wants to recognise GUE/DIR.
:=
:=F.

Apart from the SAA of course...

Oh silly me, 1 agency out of how many? Hardly a resounding acknowledgement is it!

F.

Firestorm

19-05-2004, 00:22

:=:=:=
:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=

:=:=Ah, that is your issue, not a BSAC issue.
:=
:=Maybe, but a serious issue never the less, especially with a rebreather.
:=

Agreed, but then rebreathers require different approaches on a variety of issues, not only in terms of gas donation. You can't knock out a perfectly reasonable method of donation just because someone might one day be paired up with a rebreather diver.

So if you agree it's a serious issue then your argument is invalid.

:=
:=:=Maybe, but important, I know that there are people out there who think that the idea is to wrap the hose completely round the neck, That is both dangerous and foolish.
:=
:=Can't see any viable reason to wrap or put it around the neck, but maybe I have that rare commodity called common sense!

Really? Feel free to demonstrate some and give us your critique of primary donation and wrapping the long hose. A technique that's used by a lot of divers worldwide, most of whom are not DIR

I beg to differ, it is not a technique used by divers worldwide, mainly DIR divers. Certainly not any of the divers I've encountered & dived with over the years from various parts of the world & a variety of training agency's. Obviously I've somehow managed to get all the DIW (do it wrong!!!) buddies then!

:=
:=:=
:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=
:=
:=I've just witnessed 2 seperate TDI Trimix courses being taught & both advocated richest on the right.
:=

And this proves what exactly?

I would have thought that was obvious!

:=:=
:=With Jack's considerable experience & knowledge I know who'd I'd rather be in the water with.
:=

Me Too.

:=:=
:=:=Also, one more semantic, the Agency is GUE not DIR.
:=
:=Call it what you like, nobody seems to want to recognise it!!!
:=

Errrr except the SAA of course. I know I've mentioned it before but you seem to be ignoring it.

Oh silly me, 1 agency out of how many? Hardly a resounding acknowledgement is it!

F.

Firestorm

19-05-2004, 00:52

Hi Mike

:=I would have to disagree with you on this one Keith.

I was not expressing an opinion. I was stating what, to the very best of my knowledge, was the current position of the BSAC. I felt that your comment of 17th May, which stated ?

?
:=If you set out to deliberately plan a dive that is beyond the BSAC SDP or specifically against BSAC teaching (Such as adopting DIR techniques)then clearly you have wilfully either disregarded the BSAC guidence or chosen to take that responsibility yourself. In the latter case you would be sensible to take out suitable insurance cover of your own.
?

was not an accurate representation of the situation as I understood it after extensive consultation with the (then) NDO. When this issue was raised at the end of last year the NDO issued an interim statement on Friday 21st November, I reproduce that statement in its entirety here for reference ?

"The BSAC's position on AAS is that as stated in our current Diver training materials - we do not teach donate/take of the primary DV. With queries that have been raised and some people known to be adding/replacing their own individual preferences to that training, is obviously a matter that needs serious consideration and discussion. To do this without consultation with other agencies would be foolhardy as diver training, whatever agency a diver trains through, they follow more or less the same skill procedures. When that process is completed a statement will be issued to our members that clarifies the position.

We cannot 'ban' divers from using a particular method if they so choose, we do not dictate what equipment configurations should be worn but, as a training and diving organisation we have to set out our training standards as well as recommendations regarding diving practise and expect that our members adhere to those. Our prime concern is that of safety and safety considerations to underpin an adventurous sport covering a broad spectrum of diving interest. "

As you can see the statement related primarily to BSAC training, with the clarification about equipment configuration that I alluded to in my initial response to your comment. Further clarification was promised at the time, with the change of NDO and the immense task of handing over responsibilities I can fully understand why it never got out of the ?To Do? list for Lizzie.

Your (and others) opinion and discussion is welcome on this issue Mike, but the official policy of the BSAC is as stated by the NDO above. As there is clearly still some confusion about this I will flag it up to the current NDO as an outstanding issue that may require further clarification, but given Clare?s priorities with the restructuring of the NDC it may take a while to reach publication.

I hope that clarifies the current position.

Kind Regards

Keith L

I feel you are both right & wrong on this issue Keith. You are correct in saying that divers once trained can configure their kit however they wish.
Mike's point of "If you set out to deliberately plan a dive that is beyond the BSAC SDP or specifically against BSAC teaching (Such as adopting DIR techniques)" is correct as the above statement proves; "The BSAC's position on AAS is that as stated in our current Diver training materials - we do not teach donate/take of the primary DV."
So you see, if a diver deliberately dives using the technique of donating/taking the primary reg then they are diving outside the BSAC's SDP's & training standards.
"as a training and diving organisation we have to set out our training standards as well as recommendations regarding diving practise and expect that our members adhere to those."

F.

PeteM

19-05-2004, 09:39

:=:=Frankly I can see why BSAC don't condone taking from the mouth
:=They do! Lecture ST5 slide 10

Sort of - its listed as a disadvantage of that system, and in the instructor manual says it "may sound a simple procedure, in the stress of the moment it will be anything but and should be avoided if at all possible". So I suppose they do say that it might be necessary, but really aren't keen on it!

The important point being it is not banned

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

19-05-2004, 10:25

Mike Rowley

19-05-2004, 10:33

Hi Mike

:=I would have to disagree with you on this one Keith.

I was not expressing an opinion. I was stating what, to the very best of my knowledge, was the current position of the BSAC. I felt that your comment of 17th May, which stated ?

I wasn't questioning your staement of BSAC's current position Keith I was merely expressing an opinion that such techniques are incopatible with the techniques adopted by most, if not all training agencies and in my opinion that is a mistake. I was expressing my opinion.

You can have all of the buddy checks and briefings in the world but, to borrow a friends phrase, when the feeces - fan interface connects people react in the way they are conditioned.

:=If you set out to deliberately plan a dive that is beyond the BSAC SDP or specifically against BSAC teaching (Such as adopting DIR techniques)then clearly you have wilfully either disregarded the BSAC guidence or chosen to take that responsibility yourself. In the latter case you would be sensible to take out suitable insurance cover of your own.
?

I was being a wee bit provocative here Keith. My tongue was firmly in my teeth when I put the DIR bit in, Fish and barrels mate, sometimes it is irrisistable. DIR is just such a good bait.

was not an accurate representation of the situation as I understood it after extensive consultation with the (then) NDO. When this issue was raised at the end of last year the NDO issued an interim statement on Friday 21st November, I reproduce that statement in its entirety here for reference ?

"The BSAC's position on AAS is that as stated in our current Diver training materials - we do not teach donate/take of the primary DV. With queries that have been raised and some people known to be adding/replacing their own individual preferences to that training, is obviously a matter that needs serious consideration and discussion. To do this without consultation with other agencies would be foolhardy as diver training, whatever agency a diver trains through, they follow more or less the same skill procedures. When that process is completed a statement will be issued to our members that clarifies the position.

We cannot 'ban' divers from using a particular method if they so choose, we do not dictate what equipment configurations should be worn but, as a training and diving organisation we have to set out our training standards as well as recommendations regarding diving practise and expect that our members adhere to those. Our prime concern is that of safety and safety considerations to underpin an adventurous sport covering a broad spectrum of diving interest. "

As you can see the statement related primarily to BSAC training, with the clarification about equipment configuration that I alluded to in my initial response to your comment. Further clarification was promised at the time, with the change of NDO and the immense task of handing over responsibilities I can fully understand why it never got out of the ?To Do? list for Lizzie.

As you say, Lizzie has partly clarified the situation in relation to training. We now need a clear criteria for recognising diving practices. Something along the lines of "being easily and safely assimulated into BSAC branch diving practices" maybe.

Your (and others) opinion and discussion is welcome on this issue Mike, but the official policy of the BSAC is as stated by the NDO above. As there is clearly still some confusion about this I will flag it up to the current NDO as an outstanding issue that may require further clarification, but given Clare?s priorities with the restructuring of the NDC it may take a while to reach publication.

Anyway, I will get back in my box again for a while and go back to working on the CCR course.

Best regards

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

19-05-2004, 11:17

Anyway, I will get back in my box again for a while and go back to working on the CCR course.

No problem Mike, your opinion is always welcome on such matters. I guessed it was a little "devils advocate" but as people so easily get the wrong-end-of-the-stick I felt I had to clarify the official position.

I agree that things are not as clear as they should be, I'll leave that for the NDO and the new NDC team to sort out.

Cheers

Keith L

Vic

19-05-2004, 12:38

Vic

19-05-2004, 13:04

> I beg to differ, it is not a technique used by divers
> worldwide, mainly DIR divers.

Nope, that's wrong.

I used to dive the long-hose protocol, and so did/do many people I know. It might not have quite the popularity it deserves, but there are a whole bunch of people using it.

And no, I'm not DIR. I never have been, and I never will be.

Vic.

Rob Kelly

19-05-2004, 13:17

:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=:=
:=
:=:=:=Ah, that is your issue, not a BSAC issue.
:=:=
:=:=Maybe, but a serious issue never the less, especially with a rebreather.
:=:=
:=
:=Agreed, but then rebreathers require different approaches on a variety of issues, not only in terms of gas donation. You can't knock out a perfectly reasonable method of donation just because someone might one day be paired up with a rebreather diver.

So if you agree it's a serious issue then your argument is invalid.

Why does me agreeing that it's a serious issue with rebreathers make my argument invalid? My argument is that when paring up OC and CCR/SCR divers there are several serious issues to resolve, one of which is gas sharing. Doesn't make the concept of primary donation invalid any more than it makes the concept of training to do a CBL on an OC diver invalid. After all if you did a standard CBL on a rebreather diver it would soon go horribly wrong...

:=
:=:=
:=:=:=Maybe, but important, I know that there are people out there who think that the idea is to wrap the hose completely round the neck, That is both dangerous and foolish.
:=:=
:=:=Can't see any viable reason to wrap or put it around the neck, but maybe I have that rare commodity called common sense!
:=
:=Really? Feel free to demonstrate some and give us your critique of primary donation and wrapping the long hose. A technique that's used by a lot of divers worldwide, most of whom are not DIR

I beg to differ, it is not a technique used by divers worldwide, mainly DIR divers. Certainly not any of the divers I've encountered & dived with over the years from various parts of the world & a variety of training agency's. Obviously I've somehow managed to get all the DIW (do it wrong!!!) buddies then!

Well we are going to have to disagree on this one then. Primary donation is used worldwide by lots and lots of divers. I would say that amongst those, DIR divers are probably a minority. I'm sure there are several people on this list who have used/do use primary donation who would not describe themselves as DIR.

:=
:=:=
:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=
:=:=
:=:=I've just witnessed 2 seperate TDI Trimix courses being taught & both advocated richest on the right.
:=:=
:=
:=And this proves what exactly?

I would have thought that was obvious!

Well the obvious thing that it proves is that you've seen two courses that taught richest on the right. Given that two is not a particularly high statistical sample when compared to the number of courses run worldwide I don't think it's possible to draw reasonable conclusions from it.

:=
:=:=:=
:=:=With Jack's considerable experience & knowledge I know who'd I'd rather be in the water with.
:=:=
:=
:=Me Too.
:=
:=:=:=
:=:=:=Also, one more semantic, the Agency is GUE not DIR.
:=:=
:=:=Call it what you like, nobody seems to want to recognise it!!!
:=:=
:=
:=Errrr except the SAA of course. I know I've mentioned it before but you seem to be ignoring it.

Oh silly me, 1 agency out of how many? Hardly a resounding acknowledgement is it!

Well, I'm pretty sure NAUI recognise it as well. I know for a fact that NAUI courses are run with DIR kit configuration and as I'm sure you are aware various TDI instructors run TDI courses that follow the DIR configuration.

So that makes it at least three...

F.

HTH
Rob.

Mike Rowley

19-05-2004, 19:15

:=:=Agreed, but then rebreathers require different approaches on a variety of issues, not only in terms of gas donation. You can't knock out a perfectly reasonable method of donation just because someone might one day be paired up with a rebreather diver.

Why not if there are other, more effective, safer and widely used techniques such as AAS? As rebreathers become more mainstream the fact that there are a number of divers out there whose conditioned response to an out of air situation is to grab their buddies primary mouthpiece is a serious issue I would have thought.

My argument is that when paring up OC and CCR/SCR divers there are several serious issues to resolve, one of which is gas sharing. Doesn't make the concept of primary donation invalid any more than it makes the concept of training to do a CBL on an OC diver invalid. After all if you did a standard CBL on a rebreather diver it would soon go horribly wrong...

Speaking as a rebreather instructor I can tell you that, in my experience that is not the case. There is actually very little difference between lfting an open circuit diver or a rebreather diver. It really boils down to coping with the buoyancy of the counterlungs. Students seldom have much difficulty with this. If the casualty is unconscious then even that is not a problem unless the mouthpiece valve has been closed It requires a conscious physical effort to maintain a seal around the mouthgrip.

Similarly, there is very little difference in using an AAS with a rebreather diver. The only issue here is whether the rebreather diver is carrying sufficient bailout gas if he/she is the donor, just the same issue can arrise with open circuit divers.

Matt

19-05-2004, 19:29

:=I beg to differ, it is not a technique used by divers worldwide, mainly DIR divers. Certainly not any of the divers I've encountered & dived with over the years from various parts of the world & a variety of training agency's. Obviously I've somehow managed to get all the DIW (do it wrong!!!) buddies then!
:=

Well we are going to have to disagree on this one then. Primary donation is used worldwide by lots and lots of divers. I would say that amongst those, DIR divers are probably a minority. I'm sure there are several people on this list who have used/do use primary donation who would not describe themselves as DIR.

BSAC ERD teaches primary donation doesn't it? It is pretty much a standard technique when carrying mixes that may not be breathable.

I think dear old F is trying to say Hog wrapping is dangerous, Such definitive statements made from a position of ignorance or inexperience are pretty amusing ;-)

The debate between wrapping and stuffing has been done to death. About the only conclusion is that both techniques have pros and cons in equal ammounts. As far as I can tell there are pretty much equal numbers of divers using both techniques.

:=:=:=I've just witnessed 2 seperate TDI Trimix courses being taught & both advocated richest on the right.

Well the obvious thing that it proves is that you've seen two courses that taught richest on the right. Given that two is not a particularly high statistical sample when compared to the number of courses run worldwide I don't think it's possible to draw reasonable conclusions from it.

Agreed. Stage placement, like any other config choice is a matter of risk and priority. If 'richest right' interferes with the operation of other primary equipment it would make no sense to follow it. DIR is not unique because it uses a particular config, it is unique because conformity is the overriding priority.

YMMV

Firestorm

19-05-2004, 22:43

Dear "F" (how I hate anonymous names and childish handles...)

You find me the part of the SDP that specifically excludes the use of the donation technique and then I will agree with you. Until you can find that definative statement you are offering an opinion only. In such matters of opinion it is that of the National Diving Officer of the BSAC that takes precedence.

Therefore I stand by my posts on this subject.

Keith Lawrence
BSAC Council Member

Keith, I'm not the only person using so called childish handles & it appears quite common in other forums, but thats irrelevant to this discusion. Don't you think?
I suggest you re read my last post again. The statement you supplied states;
"The BSAC's position on AAS is that as stated in our current Diver training materials - we do not teach donate/take of the primary DV."
& then later;
"as a training and diving organisation we have to set out our training standards as well as recommendations regarding diving practise and expect that our members adhere to those."
So, it seems if we do not teach this then it is not part of the training standard. Therefore by this statement it appears to exclude it.
Considering this issuse & the DIR/GUE technique was brought up at least 2 DOC's ago, if not further, by members of CUEG then it would have been better for this to have been sorted out properly. That way BSAC divers & divers who wish to follow the DIR/GUE route would know exactly where they stand. There's been plenty of time to do it & I'm sure all sides in this debate would like a proper clarification on the subject.

Fred.
(There, happy now? my name).

Firestorm

20-05-2004, 00:07

:=:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=:=:=
:=:=
:=:=:=:=Ah, that is your issue, not a BSAC issue.
:=:=:=
:=:=:=Maybe, but a serious issue never the less, especially with a rebreather.
:=:=:=
:=:=
:=:=Agreed, but then rebreathers require different approaches on a variety of issues, not only in terms of gas donation. You can't knock out a perfectly reasonable method of donation just because someone might one day be paired up with a rebreather diver.
:=
:=So if you agree it's a serious issue then your argument is invalid.
:=

Why does me agreeing that it's a serious issue with rebreathers make my argument invalid? My argument is that when paring up OC and CCR/SCR divers there are several serious issues to resolve, one of which is gas sharing. Doesn't make the concept of primary donation invalid any more than it makes the concept of training to do a CBL on an OC diver invalid. After all if you did a standard CBL on a rebreather diver it would soon go horribly wrong...

I think Mike has said pretty much what I was thinking on this issue.

:=:=
:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=Maybe, but important, I know that there are people out there who think that the idea is to wrap the hose completely round the neck, That is both dangerous and foolish.
:=:=:=
:=:=:=Can't see any viable reason to wrap or put it around the neck, but maybe I have that rare commodity called common sense!
:=:=
:=:=Really? Feel free to demonstrate some and give us your critique of primary donation and wrapping the long hose. A technique that's used by a lot of divers worldwide, most of whom are not DIR
:=
:=I beg to differ, it is not a technique used by divers worldwide, mainly DIR divers. Certainly not any of the divers I've encountered & dived with over the years from various parts of the world & a variety of training agency's. Obviously I've somehow managed to get all the DIW (do it wrong!!!) buddies then!
:=

Well we are going to have to disagree on this one then. Primary donation is used worldwide by lots and lots of divers. I would say that amongst those, DIR divers are probably a minority. I'm sure there are several people on this list who have used/do use primary donation who would not describe themselves as DIR.

Ok, we are clearly not going to see eye to eye on this one.

:=:=
:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=
:=:=:=I've just witnessed 2 seperate TDI Trimix courses being taught & both advocated richest on the right.
:=:=:=
:=:=
:=:=And this proves what exactly?
:=
:=I would have thought that was obvious!
:=

Well the obvious thing that it proves is that you've seen two courses that taught richest on the right. Given that two is not a particularly high statistical sample when compared to the number of courses run worldwide I don't think it's possible to draw reasonable conclusions from it.

I did say 'just' not only.
If the particular instructor was teaching it twice it's fair to say he'd be teaching it that way on a regular basis. Considering that the majority of divers I encounter, with the exeption of 1 or 2, use this system I would say that it's reasonable to draw a conclusion that it's the norm.

:=:=
:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=With Jack's considerable experience & knowledge I know who'd I'd rather be in the water with.
:=:=:=
:=:=
:=:=Me Too.
:=:=
:=:=:=:=
:=:=:=:=Also, one more semantic, the Agency is GUE not DIR.
:=:=:=
:=:=:=Call it what you like, nobody seems to want to recognise it!!!
:=:=:=
:=:=
:=:=Errrr except the SAA of course. I know I've mentioned it before but you seem to be ignoring it.
:=
:=Oh silly me, 1 agency out of how many? Hardly a resounding acknowledgement is it!
:=

Well, I'm pretty sure NAUI recognise it as well. I know for a fact that NAUI courses are run with DIR kit configuration and as I'm sure you are aware various TDI instructors run TDI courses that follow the DIR configuration.

So that makes it at least three...

I wasn't aware that various TDI instructors run their courses that follow the DIR config, it can't be many as the ones I have seen don't. So much for quality control then!

F.

Firestorm

20-05-2004, 00:37

:=:=I beg to differ, it is not a technique used by divers worldwide, mainly DIR divers. Certainly not any of the divers I've encountered & dived with over the years from various parts of the world & a variety of training agency's. Obviously I've somehow managed to get all the DIW (do it wrong!!!) buddies then!
:=:=
:=
:=Well we are going to have to disagree on this one then. Primary donation is used worldwide by lots and lots of divers. I would say that amongst those, DIR divers are probably a minority. I'm sure there are several people on this list who have used/do use primary donation who would not describe themselves as DIR.

BSAC ERD teaches primary donation doesn't it? It is pretty much a standard technique when carrying mixes that may not be breathable.

I think dear old F is trying to say Hog wrapping is dangerous, Such definitive statements made from a position of ignorance or inexperience are pretty amusing ;-)

And when exactly did we dive together for you to know my experience level? Sounds to me like it's a case of 'just because I don't agree with you I'm not experienced'. Now that is amusing ;-)
You're partly right, I don't agree with Hog wrapping & that comes from years of experience & common sense. No one I have spoken to about it, & that's from DIR advocates to various technical instructors, has given me a viable reason for using it. You can try if you wish, I'm all ears!

But if you want to talk experience allow me;
Been diving for 23yrs, open circuit trimix, erd, closed circuit rebreather, HSE comercial diver & ALL my diving is done in salt water as opposed to nice sheltered inland sites.
Over to you!

The debate between wrapping and stuffing has been done to death. About the only conclusion is that both techniques have pros and cons in equal ammounts. As far as I can tell there are pretty much equal numbers of divers using both techniques.

Most of the divers I encounter do not use the wrapping technique as I've said before.

:=:=:=:=I've just witnessed 2 seperate TDI Trimix courses being taught & both advocated richest on the right.

:=Well the obvious thing that it proves is that you've seen two courses that taught richest on the right. Given that two is not a particularly high statistical sample when compared to the number of courses run worldwide I don't think it's possible to draw reasonable conclusions from it.

Agreed. Stage placement, like any other config choice is a matter of risk and priority. If 'richest right' interferes with the operation of other primary equipment it would make no sense to follow it. DIR is not unique because it uses a particular config, it is unique because conformity is the overriding priority.

YMMV

By 'interferes with the operation of primary equipment' I presume you mean the long hose under the arm - over the chest arrangement. As I've said earlier I don't agree with that method & anyway, maybe it's time to rethink this if it can't be used properly when your fully kitted.
When carrying multiple deco cylinders, apart from the fact the diver is unbalanced the possibility of getting the wrong mix is higher than if 'richest right' were used.

F.

Andy Nye

20-05-2004, 11:21

:=Dear "F" (how I hate anonymous names and childish handles...)

Keith, I'm not the only person using so called childish handles & it appears quite common in other forums, but thats irrelevant to this discusion. Don't you think?

I would like to think that FIRESTORM is the model of motorcycle he rides ,,, like my GIXXER ,,,, which i use as a handle on the Suzuki bike forum i use ;-)

Firestorm

20-05-2004, 11:51

:=:=Dear "F" (how I hate anonymous names and childish handles...)

:=Keith, I'm not the only person using so called childish handles & it appears quite common in other forums, but thats irrelevant to this discusion. Don't you think?

I would like to think that FIRESTORM is the model of motorcycle he rides ,,, like my GIXXER ,,,, which i use as a handle on the Suzuki bike forum i use ;-)

As it happens Andy you're right, both fine machines.

F.

Rob Kelly

20-05-2004, 13:21

:=:=:=Agreed, but then rebreathers require different approaches on a variety of issues, not only in terms of gas donation. You can't knock out a perfectly reasonable method of donation just because someone might one day be paired up with a rebreather diver.

Why not if there are other, more effective, safer and widely used techniques such as AAS? As rebreathers become more mainstream the fact that there are a number of divers out there whose conditioned response to an out of air situation is to grab their buddies primary mouthpiece is a serious issue I would have thought.

I don't believe that the standard octopus setup is safer and more effective than primary donation. I think there's quite a few people who would agree with me on that one :-)

However that's been picked apart before so let's not repeat that argument :-)

If rebreathers become more mainstream the fact that there are an enormous amount of divers out there that don't know what a counterlung is or how you would effect a rescue of an RB diver is going to be a serious issue isn't it?

FYI bit of a pedantic point here but GUE actually teach primary _donation_ not ripping the reg out of someones mouth, although they do acknowledge that that can happen.

:=
My argument is that when paring up OC and CCR/SCR divers there are several serious issues to resolve, one of which is gas sharing. Doesn't make the concept of primary donation invalid any more than it makes the concept of training to do a CBL on an OC diver invalid. After all if you did a standard CBL on a rebreather diver it would soon go horribly wrong...

Speaking as a rebreather instructor I can tell you that, in my experience that is not the case. There is actually very little difference between lfting an open circuit diver or a rebreather diver. It really boils down to coping with the buoyancy of the counterlungs. Students seldom have much difficulty with this. If the casualty is unconscious then even that is not a problem unless the mouthpiece valve has been closed It requires a conscious physical effort to maintain a seal around the mouthgrip.

Ok, fair enough, but there _is_ a difference, the counterlungs. We are talking about a bog standard open circut diver being buddied up with an RB diver here aren't we? If the oc diver being buddied up is experienced enough to know about rebreathers then they should be experienced enough not to pull the loop out of someones mouth when they go OOG, no matter what method of donation they usually use.

Therefore the argument being put against primary donation in this instance is "An inexperienced diver conditioned to primary donation will try and pull the loop out of an rb divers mouth and drown them both" IMO this only one of a number of issues that could arise pairing up inexperienced oc diver with RB divers and is not a good enough reason not to go with the superior system of primary donation for OC dives ;-)

Similarly, there is very little difference in using an AAS with a rebreather diver. The only issue here is whether the rebreather diver is carrying sufficient bailout gas if he/she is the donor, just the same issue can arrise with open circuit divers.
:=

Fair point, making sure you've got enough gas is always a good idea :-)

Rob Kelly

20-05-2004, 13:32

:=
I think Mike has said pretty much what I was thinking on this issue.

See my reply to Mike.

:=
:=Well the obvious thing that it proves is that you've seen two courses that taught richest on the right. Given that two is not a particularly high statistical sample when compared to the number of courses run worldwide I don't think it's possible to draw reasonable conclusions from it.

I did say 'just' not only.
If the particular instructor was teaching it twice it's fair to say he'd be teaching it that way on a regular basis. Considering that the majority of divers I encounter, with the exeption of 1 or 2, use this system I would say that it's reasonable to draw a conclusion that it's the norm.

Hmmm, interesting, the majority of divers I dive with all have their stages on one side.

It would therefore be reasonable for me to assume that that is the norm then?

:=
:
:=Well, I'm pretty sure NAUI recognise it as well. I know for a fact that NAUI courses are run with DIR kit configuration and as I'm sure you are aware various TDI instructors run TDI courses that follow the DIR configuration.
:=
:=So that makes it at least three...

I wasn't aware that various TDI instructors run their courses that follow the DIR config, it can't be many as the ones I have seen don't. So much for quality control then!

F.

TDI doesn't stipulate how you are supposed to wear your stages. ITYF that they leave that up to the individual instructor.

Although to be fair I agree with your comments about quality control. Some of the graduates I've seen shouldn't even be in the water...

HTH
Rob.

Firestorm

20-05-2004, 14:08

:=:=:=:=Agreed, but then rebreathers require different approaches on a variety of issues, not only in terms of gas donation. You can't knock out a perfectly reasonable method of donation just because someone might one day be paired up with a rebreather diver.
:=
:=Why not if there are other, more effective, safer and widely used techniques such as AAS? As rebreathers become more mainstream the fact that there are a number of divers out there whose conditioned response to an out of air situation is to grab their buddies primary mouthpiece is a serious issue I would have thought.

I don't believe that the standard octopus setup is safer and more effective than primary donation. I think there's quite a few people who would agree with me on that one :-)

However that's been picked apart before so let's not repeat that argument :-)

If rebreathers become more mainstream the fact that there are an enormous amount of divers out there that don't know what a counterlung is or how you would effect a rescue of an RB diver is going to be a serious issue isn't it?

You've only got to read a magazine to know basic stuff like what a counterlung is & as Mike has already pointed out CBL of a RB diver isn't that different.

FYI bit of a pedantic point here but GUE actually teach primary _donation_ not ripping the reg out of someones mouth, although they do acknowledge that that can happen.

It's interesting then that whenever I've discussed this with DIR/GUE advocates they say the opposite. Maybe their GUE course was taught differently, which if DIR/GUE is supposed to be about one way of doing things, then clearly it's not!

:=
:=:=
:= My argument is that when paring up OC and CCR/SCR divers there are several serious issues to resolve, one of which is gas sharing. Doesn't make the concept of primary donation invalid any more than it makes the concept of training to do a CBL on an OC diver invalid. After all if you did a standard CBL on a rebreather diver it would soon go horribly wrong...
:=
:=Speaking as a rebreather instructor I can tell you that, in my experience that is not the case. There is actually very little difference between lfting an open circuit diver or a rebreather diver. It really boils down to coping with the buoyancy of the counterlungs. Students seldom have much difficulty with this. If the casualty is unconscious then even that is not a problem unless the mouthpiece valve has been closed It requires a conscious physical effort to maintain a seal around the mouthgrip.
:=

Ok, fair enough, but there _is_ a difference, the counterlungs. We are talking about a bog standard open circut diver being buddied up with an RB diver here aren't we? If the oc diver being buddied up is experienced enough to know about rebreathers then they should be experienced enough not to pull the loop out of someones mouth when they go OOG, no matter what method of donation they usually use.

er, I thought we were talking about experienced divers as primary donate isn't taught from initial training only in later 'advanced/technical' style training.
But anyway, people will usually do what they've been taught to do when the mire hits the fan, so if they've been taught to go for the one in the mouth then thats what they'll do. Which IS a serious issue with a RB diver.

Therefore the argument being put against primary donation in this instance is "An inexperienced diver conditioned to primary donation will try and pull the loop out of an rb divers mouth and drown them both" IMO this only one of a number of issues that could arise pairing up inexperienced oc diver with RB divers and is not a good enough reason not to go with the superior system of primary donation for OC dives ;-)

I disagree, see above.

:=Similarly, there is very little difference in using an AAS with a rebreather diver. The only issue here is whether the rebreather diver is carrying sufficient bailout gas if he/she is the donor, just the same issue can arrise with open circuit divers.
:=:=
:=
Fair point, making sure you've got enough gas is always a good idea :-)

Firestorm

20-05-2004, 14:18

:=:=
:=I think Mike has said pretty much what I was thinking on this issue.

See my reply to Mike.

:=
:=
:=:=
:=:=Well the obvious thing that it proves is that you've seen two courses that taught richest on the right. Given that two is not a particularly high statistical sample when compared to the number of courses run worldwide I don't think it's possible to draw reasonable conclusions from it.
:=
:=I did say 'just' not only.
:=If the particular instructor was teaching it twice it's fair to say he'd be teaching it that way on a regular basis. Considering that the majority of divers I encounter, with the exeption of 1 or 2, use this system I would say that it's reasonable to draw a conclusion that it's the norm.
:=

Hmmm, interesting, the majority of divers I dive with all have their stages on one side.

It would therefore be reasonable for me to assume that that is the norm then?

We'll be down to counting next!!! :-)

:=:=
:
:=:=Well, I'm pretty sure NAUI recognise it as well. I know for a fact that NAUI courses are run with DIR kit configuration and as I'm sure you are aware various TDI instructors run TDI courses that follow the DIR configuration.
:=:=
:=:=So that makes it at least three...
:=
:=I wasn't aware that various TDI instructors run their courses that follow the DIR config, it can't be many as the ones I have seen don't. So much for quality control then!
:=
:=F.

TDI doesn't stipulate how you are supposed to wear your stages. ITYF that they leave that up to the individual instructor.

Although to be fair I agree with your comments about quality control. Some of the graduates I've seen shouldn't even be in the water...

Which is why we need proper quality control of training standards across all agency's to clarify discusions/disagreements such as this. If the BSAC situation had been sorted out properly when CUEG 1st brought the subject of DIR/GUE techniques up 2 DOC's ago (at least) then we would all know where we stand.

HTH
Rob.

F.

Rob Kelly

20-05-2004, 14:37

(snip)
We'll be down to counting next!!! :-)

LOL

:=
Which is why we need proper quality control of training standards across all agency's to clarify discusions/disagreements such as this. If the BSAC situation had been sorted out properly when CUEG 1st brought the subject of DIR/GUE techniques up 2 DOC's ago (at least) then we would all know where we stand.

Agreed that quality control is important. I also think that you are right and that BSAC should have clarified things and should have a clear position on this.

I don't think that it can ever work cross agency though. Too many people have different ideas. I think there is about an 0.001% chance of getting them all to agree :-)

Rob Kelly

20-05-2004, 15:18

(snip)
:=If rebreathers become more mainstream the fact that there are an enormous amount of divers out there that don't know what a counterlung is or how you would effect a rescue of an RB diver is going to be a serious issue isn't it?

You've only got to read a magazine to know basic stuff like what a counterlung is & as Mike has already pointed out CBL of a RB diver isn't that different.

Oh come on, you can apply that argument to gas sharing as well.

"You've only got to read a magazine to know not to rip an RB divers loop out of their mouths"

If divers are going to do what their taught when it all goes pear shaped then when someone runs out of gas they should by rights head to the bottom, get on their knees and start theatrically waving their hands across their throat!

:=
:=FYI bit of a pedantic point here but GUE actually teach primary _donation_ not ripping the reg out of someones mouth, although they do acknowledge that that can happen.

It's interesting then that whenever I've discussed this with DIR/GUE advocates they say the opposite. Maybe their GUE course was taught differently, which if DIR/GUE is supposed to be about one way of doing things, then clearly it's not!

I don't believe GUE have ever taught anyhing different, it's primary _donation_

However, GUE do recognise the fact that sometimes a diver may just take the reg in your mouth and make sure you are prepared for that to happen. It probably won't be your buddy either.

Inccedently in my first BSAC course I was taught that as well and the instructor pulled the reg from my mouth to prove the point.

:=
(snip)
er, I thought we were talking about experienced divers as primary donate isn't taught from initial training only in later 'advanced/technical' style training.
But anyway, people will usually do what they've been taught to do when the mire hits the fan, so if they've been taught to go for the one in the mouth then thats what they'll do. Which IS a serious issue with a RB diver.

Well it is taught in some NAUI courses from open water level but ok, we'll talk about experienced divers here.

So now we have divers who have received advanced technical training and are incapable of handling an emergency situation without panicing?

All they've done is run out of gas. Their buddy will be there and they'll have planned for this won't they? Presumabaly they will have practiced as well?

I am assuming of course that before getting in the water to do a proper dive a buddy pair will have done some planning, worked out their bail out procedures and possibly go down to the local quarry/shore for some practice.

:=
:=Therefore the argument being put against primary donation in this instance is "An inexperienced diver conditioned to primary donation will try and pull the loop out of an rb divers mouth and drown them both" IMO this only one of a number of issues that could arise pairing up inexperienced oc diver with RB divers and is not a good enough reason not to go with the superior system of primary donation for OC dives ;-)

I disagree, see above.

Well I disagree with you :-)

I think we are going to have to disagree on this one, I sure I'm not going to change your mind and I know you won't change mine so we should probably drop it here before we bore everyone to death (if it's not too late) :-)

Cheers,
Rob.

Matt

20-05-2004, 15:28

:=I think dear old F is trying to say Hog wrapping is dangerous, Such definitive statements made from a position of ignorance or inexperience are pretty amusing ;-)

And when exactly did we dive together for you to know my experience level?

Where exactly did I question your abillity?

Sounds to me like it's a case of 'just because I don't agree with you I'm not experienced'. Now that is amusing ;-)

The thing I disagree with is your claim that few people hog wrap.

You're partly right, I don't agree with Hog wrapping & that comes from years of experience & common sense. No one I have spoken to about it, & that's from DIR advocates to various technical instructors, has given me a viable reason for using it. You can try if you wish, I'm all ears!

If by viable you mean a single reason which makes wrapping preferable to stuffing, then I fully agree I can't think of one. Equally I can't think of a single reason to stuff either. As I said they both have pros and cons. I have seen technical divers using both techniques in roughly equal numbers and I believe both are legitimate.

But if you want to talk experience allow me;
Been diving for 23yrs, open circuit trimix, erd, closed circuit rebreather, HSE comercial diver & ALL my diving is done in salt water as opposed to nice sheltered inland sites.
Over to you!

So that would make you inexperienced and possibly ignorant of diving in sheltered inland sites. I have no idea how you have managed to rack up your techncal qualifications without coming into contact with non DIR divers who wrap, but I am not the one claiming it is a little used technique outside DIR.

:=The debate between wrapping and stuffing has been done to death. About the only conclusion is that both techniques have pros and cons in equal ammounts. As far as I can tell there are pretty much equal numbers of divers using both techniques.

Most of the divers I encounter do not use the wrapping technique as I've said before.

What your saying is a bit like claiming there are few Chinese people in the world because you haven't seen many in your village!

I did my first technical course with Phil Short and Kev Gurr before DIR became popular. Kev was using a stuffed hose, Phil hog wrapped. As a mere mortal I am not about to tell either of them they are doing it wrong.

:=Agreed. Stage placement, like any other config choice is a matter of risk and priority. If 'richest right' interferes with the operation of other primary equipment it would make no sense to follow it.

By 'interferes with the operation of primary equipment' I presume you mean the long hose under the arm - over the chest arrangement.

As I understand it, one reason DIR do not use 'richest right' is that the stage cylinder fouls the torch canister. As you indicate, 'one side' also avoids an under arm wrapped hose being trapped by a stage when the stage is refitted.

As I've said earlier I don't agree with that method

Fine, your entitled to your oppinion. The wrap or stuff debate has raged since divers started using long hoses. As far as I can tell there are as many reasons not to stuff are there are reasons not to wrap.

& anyway, maybe it's time to rethink this if it can't be used properly when your fully kitted.

Isn't that my point? If you're doing something which renders your equipment or technique unusable you need to rethink. That applies just as much to 'richest right' as anything else. What I disagree with is dogmatic thinking, such as 'richest right' is the only *correct* way to carry stages.

When carrying multiple deco cylinders, apart from the fact the diver is unbalanced the possibility of getting the wrong mix is higher than if 'richest right' were used.

What if you need 3 deco mixes? Personally I would sidemount two on one side. You could back mount one but I am not willing to accept the problems backmounted deco gas introduces. Balance is a minor incovenience which is easily overcome.

The risk of breathing the wrong mix is pretty much down to procedure and stress. A good procedure matches the config and diving practices and ensures that you end up with the right mix. Stress impacts a divers abillity to follow the procedure correctly - the most common cause of a diver breathing the wrong gas.

There are many things I do not like about DIR but the procedures are very well thought out. If you dive DIR and follow the switching procedure you can not end up with the wrong gas in your mouth.

I happen to dive 'richest right', only because I have to put stages somewhere. I sometimes remove stages underwater and there is a risk of refitting in the wrong place. So 'richest right' plays no part in my switch procedure. DIR's method of tracing the hose back to the cylinder before you open the valve is a damn good idea and personally I find it far more useful.

Mike Rowley

20-05-2004, 20:51

:=
:=Why not if there are other, more effective, safer and widely used techniques such as AAS? As rebreathers become more mainstream the fact that there are a number of divers out there whose conditioned response to an out of air situation is to grab their buddies primary mouthpiece is a serious issue I would have thought.

I don't believe that the standard octopus setup is safer and more effective than primary donation. I think there's quite a few people who would agree with me on that one :-)

And there are far more who do not. The fact is that AAS is official BSAC policy and the official policy of most of the major training organisations, primary donation is not. The diving world moved away from buddy breathing to AAS largely due to the fact that removing regs from ouths in a high adrenelin situation sometimes went wrong. AAS is simple, efficient, minimises the risk to both rescuer and casualty, avoids the need for the rescuer to have to take his/her reg out and is compatible with just about every type of equipment and training other than DIR.

The issue is what divers are conditioned to do. In an emergency people react as they have been conditioned to, that is the whole point of training. If experienced navy divers on both sides of the big pond can reach surface equivelent breathing rates of 60 - 70 litres per minute when things go wrong it is unlikely that we recreational divers will stop and think about what kind of kit is being used.
:=

If the oc diver being buddied up is experienced enough to know about rebreathers then they should be experienced enough not to pull the loop out of someones mouth when they go OOG, no matter what method of donation they usually use.

See my previous statement re faeces - fan interface.

Therefore the argument being put against primary donation in this instance is "An inexperienced diver conditioned to primary donation will try and pull the loop out of an rb divers mouth and drown them both"

No, that is not the argument. Some people call experienced 100 dives in Stoney Cove! When faced with a potentially life threatening situation divers will ofetn initially react in the way they have been conditioned, even experienced divers.

IMO this only one of a number of issues that could arise pairing up inexperienced oc diver with RB divers and is not a good enough reason not to go with the superior system of primary donation for OC dives ;-)

Inferior and incompatible system of primary donation for open circuit divers and rebreather divers as evidenced by the fact that most agencies do not teach it..

Firestorm

20-05-2004, 21:17

:=:=I think dear old F is trying to say Hog wrapping is dangerous, Such definitive statements made from a position of ignorance or inexperience are pretty amusing ;-)

:=And when exactly did we dive together for you to know my experience level?

Where exactly did I question your abillity?

here;

Such definitive statements made from a position of ignorance or inexperience are pretty amusing ;-)

:=Sounds to me like it's a case of 'just because I don't agree with you I'm not experienced'. Now that is amusing ;-)

The thing I disagree with is your claim that few people hog wrap.

:=You're partly right, I don't agree with Hog wrapping & that comes from years of experience & common sense. No one I have spoken to about it, & that's from DIR advocates to various technical instructors, has given me a viable reason for using it. You can try if you wish, I'm all ears!

If by viable you mean a single reason which makes wrapping preferable to stuffing, then I fully agree I can't think of one. Equally I can't think of a single reason to stuff either. As I said they both have pros and cons. I have seen technical divers using both techniques in roughly equal numbers and I believe both are legitimate.

:=But if you want to talk experience allow me;
:=Been diving for 23yrs, open circuit trimix, erd, closed circuit rebreather, HSE comercial diver & ALL my diving is done in salt water as opposed to nice sheltered inland sites.
:=Over to you!

So that would make you inexperienced and possibly ignorant of diving in sheltered inland sites. I have no idea how you have managed to rack up your techncal qualifications without coming into contact with non DIR divers who wrap, but I am not the one claiming it is a little used technique outside DIR.

I didn't particularly want to go down the 'I've got more experience than you' road but you were the one questioning by implication my knowledge & experience. I note you have studeously avoided stating yours
Inexperienced at diving inland sites? Now you can't be serious? After diving in the sea for so long an inland site would be a walk in the park, or row on the lake in this instance!!! I did virtualy all my initial training (all those yrs ago!) in inland sites such a Stoney, Dosthill, Switherland Wood, etc & there is more to contend & aguably a greater skill level with diving in the sea than any inland site.
You don't need to come into contact with divers who wrap to gain a tech qual, do tech diving or even gain experience in it.
I've recently spent several weeks on a boat with different groups of experienced tech divers & out of all of them 1 person used the wrapping method. This situation is fairly typical of the divers I have encountered over considerable time. Hardly the 'little village' picture you paint. So it would be fair to say that wrapping isn't that common outside DIR after all.

:=:=The debate between wrapping and stuffing has been done to death. About the only conclusion is that both techniques have pros and cons in equal ammounts. As far as I can tell there are pretty much equal numbers of divers using both techniques.

:=Most of the divers I encounter do not use the wrapping technique as I've said before.

What your saying is a bit like claiming there are few Chinese people in the world because you haven't seen many in your village!

I live in a town! But the fact remains that with exeption of 1 or 2 people the majority of divers I have dived with/encountered over a considerable time do not wrap. Now, obviously I'm purposely seeking these people out!!! ;-)
At the end of the day it seems to come down to the divers each of us comes into contact/dives with & without doing a survey of every diver on the planet we'll probably never know. You obviously know a fair few who do, I have dived with/encountered a considerable amount in/from various parts of the world who don't. So unless you want to continue this into the next decade we'll have to agree to disagree.

I did my first technical course with Phil Short and Kev Gurr before DIR became popular. Kev was using a stuffed hose, Phil hog wrapped. As a mere mortal I am not about to tell either of them they are doing it wrong.

You may not, but I would most certainly, & have, enter into a debate with any instructor who was teaching me if I didn't accept what he was saying. It maybe that the instuctor wasn't explaining something clearly or I didn't understand, but I'm not going to do something just because HE says so without good reason.

DIR's method of tracing the hose back to the cylinder before you open the valve is a damn good idea and personally I find it far more useful.

Agreed, but that's common sense.

F.

Firestorm

20-05-2004, 22:43

:=(snip)
:=:=If rebreathers become more mainstream the fact that there are an enormous amount of divers out there that don't know what a counterlung is or how you would effect a rescue of an RB diver is going to be a serious issue isn't it?
:=
:=You've only got to read a magazine to know basic stuff like what a counterlung is & as Mike has already pointed out CBL of a RB diver isn't that different.
:=

Oh come on, you can apply that argument to gas sharing as well.

"You've only got to read a magazine to know not to rip an RB divers loop out of their mouths"

If divers are going to do what their taught when it all goes pear shaped then when someone runs out of gas they should by rights head to the bottom, get on their knees and start theatrically waving their hands across their throat!

Now your being silly Rob, I think we both know what we're talking about.

:=:=
:=:=FYI bit of a pedantic point here but GUE actually teach primary _donation_ not ripping the reg out of someones mouth, although they do acknowledge that that can happen.
:=
:=It's interesting then that whenever I've discussed this with DIR/GUE advocates they say the opposite. Maybe their GUE course was taught differently, which if DIR/GUE is supposed to be about one way of doing things, then clearly it's not!
:=

I don't believe GUE have ever taught anyhing different, it's primary _donation_

However, GUE do recognise the fact that sometimes a diver may just take the reg in your mouth and make sure you are prepared for that to happen. It probably won't be your buddy either.

Inccedently in my first BSAC course I was taught that as well and the instructor pulled the reg from my mouth to prove the point.

:=:=
:=(snip)
:=er, I thought we were talking about experienced divers as primary donate isn't taught from initial training only in later 'advanced/technical' style training.
:=But anyway, people will usually do what they've been taught to do when the mire hits the fan, so if they've been taught to go for the one in the mouth then thats what they'll do. Which IS a serious issue with a RB diver.
:=

Well it is taught in some NAUI courses from open water level but ok, we'll talk about experienced divers here.

So now we have divers who have received advanced technical training and are incapable of handling an emergency situation without panicing?

It's still a serious issue with a RB diver which you seem to be ignoring.

All they've done is run out of gas. Their buddy will be there and they'll have planned for this won't they?

I assume that by running out of gas the diver will have had some sort of failure i.e; free flow, hose go or even entanglement. The buddy, as you say, would be near by & could offer whatever reg, primary or otherwise. If however he has just run out then his buddy will be in a similar position as they will be carrying similar amounts of gas (we'll assume they have the same breathing rate).

Presumabaly they will have practiced as well?

I am assuming of course that before getting in the water to do a proper dive a buddy pair will have done some planning, worked out their bail out procedures and possibly go down to the local quarry/shore for some practice.

Planning, working out bail out gases, etc would/should be second nature for an experienced diver/s. Going for a practice at the local quarry is something that an inexperienced diver does, & rightly so. Experienced divers tend to get in & do it.

:=:=
:=:=Therefore the argument being put against primary donation in this instance is "An inexperienced diver conditioned to primary donation will try and pull the loop out of an rb divers mouth and drown them both" IMO this only one of a number of issues that could arise pairing up inexperienced oc diver with RB divers and is not a good enough reason not to go with the superior system of primary donation for OC dives ;-)
:=
:=I disagree, see above.
:=

Well I disagree with you :-)

I've got a nice handbag if you would care to meet me at dawn! ;-)

I think we are going to have to disagree on this one, I sure I'm not going to change your mind and I know you won't change mine so we should probably drop it here before we bore everyone to death (if it's not too late) :-)

I suppose we better had, but as I'm sure you'll agree all training agency's need to get the situation sorted. Unfortunately it'll probably never happen, so this debate will probably still be going on in some form of another next year, the year after........

F.

Andy Nye

21-05-2004, 01:37

:=:=:=Dear "F" (how I hate anonymous names and childish handles...)
:=
:=:=Keith, I'm not the only person using so called childish handles & it appears quite common in other forums, but thats irrelevant to this discusion. Don't you think?
:=
:=
:=I would like to think that FIRESTORM is the model of motorcycle he rides ,,, like my GIXXER ,,,, which i use as a handle on the Suzuki bike forum i use ;-)

As it happens Andy you're right, both fine machines.

F.

Must be because i'm also commie , must be the head for working things out ;-) or just the taste of bikes

A.

PeteM

21-05-2004, 08:45

The fact is that AAS is official BSAC policy

But Mike it's not - we teach primary donation see lecture ST5 slide 10 and there is nothing anywhere officially that says we should not do it

Thumper Rider

21-05-2004, 14:02

:=:=I would like to think that FIRESTORM is the model of motorcycle he rides ,,, like my GIXXER ,,,, which i use as a handle on the Suzuki bike forum i use ;-)
:=
:=As it happens Andy you're right, both fine machines.
:=
:=F.

Must be because i'm also commie , must be the head for working things out ;-) or just the taste of bikes

A.

Both fine machines but imho (and yes I am an experienced motorcyclist before anyone gets upset!) they are both too fast to be realistically used on uk roads, unless either of you are going to tell me you do trackdays every weekend or go to the continent most months? (If anyone *really* disagrees then please drop me an email or something to save boring the pants off everyone else on the board... <a href="mailto:narked_numpty@nospamyahoo.co.uk">narked_numpty@nospamyahoo.co.uk</a> )
But then perhaps that's the point in your discussion about kit configuration/aas as well? There is no "right" way which will suit all circumstances and all people... (speaking from a position of relative ignorance here as an inexperienced diver!!) It would be a boring world if there were...
What's good for a cave diver isn't always good for a sea diver, what's good for an experienced trimix diver may be hopeless for a novice, and so on and so on...
imho we have to accept and allow for different techniques and equipments or we will not improve safety, we will ultimately compromise it and blinker ourselves to potential improvements.
Having said that, if you don't like/trust someone else's kit/techniques/ability/attitude then don't dive with them! But please, let's not get into pages of insulting people because we don't happen to share the same opinion.
As always only MHO so don't get stressed over it ;-)

Regards,
Gordon

Andy Nye

21-05-2004, 18:39

Matt

21-05-2004, 19:02

Such definitive statements made from a position of ignorance or inexperience are pretty amusing ;-)

Sorry you misunderstand me. If you have not noticed the number of divers hog wrapping, you can only be ignorant of the situation or your experience is rather narrow. I am not commenting on your abillity at all.

This reminds me of a row I stumbled into with a National Instructor, who disagreed with my lesson which refferred to sending a DSMB from the top of a wreck. At the time I had no idea the technique was in any way controversial because pretty much everyone on the South Coast was using it. The instructor was from the North and apparently it was uncommon up there at the time.

I didn't particularly want to go down the 'I've got more experience than you' road but you were the one questioning by implication my knowledge & experience.

Experienced and knowledgable people are perfectly capable of talking rubbish. Their experience only makes it all the more amusing ;-)

I note you have studeously avoided stating yours

It becomes a habit when you chair a 50 year old branch.

I am comfortable that I have done enough and don't feel the need to get defensive or engage in peeing contests. I guess I have managed to learn to avoid definitive statements about other people's diving because they are so often wrong.

Inexperienced at diving inland sites? Now you can't be serious? After diving in the sea for so long an inland site would be a walk in the park, or row on the lake in this instance!!!

Possibly a tad arrogant.

I've recently spent several weeks on a boat with different groups of experienced tech divers & out of all of them 1 person used the wrapping method. This situation is fairly typical of the divers I have encountered over considerable time. Hardly the 'little village' picture you paint.

I am flabergasted. Go stand around a car park in Weymouth or Portland on a weekend. Do a search on Google. Talk to the New Jersey crowd. Start a poll on YD. Talk to the non-DIR cavers. I guess I could be wrong but I really don't think so.

So it would be fair to say that wrapping isn't that common outside DIR after all.

You do know what DIR is don't you? Only a small minority of people that wrap are actually DIR.

:=:=Most of the divers I encounter do not use the wrapping technique as I've said before.

So there is no reason to restate it. You could always enlighten us as to why stuffing is 'Common sense' and then maybe we can debate that.

I live in a town! But the fact remains that with exeption of 1 or 2 people the majority of divers I have dived with/encountered over a considerable time do not wrap.

I live in a south coast village about a mile from the sea. I can see more than 1 or 2 wrapping on my way to work!

Now, obviously I'm purposely seeking these people out!!! ;-)

At the end of the day it seems to come down to the divers each of us comes into contact/dives with & without doing a survey of every diver on the planet we'll probably never know.

You may have noticed how little support your statement has recieved here, there are plenty of indicators. You might want to consider the possibility your perception is actually wrong.

You may not, but I would most certainly, & have, enter into a debate with any instructor who was teaching me if I didn't accept what he was saying.

The example was two of the country's most accomplished technical divers coming to different solutions to the same config problem. The lesson is, think through how the problem applies to your diving and be open minded about possible solutions - do what you want but at least know why you are doing it.

It maybe that the instuctor wasn't explaining something clearly or I didn't understand, but I'm not going to do something just because HE says so without good reason.

Exactly the point. Isn't that what you are doing though by claiming techniques like richest right and stuffing are 'common sense' but without providing reasons for your claims?

DIR's method of tracing the hose back to the cylinder before you open the valve is a damn good idea and personally I find it far more useful.

Agreed, but that's common sense.

I am not so sure there is such a thing in technical diving. The problems need to be thought out and the process often leads to conflicting answers.

Regards
MattS

Thumper Rider

21-05-2004, 19:31

Hmmm, as I am not without sin I couldn't possibly comment lol(!) Other than to say (promptly contradicting myself..) that I hope you all get home safely and grow into slightly slower (but probably no less silly!) antics before too long, (Super-motos are a blast and easier on the licence) ;-)
Just as a point of interest the reason I replaced my 900 Ninja was looking at 150 on the clock and realising what a six month jail sentence and years ban would do to my family/work/life etc. As I say, no condemnation and no judgement, you are all your own people, just good luck and stay safe.
Regards,
Gordon

TRACK DAYS , hope that means the A2 at Barham on a Wednesday evening ......... all the lads doing 150 +,,,, or over the ton on the back wheel like ermmmmmm ermmmmmmm me ;-)

Andy Wade

21-05-2004, 19:46

Both fine machines but imho (and yes I am an experienced motorcyclist before anyone gets upset!) they are both too fast to be realistically used on uk roads, unless either of you are going to tell me you do trackdays every weekend or go to the continent most months?

TRACK DAYS , hope that means the A2 at Barham on a Wednesday evening ......... all the lads doing 150 +,,,, or over the ton on the back wheel like ermmmmmm ermmmmmmm me ;-)

Well if I catch the winker who thought it was a good idea to do a wheelie past me and my family including my one year old daughter in her pram, then he's history and so is his bike.
I bet the road you're talking about is no more than a 60 mph limit is it?
Shameful.
Frankly Andy, I've lost my sense of humour with your comments.

Andy Nye

21-05-2004, 20:51

Well if I catch the winker who thought it was a good idea to do a wheelie past me and my family including my one year old daughter in her pram, then he's history and so is his bike.
I bet the road you're talking about is no more than a 60 mph limit is it?
Shameful.
Frankly Andy, I've lost my sense of humour with your comments.

Andy.

I fully agree with your comments and would also do the same as you.

The road that is outside our bike club , is almost a straight mile. it is a dual carriageway A road and at the time of club meetings, the road is very quiet to other traffic.
YES , the police have been there on a few occassions and we all do listen to the motorcycle police giving advise on road safety.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, no accident has been caused by a biker & no one has fallen off , BUT THERE WILL ONE DAY.

Really , we are in the right place at the right time , doing NO ONE no harm. IN FACT the cafe does a good trade from the bikers , but also othe families passing by or knowing we are there , to look over our bikes and watch the antic's.There is on average 700 - 750 bikes, and only there for a matter of 2 hours .

john kendall

21-05-2004, 23:04

My TDI Trimix course taught me Stages on one side. Why I wonder? Because it is not laid down in stone. And comes down to the instructor. My instructor had a DIR bias.
:=The confusion of Rich on the right, arrises if you are a little seasick, and don't do your checks properly on the boat. If your technique is to always check the stage before breathing it, then this won't be a problem, if you blindly assume that Rich on the Right is the way you're rigged then you might have an issue. I don't really care how anyone does it, it is down to them, but All stages on the left is not contrary to anything BSAC require.

I'm sorry John but I just can't be bothered to get into that nonesense again. The practice and accepted wisdom of the majority is agaist you. I notice you avoid the question of which other agency teaches this practice.

Um, I just did. My "TDI" trimix course taught me stages on one side.
It is entirely possible that the mojority of people you have dived with use bilateral stages. The majority of people I dive with use stages on the left.

HTH
John

john kendall

21-05-2004, 23:13

Which is why we need proper quality control of training standards across all agency's to clarify discusions/disagreements such as this. If the BSAC situation had been sorted out properly when CUEG 1st brought the subject of DIR/GUE techniques up 2 DOC's ago (at least) then we would all know where we stand.

BTW it's "CUUEG"

HTH
John
DO CUUEG

Firestorm

22-05-2004, 00:28

:=Such definitive statements made from a position of ignorance or inexperience are pretty amusing ;-)

Sorry you misunderstand me. If you have not noticed the number of divers hog wrapping, you can only be ignorant of the situation or your experience is rather narrow. I am not commenting on your abillity at all.

That's my point, I'm fortunate enough to dive when I like & with the considerable amount of divers I encounter/dive with from various agency's & various places around the world, I do not see hog wrapping that often as opposed to stuffing. So it is fair to say that it is not that common. But you seem to be ignoring this.
I'm not ignorant of the fact that people do it or even why they do it, I don't agree with it.

This reminds me of a row I stumbled into with a National Instructor, who disagreed with my lesson which refferred to sending a DSMB from the top of a wreck. At the time I had no idea the technique was in any way controversial because pretty much everyone on the South Coast was using it. The instructor was from the North and apparently it was uncommon up there at the time.

Be careful, you may just have started the next thread!!! :-)

:=I didn't particularly want to go down the 'I've got more experience than you' road but you were the one questioning by implication my knowledge & experience.

Experienced and knowledgable people are perfectly capable of talking rubbish. Their experience only makes it all the more amusing ;-)

So I've noticed!

:=I note you have studeously avoided stating yours

It becomes a habit when you chair a 50 year old branch.

That tells me everything!

I am comfortable that I have done enough and don't feel the need to get defensive or engage in peeing contests. I guess I have managed to learn to avoid definitive statements about other people's diving because they are so often wrong.

and you're often right then?

:=Inexperienced at diving inland sites? Now you can't be serious? After diving in the sea for so long an inland site would be a walk in the park, or row on the lake in this instance!!!

Possibly a tad arrogant.

Not at all, anybody who has been diving in the sea for a long time would find an inland site an easy dive. I would have thought you would have known that living so close to the sea & presumably diving predominantly in it.

:=I've recently spent several weeks on a boat with different groups of experienced tech divers & out of all of them 1 person used the wrapping method. This situation is fairly typical of the divers I have encountered over considerable time. Hardly the 'little village' picture you paint.

I am flabergasted. Go stand around a car park in Weymouth or Portland on a weekend. Do a search on Google. Talk to the New Jersey crowd. Start a poll on YD. Talk to the non-DIR cavers. I guess I could be wrong but I really don't think so.

Funny that I didn't think you would! But I tend to be out doing the diving than talking about it on forums, as you've probably gathered by my lack of posts. Which is the reason why I don't see it happening that often.

:=So it would be fair to say that wrapping isn't that common outside DIR after all.

You do know what DIR is don't you? Only a small minority of people that wrap are actually DIR.

:=:=:=Most of the divers I encounter do not use the wrapping technique as I've said before.

So there is no reason to restate it. You could always enlighten us as to why stuffing is 'Common sense' and then maybe we can debate that.

And when I invited you to give me a viable reason for using the hog wrap you couldn't/didn't. Maybe you could enlighten us as to why it is common sense.

:=I live in a town! But the fact remains that with exeption of 1 or 2 people the majority of divers I have dived with/encountered over a considerable time do not wrap.

I live in a south coast village about a mile from the sea. I can see more than 1 or 2 wrapping on my way to work!

Is that wrapping or rapping! :-)

:=Now, obviously I'm purposely seeking these people out!!! ;-)

:=At the end of the day it seems to come down to the divers each of us comes into contact/dives with & without doing a survey of every diver on the planet we'll probably never know.

You may have noticed how little support your statement has recieved here, there are plenty of indicators. You might want to consider the possibility your perception is actually wrong.

Apart from you I haven't noticed a huge amount of people disagreeing either. Maybe 'you' ought to consider the possibility that your perception is wrong! Or would that be 'you' being a tad arrogant?! ;-)

:=You may not, but I would most certainly, & have, enter into a debate with any instructor who was teaching me if I didn't accept what he was saying.

The example was two of the country's most accomplished technical divers coming to different solutions to the same config problem.

The fact that they are 2 of the country's most accomplished tech divers would make no difference to me, I would still debate any matter with them if I didn't agree with them. I'm not about to take anything as gospel just because of who they are without good reason, people who do are just Sycophants, of which I have very little respect for.

The lesson is, think through how the problem applies to your diving and be open minded about possible solutions

I would have thought that was obvious.

:=It maybe that the instuctor wasn't explaining something clearly or I didn't understand, but I'm not going to do something just because HE says so without good reason.

Exactly the point. Isn't that what you are doing though by claiming techniques like richest right and stuffing are 'common sense' but without providing reasons for your claims?

That's as maybe depending on how you interpret it. However, you haven't given any reasons as to why it isn't common sense.

:= DIR's method of tracing the hose back to the cylinder before you open the valve is a damn good idea and personally I find it far more useful.

:=Agreed, but that's common sense.

I am not so sure there is such a thing in technical diving.

As it so appears.

Anyway, I'm off diving for another week or so, so I'm afraid you'll have to wait a while if you want a response/continuation.

F.

Firestorm

22-05-2004, 00:31

:=Which is why we need proper quality control of training standards across all agency's to clarify discusions/disagreements such as this. If the BSAC situation had been sorted out properly when CUEG 1st brought the subject of DIR/GUE techniques up 2 DOC's ago (at least) then we would all know where we stand.

BTW it's "CUUEG"

HTH
John
DO CUUEG

Oops, Sorry John.

F.

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

22-05-2004, 10:55

[FX : COUGH!]

I would like to refer people to the link below.

Keith L

Andy Wade

22-05-2004, 16:37

[FX : COUGH!]

I would like to refer people to the link below.

I agree Keith, it's just that the off topic comment came up and I thought it merited an answer, but there's little point as a non motorcycle user trying to complain on a motorcycle forum about an isolated incident. I doubt I'd get much support if I did anyway.
Andy's given his reply and that's the matter ended for me.

Any futher discussion is like a pencil without any lead.
Pointless.
;-)

.

Adrian Kelland

22-05-2004, 23:23

> I wasn't questioning your staement of BSAC's current position
> Keith I was merely expressing an opinion that such techniques
> are incopatible with the techniques adopted by most, if not all
> training agencies and in my opinion that is a mistake.

So should we, then, modify our position in other situations where we disagree with every other agency on the planet?

Vic.

Perhaps so Vic, if such revised positions are beneficial to members, safety and may even help stem the loss of members.

Revised SDCs, regognising that BSAC divers may wish to apply the limits given by other Agencies (TDI etc), but then I think you have proposed such IIRC.

Adrian

Mike Rowley

28-05-2004, 15:34

:=The fact is that AAS is official BSAC policy

But Mike it's not - we teach primary donation see lecture ST5 slide 10 and there is nothing anywhere officially that says we should not do it

I'm afraid there is. At the 2002 DOC the NDO, in answer to a question from the floor specifically stated that primary donate may not be taught in BSAC training and that AAS is official BSAC policy.

john kendall

28-05-2004, 20:40

:=:=The fact is that AAS is official BSAC policy
:=
:=But Mike it's not - we teach primary donation see lecture ST5 slide 10 and there is nothing anywhere officially that says we should not do it

I'm afraid there is. At the 2002 DOC the NDO, in answer to a question from the floor specifically stated that primary donate may not be taught in BSAC training and that AAS is official BSAC policy.

Mike, Sorry but you are wrong. Lizzie said that Primary donate is not to be taught "AT ENTRY LEVEL". As the person who asked the question about this, I took very careful note of the answer. Beyond Entry level, there is nothing to stop us teaching Primary Donate, as long as the students are happy with "Standard" AAS drills.

HTH
John

Matt

30-05-2004, 19:27

So it is fair to say that it is not that common. But you seem to be ignoring this.

I am not ignoring it, I disagree with the observation. I think there are more people wrapping hoses than you are admitting. Given your experience I am genuinely surprised you think wrappers are such a small minority.

The diving and technical divingindustries are an aside to my main line of business. I guess I also get to talk to more than my fair share of techie divers from around the World. I don't get to dive quite as often as I would like, but if I am not working I am diving - a sad obsessive I'm afraid.

I'm not ignorant of the fact that people do it or even why they do it, I don't agree with it.

I don't suppose those divers wrapping are seeking your approval.

:=:=I note you have studeously avoided stating yours
:=
:=It becomes a habit when you chair a 50 year old branch.

That tells me everything!

Of course it tells you nothing other than I chair a 50 year old BSAC branch. You are assuming anything else you might think you know about it.

:=I am comfortable that I have done enough and don't feel the need to get defensive or engage in peeing contests. I guess I have managed to learn to avoid definitive statements about other people's diving because they are so often wrong.

and you're often right then?

If you avoid making incorrect statements... By profession I get paid for my opinion and it often costs a great deal if it is wrong. Frankly I would be destitute if I was wrong too often.

:=Possibly a tad arrogant.

Not at all, anybody who has been diving in the sea for a long time would find an inland site an easy dive.

Like Dorethea perhaps!

I would have thought you would have known that living so close to the sea & presumably diving predominantly in it.

I know the challenges involved how and where I happen to dive regularly. I do not assume to know much at all about other peoples diving.

Funny that I didn't think you would! But I tend to be out doing the diving than talking about it on forums, as you've probably gathered by my lack of posts. Which is the reason why I don't see it happening that often.

Why should diving and posting be mutually exclusive? I am diving all (this) weekend, but I can still find time to make a couple posts. I am a sad obsessive and if I am not working, or diving then I guess I must be talking about diving.

And when I invited you to give me a viable reason for using the hog wrap you couldn't/didn't. Maybe you could enlighten us
as to why it is common sense.

As I said I don't think either technique is common sense. They both have their good and bad points. What I object to is the imposition of a technique when there is no, clearly best technique.

Apart from you I haven't noticed a huge amount of people disagreeing either.

The sample is small admittedly, but it's 2:1. By all means go run a poll on YD, it would be a better UK cross section anyhow.

Maybe 'you' ought to consider the possibility that your perception is wrong!

I have, please keep up.

Or would that be 'you' being a tad arrogant?! ;-)

I am a tad arrogant, I do try to suppress it though ;-)

I would have thought that was obvious.

You are discounting wrapping and stuffing as being legitimate solutions to other accomplished divers config problems. That don't sound very open minded to me.

That's as maybe depending on how you interpret it. However, you haven't given any reasons as to why it isn't common sense.

Yes I have. Please keep up.

Anyway, I'm off diving for another week or so, so I'm afraid you'll have to wait a while if you want a response/continuation.

I am all ears.

PeteM

01-06-2004, 15:43

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

01-06-2004, 19:36

:=:=:=The fact is that AAS is official BSAC policy
:=:=
:=:=But Mike it's not - we teach primary donation see lecture ST5 slide 10 and there is nothing anywhere officially that says we should not do it
:=
:=I'm afraid there is. At the 2002 DOC the NDO, in answer to a question from the floor specifically stated that primary donate may not be taught in BSAC training and that AAS is official BSAC policy.

Mike - have you looked at the quoted slide? Fact:we teach primary donation

Peter

Mike is quite correct in his statement, this is further backed up by the interim statement from Lizzie. If you are teaching primary donate =INSTEAD= of AAS then you are in the wrong and not teaching the BSAC diving system. If however you are introducing it as an optional element, at a later stage (e.g. SD), once the BSAC AAS technique has been taught and mastered, then I believe that is acceptable. What you must not do is substitute the technique or make as a manadatory part of your training the additional, optional element.

I would also remind you that ST5 is a THEORY lesson that explains the possibilities. I note that OT6 Slide 17 talks about Free Ascent rescues - I hope you're not going to use that theory discussion in OD to justify teaching that as a practical part of the OD course!

It's really quite simple : You teach the BSAC course as it is described and detailed in the manual. You may not substitute elements for a completely different technique at your whim. If you wish to add additional optional elements that have not been explicitly excluded from BSAC training (e.g. BB, FA's/ESA's are excluded) then you have that flexibility. But they are optional and additional AFTER the documented BSAC course has been taught.

I hope that clears matters up.

Kind Regards

Keith L

PeteM

03-06-2004, 15:07

Mike is quite correct in his statement, this is further backed up by the interim statement from Lizzie. If you are teaching primary donate =INSTEAD= of AAS then you are in the wrong and not teaching the BSAC diving system. If however you are introducing it as an optional element, at a later stage (e.g. SD), once the BSAC AAS technique has been taught and mastered, then I believe that is acceptable. What you must not do is substitute the technique or make as a manadatory part of your training the additional, optional element.

Yes I accept that we can not teach primary donation as a practical skill, however the point is we teach it as an acceptable methodolgy as evidenced by the quoted slide.

I would also remind you that ST5 is a THEORY lesson that explains the possibilities. I note that OT6 Slide 17 talks about Free Ascent rescues - I hope you're not going to use that theory discussion in OD to justify teaching that as a practical part of the OD course!

Come on Keith - we've known each other quiet a while there is absolutly no need for that attitude. I would expect more of you.

It's really quite simple : You teach the BSAC course as it is described and detailed in the manual. You may not substitute elements for a completely different technique at your whim. If you wish to add additional optional elements that have not been explicitly excluded from BSAC training (e.g. BB, FA's/ESA's are excluded) then you have that flexibility. But they are optional and additional AFTER the documented BSAC course has been taught.

Except for the fact that the NDO statement you yourself published on ukrs explicitly banned ALL teaching of primary donation, which means both you and I can not take an inexperienced diver in for a fun dive as we can not teach them the emergency drills with our kit.

I hope that clears matters up.

No not really the fact this thread is going on proves that. A widely published two sentence statement from the NDO saying what you have said above would.

P