BSAC KISS statement

[Mike Rowley]

The BSAC position on the use of KISS rebreathers in BSAC diving can be found on this link.

<a href="http://www.bsac.org/techserv/rrc/kissst.htm" >http://www.bsac.org/techserv/rrc/kissst.htm</a>

[John Williams]

The BSAC position on the use of KISS rebreathers in BSAC diving can be found on this link.

http://www.bsac.org/techserv/rrc/kissst.htm


If there's BSAC Kisses flying about - I'd rather have one from the new NDO than from you anyday Mike
;-)))

[Mike Rowley]

Would that be the Glasgow kiss then John?

:=The BSAC position on the use of KISS rebreathers in BSAC diving can be found on this link.
:=
:= http://www.bsac.org/techserv/rrc/kissst.htm


If there's BSAC Kisses flying about - I'd rather have one from the new NDO than from you anyday Mike
;-)))

[John Williams]

Would that be the Glasgow kiss then John?

St Andrews surely!!
:-)))

[Mike Rowley]

:=Would that be the Glasgow kiss then John?

St Andrews surely!!
:-)))

Do they do it differently in St. Andrews then???

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

:=:=Would that be the Glasgow kiss then John?
:=St Andrews surely!!

Do they do it differently in St. Andrews then???

Dear Mike and John

Awwww... isn't it sweet when that happens. Let me be the first to wish you both all the happiness in the world as you sail off into the sunset together whispering sweet nothings in each others ears.

K

[Andy Wade]

[Mike Rowley]

Question is which of us is the owl and which the pussy cat?

I am touched to the heart by your good wishes Keith, I shall think of you kindly as I traverse the oceans! Ta ever so.

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Question is which of us is the owl and which the pussy cat?

Such matters of personal preference are best decided in private between the two of you Mike. There are some things that the BSAC simply cannot help you with.

Keith L

[:-) I think this one has run its course now]

[Mike Rowley]

:=Question is which of us is the owl and which the pussy cat?

Such matters of personal preference are best decided in private between the two of you Mike. There are some things that the BSAC simply cannot help you with.

Keith L

[:-) I think this one has run its course now]

Wisdom of Solomon Keith.

[beanie]

The BSAC position on the use of KISS rebreathers in BSAC diving can be found on this link.

http://www.bsac.org/techserv/rrc/kissst.htm

blimey now there's a turn up for the books eh

not so long ago it was an emphatic no

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

not so long ago it was an emphatic no

That?s because it?s nowhere near as simple as saying ?oh, go on then?? and any changes that we make require very careful consideration. There is no halfway house so previous discussions hold until we are sure that things can be changed. But nothing is cast in stone, there are active discussions and alternatives being looked at all of the time. Diving moves on, so does the BSAC.

Keith L

[Ben Field]

&gt; blimey now there's a turn up for the books eh
&gt; not so long ago it was an emphatic no

WOW! Have just read the thread from last year....

Have to say that it contained alot of good justification for NOT allowing the KISS but- I am overjoyed at the recent news.

I'm still confused as to how the RWG managed to fit those oppinions/facts expressed with the new position, has there been any regulation changes or have BSAC lawyers worked out a cunning loophole?

regards,
"Confused from London"

[Mike Rowley]

I'm still confused as to how the RWG managed to fit those oppinions/facts expressed with the new position, has there been any regulation changes or have BSAC lawyers worked out a cunning loophole?

regards,
"Confused from London"

Change of personel, simple as that.

The reasons given to justify the previous position are still valid. It still remains an offence to sell a non-CE marked rebreather in any EU state under EN1413 and the PPE directive. This applies to new and second hand sales. If an individual chooses to take that risk that is clearly their responsibility.

It is also an offence to teach for commercial gain when using a non-CE marked rebreather under HSE regs. I don't wish to get into what I think of the HSE and their idiotic diving regs, Keith would be chastising me for profane and foul language.

However, it is not an offence for an amature diver to use a non-CE marked rebreather or to purchase such a rebreather.

BSAC has taken the view that it has no requirement to enforce HSE and EU regulations for them by the back door.

I think I can also say that BSAC also takes the view that where ever equipment, training and systems are compatible with BSAC diving practices it would prefer to enable rather than prohibit.

The new Head of Technical and the NDO have taken the view that there is no reason why those members who use the KISS should not participate in BSAC diving under similar conditions to that of other CCRs.

Hope this helps clear the confusion.

[john kendall]

I think I can also say that BSAC also takes the view that where ever equipment, training and systems are compatible with BSAC diving practices it would prefer to enable rather than prohibit.


So what do we think the chances of the "Maximum 80% Max PPO2 1.4" being revoked might be?

John

[Nigel Hewitt]

So what do we think the chances of the "Maximum 80% Max PPO2 1.4" being revoked might be?

Rebreather SDP:
"If a mixed gas CCR diver chooses to have open circuit access to all gases carried, appropriate safeguards should be put in place to avoid premature gas loss and to ensure that the respective Maximum Operating Depths of all gases carried are observed."

Baby steps.....

nigelH

[Mike Rowley]

So what do we think the chances of the "Maximum 80% Max PPO2 1.4" being revoked might be?

Maximum 80% has not been the case for some time. This has been stated on these forums a number of times. As Nigel pointed out, we worded this out some time ago under the old regime in RSDPs.

The 1.4bar PO2 remains BSACs recommendation at the moment. It may well be looked at in the future, I don't think anyone in the new team sees it as a tablet of stone. However, the Head of Technical and his team have quite a lot of pressing issues to deal with at the moment, not the least of which is delivering the BSAC rebreather courses and developing BSAC trimix courses. I am sure that the issue of 1.4 bars PO2 will be looked at in detail during the later process.

Nothing is ruled out.

[Firestorm]

:=I'm still confused as to how the RWG managed to fit those oppinions/facts expressed with the new position, has there been any regulation changes or have BSAC lawyers worked out a cunning loophole?
:=
:=regards,
:="Confused from London"

Change of personel, simple as that.

The reasons given to justify the previous position are still valid. It still remains an offence to sell a non-CE marked rebreather in any EU state under EN1413 and the PPE directive. This applies to new and second hand sales. If an individual chooses to take that risk that is clearly their responsibility.

It is also an offence to teach for commercial gain when using a non-CE marked rebreather under HSE regs. I don't wish to get into what I think of the HSE and their idiotic diving regs, Keith would be chastising me for profane and foul language.

However, it is not an offence for an amature diver to use a non-CE marked rebreather or to purchase such a rebreather.

BSAC has taken the view that it has no requirement to enforce HSE and EU regulations for them by the back door.

I think I can also say that BSAC also takes the view that where ever equipment, training and systems are compatible with BSAC diving practices it would prefer to enable rather than prohibit.

The new Head of Technical and the NDO have taken the view that there is no reason why those members who use the KISS should not participate in BSAC diving under similar conditions to that of other CCRs.

Hope this helps clear the confusion.




Considering there has been a change in personel recently & that Mike posted the KISS enabling statement on these forums over 2 weeks ago how come the web site hasn't been updated?
If you go to the Rebreather Resource Centre; <a href="http://www.bsac.org/techserv/rrc/index.html" >http://www.bsac.org/techserv/rrc/index.html</a>
or if you do a search, there is no mention of the KISS statement.
It seems to me as if the only way for us to find out up to date information is for the people doing the work, ie Mike, to actually tell us, because it's seems as if BSAC doesn't want us to know.

F.

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

If you go to the Rebreather Resource Centre; <a href="http://www.bsac.org/techserv/rrc/index.html" >http://www.bsac.org/techserv/rrc/index.html</a>
or if you do a search, there is no mention of the KISS statement.
It seems to me as if the only way for us to find out up to date information is for the people doing the work, ie Mike, to actually tell us, because it's seems as if BSAC doesn't want us to know.

F.

Errr, ?scuse me? Mike, me, YOU (hopefully), et al =ARE= ?the BSAC?. I personally propagated Mike?s post to one of the major UK diving forums just so that as many divers as possible would know. I?m not quite sure who is actually responsible for the RRC on the web site, I think it may be Mike B (who is on holiday). It WILL be updated, but please excuse us if we want to communicate things quickly rather than delay it whilst we make it all pretty.

Mike R quite correctly formally announced the news as soon as a statement was ready, that was the right thing to do. We?ll catch up on updating all of our other information in due course, but meanwhile the intention of the BSAC to enable KISS rebreathers within our branches is quite clear.

Keith Lawrence
BSAC Council Member
BSAC IT Team Leader

[Firestorm]

:=If you go to the Rebreather Resource Centre; <a href="http://www.bsac.org/techserv/rrc/index.html" >http://www.bsac.org/techserv/rrc/index.html</a>
:=or if you do a search, there is no mention of the KISS statement.
:=It seems to me as if the only way for us to find out up to date information is for the people doing the work, ie Mike, to actually tell us, because it's seems as if BSAC doesn't want us to know.
:=
:=F.

Errr, ?scuse me? Mike, me, YOU (hopefully), et al =ARE= ?the BSAC?. I personally propagated Mike?s post to one of the major UK diving forums just so that as many divers as possible would know. I?m not quite sure who is actually responsible for the RRC on the web site, I think it may be Mike B (who is on holiday). It WILL be updated, but please excuse us if we want to communicate things quickly rather than delay it whilst we make it all pretty.

Mike R quite correctly formally announced the news as soon as a statement was ready, that was the right thing to do. We?ll catch up on updating all of our other information in due course, but meanwhile the intention of the BSAC to enable KISS rebreathers within our branches is quite clear.

Keith Lawrence
BSAC Council Member
BSAC IT Team Leader

The statement has been out for over 2 weeks, are you telling us that you can't update a website quicker than that? Even if Mike B. is on holiday, have you ever heard of delegation?
The web site is a source of information for all divers, not just for BSAC members. Like I said if you do a search there is nothing about the statement, not even a link to the post Mike R. made. So how would people know about it if they hadn't browsed the forum? They wouldn't.
My point here is that a lot of people work very hard for BSAC, mostly in their own time & quite often getting a lot of hassle for their troubles (as can be seen on these very forums). Is it too much to ask that the organisation these people work hard for update their information promptly within a reasonable timescale?

F.

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

I know.
Yes.
I have.
Try Google.
I know.
Like many of us.
Obviously.

I am sure we are all looking forward to the candidature of somebody who knows what they are doing!

K

[Firestorm]

I know.
Yes.

Then why not try it (delegation) we might get things moving!

I have.
Try Google.

That's all well & good but if someone comes to the BSAC site & uses the site's search facility or goes to the rebreather resourse centre, where lets face it the info should be, & nothing comes up they are probably going to think that the BSAC doesn't accept the use of the unit.

I know.
Like many of us.
Obviously.

I am sure we are all looking forward to the candidature of somebody who knows what they are doing!

So you're saying that the person (Mike B.) who is doing the job at the moment doesn't know what he's doing?
Maybe it's time to start looking for a better person to do the job then, as it's clearly not being done at the moment.
Two weeks plus to update a source of information I would consider unacceptable.

F.

[iainmsmith]

:=So what do we think the chances of the "Maximum 80% Max PPO2 1.4" being revoked might be?

Maximum 80% has not been the case for some time. This has been stated on these forums a number of times.

Can you provide a link, please? As you're doubtless aware, this is an issue I'm particularly interested in, but I have no recollection of such statements, despite following the fora reasonably closely (RB-specific threads, as they're not relevent to the diving I do at the moment).

&gt; As Nigel pointed out, we worded this out some time ago under
&gt; the old regime in RSDPs.

And was anyone going to tell those of us who don't dive RBs and don't happen to have any buddies or club members who do?

However, interestingly, I can't now find any references to a max FO2 of 80% on the website, even in the mixed gas enabling statement, whereas I could have sworn that this was originally in there...

I also note that the SDPs paragraph relating to oxygen has now dropped the line: "The use of Nitrox mixtures containing up to 80% oxygen is permitted for diving by properly trained and qualified BSAC members. Mixtures containing more than 80% oxygen are NOT recommended for use by recreational divers."

replacing it with:

"The recommendation for using Nitrox 80 as an open circuit decompression gas was not in opposition to using 100% oxygen..."

Leaving aside the fact that the first statement rather explicitly opposes the use of 100% oxygen(!), the statement on the "Use of 100% Oxygen and BSAC's Recommendation for Maximum PPO2" rather implies that the 80% limit is still in force. ("another recommendation was to use a maximum of Nitrox 80 as a decompression gas"). However, given the pruning of the rest of the website, I'm prepared to believe that someone forgot to explicitly state that this recommendation has now been superceded.

Now, I may be being really stupid here (and my apologies if I am), but after years of saying, "No more than 80% may be used. End of story." (eg the questions from the floor annually at DOC), did the Powers-That-Be honestly think that such a significant change in position did not merit an unequivocal, formal announcement to the membership???

Anyway, however we've got here (and I'd still like to see a formal statement published to that effect, rather than a "by-the-way" on the fora) and however long we've taken to get here, thank you, BSAC, and can we please move a little faster (and more overtly!) on ppO2max - the other major outstanding source of discontent amongst many of the club's technical divers?

But if the restriction to an FO2max of 80% has been dropped, then I'm genuinely glad.

Iain

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

:=I am sure we are all looking forward to the candidature of somebody who knows what they are doing!

So you're saying that the person (Mike B.) who is doing the job at the moment doesn't know what he's doing?
Maybe it's time to start looking for a better person to do the job then, as it's clearly not being done at the moment.
Two weeks plus to update a source of information I would consider unacceptable.

No, but I am sure that everybody is looking forward to YOUR candidature as you obviously have all of the answers. It?s just a pity that you haven?t got the first clue about how things are structured, who is responsible for what and how things actually work in relation to our volunteer and paid assistance.

It?s obviously =ME= who is not up to doing this job, as what is effectively the IT Director of the BSAC such failings are my direct responsibility. But I am prepared to stand up and admit that everything is not perfect, whilst doing everything that I can to address any issues and improve services to our members. I stand by my record (much of it unseen) and I do so under a real name, as a real person, with a real email address.

Unlike you, whose main purpose on these forums seems to be to whinge, whine, complain and criticise whilst not having any practical answers or solutions to any of the issues that you pretend to be concerned about. All from behind the safety of your childish little handle so that nobody knows who you are. Which, if you actually bothered to look, is contrary to the customary use of these forums and also to the note at the top left of every forum page.

Put up or shut up, grow up or butt out. I?ve wasted far too much of my time on you when I have genuine issues from genuine members to address, so I?m not wasting any more of it. The next time you try slagging off the BSAC or its volunteers from behind the safety of your keyboard ? your out, I?ll delete you and block you without notice. If you haven?t got the guts to sensibly discuss things as a real member then you?re not wanted here. This is not a matter for discussion, you will conduct yourself in a polite and civilised manner or not at all. Your call.

Keith L

[Giles R]

:=:=I am sure we are all looking forward to the candidature of somebody who knows what they are doing!
:=
:=So you're saying that the person (Mike B.) who is doing the job at the moment doesn't know what he's doing?
:=Maybe it's time to start looking for a better person to do the job then, as it's clearly not being done at the moment.
:=Two weeks plus to update a source of information I would consider unacceptable.

No, but I am sure that everybody is looking forward to YOUR candidature as you obviously have all of the answers. It?s just a pity that you haven?t got the first clue about how things are structured, who is responsible for what and how things actually work in relation to our volunteer and paid assistance.

It?s obviously =ME= who is not up to doing this job, as what is effectively the IT Director of the BSAC such failings are my direct responsibility. But I am prepared to stand up and admit that everything is not perfect, whilst doing everything that I can to address any issues and improve services to our members. I stand by my record (much of it unseen) and I do so under a real name, as a real person, with a real email address.

Unlike you, whose main purpose on these forums seems to be to whinge, whine, complain and criticise whilst not having any practical answers or solutions to any of the issues that you pretend to be concerned about. All from behind the safety of your childish little handle so that nobody knows who you are. Which, if you actually bothered to look, is contrary to the customary use of these forums and also to the note at the top left of every forum page.

Put up or shut up, grow up or butt out. I?ve wasted far too much of my time on you when I have genuine issues from genuine members to address, so I?m not wasting any more of it. The next time you try slagging off the BSAC or its volunteers from behind the safety of your keyboard ? your out, I?ll delete you and block you without notice. If you haven?t got the guts to sensibly discuss things as a real member then you?re not wanted here. This is not a matter for discussion, you will conduct yourself in a polite and civilised manner or not at all. Your call.

Keith L

Actually Keith I think he has a point.
Having watched from a close distance the hard work that Mike & the rest of the RWG has put into developing the rebreather course over the past few years & all the shouting that has gone on as to why the BSAC hasn't done this, that or the other I would have thought the least that could be done would be to upload the information that divers & BSAC members would like to read asap.
I freely admit that I'm no IT boffin, but I'm sure it could be done a bit quicker.

Cheers

Giles
Maureen of Dart.

[firestorm]

:=:=I am sure we are all looking forward to the candidature of somebody who knows what they are doing!
:=
:=So you're saying that the person (Mike B.) who is doing the job at the moment doesn't know what he's doing?
:=Maybe it's time to start looking for a better person to do the job then, as it's clearly not being done at the moment.
:=Two weeks plus to update a source of information I would consider unacceptable.

No, but I am sure that everybody is looking forward to YOUR candidature as you obviously have all of the answers. It?s just a pity that you haven?t got the first clue about how things are structured, who is responsible for what and how things actually work in relation to our volunteer and paid assistance.

It?s obviously =ME= who is not up to doing this job, as what is effectively the IT Director of the BSAC such failings are my direct responsibility. But I am prepared to stand up and admit that everything is not perfect, whilst doing everything that I can to address any issues and improve services to our members. I stand by my record (much of it unseen) and I do so under a real name, as a real person, with a real email address.

Unlike you, whose main purpose on these forums seems to be to whinge, whine, complain and criticise whilst not having any practical answers or solutions to any of the issues that you pretend to be concerned about. All from behind the safety of your childish little handle so that nobody knows who you are. Which, if you actually bothered to look, is contrary to the customary use of these forums and also to the note at the top left of every forum page.

Put up or shut up, grow up or butt out. I?ve wasted far too much of my time on you when I have genuine issues from genuine members to address, so I?m not wasting any more of it. The next time you try slagging off the BSAC or its volunteers from behind the safety of your keyboard ? your out, I?ll delete you and block you without notice. If you haven?t got the guts to sensibly discuss things as a real member then you?re not wanted here. This is not a matter for discussion, you will conduct yourself in a polite and civilised manner or not at all. Your call.

Keith L

You loose your temper easily Keith!!!
But hang on a minute, all I did was bring to the attention of the forum/members that the information cannot be found in the relevenat place, in this case the rebreather resourse centre.
I did not 'slag off' the volunteers of the BSAC, quite the opposite in fact;-
"My point here is that a lot of people work very hard for BSAC, mostly in their own time & quite often getting a lot of hassle for their troubles (as can be seen on these very forums)."
I have conducted myself in a polite & civilised manner, and the fact that I choose to use 'Firestorm' is neither here nor there (and I'm not the only one to use a so called handle). The fact is that people/divers can not find information relating to the Kiss in the relevent area. As this info has been out for some time I find this unacceptable & is a valid complaint.
It's a pity that when someone doesn't agree with what someone says, whoever they are, the only course of action is to threaten to ban them. Hardly free speech in a democratic society.

F.

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Actually Keith I think he has a point.

Having watched from a close distance the hard work that Mike & the rest of the RWG has put into developing the rebreather course over the past few years & all the shouting that has gone on as to why the BSAC hasn't done this, that or the other I would have thought the least that could be done would be to upload the information that divers & BSAC members would like to read asap.

I freely admit that I'm no IT boffin, but I'm sure it could be done a bit quicker.

Hi Giles

It?s the way that the point is made that is important. Yes, there are issues here that need addressing, but shouting and hollering from behind a false identity are not the correct way to address them.

What is required here is greater communication between the various parts of the BSAC and between the BSAC and our members. That has always been our weak point and something that we?re trying to address. I already know what went wrong here, it is something that I (and probably others) will bring to the attention of the parties concerned.

The NDC and the working parties, such as the RWG, are semi-autonomous bodies, their power is delegated to them by Council and we trust them to do their job. They are the experts, we trust their judgement, it is only matters of major BSAC policy and impact that come back to Council. As such I (and I suspect many) did not know about the pending KISS statement, we didn?t need to, it was not ?important? enough in the grand scheme of things to be a direct Council matter.

What Mike R and the RWG don?t know, probably because we haven?t communicated our presence well enough yet, is that we have a brand new Communications Team under the leadership of Marcus (Vice Chair). Ideally matters of communication, such as the KISS statement, should go through that team so the information can be fully disseminated. Mike R wasn?t to know that, he acted correctly and with the best of intentions, the failings are with myself (as a member of the Comms Team) and the Comms Team as a whole. These are matters that I will be raising.

We are making many, many changes in communications, procedures, responsibilities etc. etc. to improve the service that we give to our members. The point of delegation that was made about the web site authorship was valid but very badly made and ill informed. I have in fact been spreading the load away from Mike B and making people such as HQ directly responsible for ?their? information and its currency for some years now, this is a continuing process with Mike acting as our ?Editor In Chief? and the actual updates being done by others. I am not sure who owns the RRC and who is responsible for updating it, this is an issue that I will be addressing.

Yes, ?the BSAC? have made mistakes here. We recognise that and will be taking steps to address them. But when I get mindless little children hiding behind false identities making sweeping statements such as ?because it's seems as if BSAC doesn't want us to know? then yes, it annoys me. I know that is isn?t true, I have better things to do than waste my time putting them right, I would much rather sort out the actual issues. I do not expect our volunteers or our staff to put up with insults, I?m certainly not going to put up with it myself. If people are not prepared to make valid and civilised points (such as you have Giles) and want to just criticise and slag people off then I have no time for them, they can go and play elsewhere because they are NOT going to do it on these forums whilst I am in charge of them. That has always been my policy, it always will be, only a change of IT Team Leader is going to change that.

I hope that explains things Giles, as always it?s not what is said, it is the WAY that it is said. We very much welcome open and constructive criticism of the way that we do things, how else would we know what we need to improve on? But clueless and anonymous whinges are not welcome, they never have been, they never will be. That, I?m afraid, is my bottom line on this matter.

Kind Regards

Keith L

[Mike Rowley]

Now, I may be being really stupid here (and my apologies if I am), but after years of saying, "No more than 80% may be used. End of story." (eg the questions from the floor annually at DOC), did the Powers-That-Be honestly think that such a significant change in position did not merit an unequivocal, formal announcement to the membership???

The BSAC is the sum of its parts. "The powers that be" change as new people are elected and appointed. Policies and philosophies change. Concepts and recommendations that were sensible or cautious when introduced can change with time and experience. We do need to give people the benefit of the doubt. I don't think anyone introduced the 80% recommendation purely to be obstructive. I was not party to it but I am sure it was based on the best advice at the time.

The work of the rebreather group was probably instrumental in challanging the 80% since it is very dificult to argue that someone should not have access to all of the gas they carry in an emergency and one of those gases has to be 100%. In practice it would be very difficult to police a CCR diver using 100% on the loop during a decompression stop. Therefore enforcing 80% PO2 becomes impracticable.

Anyway, however we've got here (and I'd still like to see a formal statement published to that effect, rather than a "by-the-way" on the fora) and however long we've taken to get here, thank you, BSAC, and can we please move a little faster (and more overtly!) on ppO2max - the other major outstanding source of discontent amongst many of the club's technical divers?


The 1.4bars PO2 will take somewhat longer I think. It will no doubt come under scrutiny as we progress to developing trimix courses for both CCR and OC.

Be patient, unilateral declarations are seldom possible in a democratic organisation.

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Dear ?Firestorm?

Comments such as ?

?because it's seems as if BSAC doesn't want us to know?
?have you ever heard of delegation??
?Is it too much to ask that the organisation these people work hard for update their information promptly?
?Maybe it's time to start looking for a better person to do the job then?

Are not appropriate comment for these forums in my opinion and it?s my opinion that counts. Go and whinge about handles, freedom of speech et al elsewhere if you like, just don?t waste my time doing it on here. See my response to Giles. If you cannot understand the concepts of civility and constructive comment then you are not wanted here, end of story.

Once again ? it?s your call. If you don?t like that, then tough, go and play elsewhere. Now, please excuse me whilst I deal with far more important matters.

Keith L

[iainmsmith]

:=
:=Now, I may be being really stupid here (and my apologies if I am), but after years of saying, "No more than 80% may be used. End of story." (eg the questions from the floor annually at DOC), did the Powers-That-Be honestly think that such a significant change in position did not merit an unequivocal, formal announcement to the membership???

The BSAC is the sum of its parts. "The powers that be" change as new people are elected and appointed. Policies and philosophies change. Concepts and recommendations that were sensible or cautious when introduced can change with time and experience. We do need to give people the benefit of the doubt. I don't think anyone introduced the 80% recommendation purely to be obstructive. I was not party to it but I am sure it was based on the best advice at the time.

The work of the rebreather group was probably instrumental in challanging the 80% since it is very dificult to argue that someone should not have access to all of the gas they carry in an emergency and one of those gases has to be 100%. In practice it would be very difficult to police a CCR diver using 100% on the loop during a decompression stop. Therefore enforcing 80% PO2 becomes impracticable.

I accept all of the above...but the point remains that there appears to have been little attempt to get this the word of this change out beyond the rebreather divers...despite the applause it would have got from the OC technical divers in BSAC (myself among them). Instead, I feel frustrated because there has (probably) been this long-awaited change...and no-one has formally told us!

The 1.4bars PO2 will take somewhat longer I think. It will
no doubt come under scrutiny as we progress to developing
trimix courses for both CCR and OC.

Doubtless...however, I suspect if it has been felt that it would be difficult to police RB divers using 100% for deco, then the same logic suggests that it's going to be equally difficult to stop divers who are deco-ing on O2 from doing so at 6m, rather than 4m. After all, (as I think is implied above) the BSAC might be able to limit what gases can be sold to its qualification holders, by limitations on those qualifications and, to an extent can, by diktat, limit what gases can be used on Branch dives, but there's not a lot it can do to police the actual use of those gases by divers underwater...especially where those gases are being used in accordance with other-agency qualifications already held by the divers.

But we shall wait and see...without stirring too often in the interim. :-)

Iain

[Mike Rowley]

I accept all of the above...but the point remains that there appears to have been little attempt to get this the word of this change out beyond the rebreather divers...despite the applause it would have got from the OC technical divers in BSAC (myself among them). Instead, I feel frustrated because there has (probably) been this long-awaited change...and no-one has formally told us!

I cannot disagree with what you say Ian. However, we have to work within the system until it changes and until recently my area of responsibility only concerned rebreathers. I hope you will see a more open and enlightened approach now we have a Technical department established in BSAC and a head of Technical at the highest level in Jeff Reed. Jeff has a very open mind about these things and like Clare has a background in technical diving.

I am hopefull that the new NDC structure will be published soon so that people will know who is doing what and when. As Keith says, there is now a formal system for disseminating information under the Vice Chairman. It remains to be seen how well this works, I am told there are around 30 people on this committee. If this is the case it does not strike me as an ideal vehicle for rapid dissemination of information but time will tell, we can but hope it works well.

If you want a personal opinion, for what it is worth, my view is that the dangers of high PO2 for decompression have been over estimated. I don't blame people for this, they had genuine concerns and were probably right to be cautious. In addition, I don't think that it was envisaged that BSAC would move into trimix when the nitrox and ERD courses were written.
However, experience with rebreathers tends to suggest that it is less of a problem than first thought. To change the corporate view other people need to be convinced and assured, this may take time and patience. With the development of BSAC trimix courses the issue of PO2 will have to be considered afresh.

[Philip Smith]

It is also an offence to teach for commercial gain when using a non-CE marked rebreather under HSE regs. I don't wish to get into what I think of the HSE and their idiotic diving regs, Keith would be chastising me for profane and foul language.

The Diving at Work Regulations don't say anthing about CE marking. DWR97 are so general and goal-setting, I'm not sure what you take such strong exception to (especially if you had experience of the previous regulations, DOWR81). If I remember correctly, it is the combination of the regulations on provision of personal protective equipment at work and the regulations on the sale of PPE that require CE marking.

Philip Smith

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

As Keith says, there is now a formal system for disseminating information under the Vice Chairman. It remains to be seen how well this works, I am told there are around 30 people on this committee. If this is the case it does not strike me as an ideal vehicle for rapid dissemination of information but time will tell, we can but hope it works well.

I know Mike, we're getting nearly as bad as the NDC :-) But like the NDC we're split into our specialist areas so we don't all sit around collectively agreeing everything! I'd like to second your comments re Jeff and Clare, I've found Jeff very helpful in my few dealings so far and of course I know Clare from her previous Council role. I can confirm that there is a very real desire from the NDO down to improve the way that things work.

So - with a new NDO taking the helm, the restructuring of the NDC, the creation of a new Comms team and Comms strategy... Ooops, we've screwed up a bit on the comms to this one! Why am I not all that surprised? I guess that we'll just have to live with that failing Mike and try and do better next time :-)

Cheers Mike, keep up the good work.

Keith L