BSAC & Regulator Donating : A Statement

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 14:06:18 GMT, "Lee Bell"
<leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:

>> "... teach for the more real situation of the recipient taking the donor's
>> AAS from it's stowage, not waiting for the donor to remove and offer it."
>
>> Now to me, and to the vast majority of people, that is quite clear. The
>AAS
>> is removed from its STOWAGE - if you choose to redefine 'stowage' as your
>> mouth and the regulator that you are currently (as donor) using then that
>> pedantic redefinition and interpretation is not acceptable, the NDO has
>> clarified that.
>
>It does appear that the standards are written only for a standard octopus,
>but, all that really needs to change is the definition of stowage. Those
>that use and donate the long hose have long since redesignated what you
>might call an octopus, as an alternate. Note that this is not backup, not
>secondary, but alternate.

Stowage has a pretty clear 'place where something is kept while not in
use' implication. Yes, I suppose you could argue that it was stowed in
your mouth, but it would be daft.

> Please also note that the DTP states "not waiting for the
>> donor to remove and offer it", that clearly precludes the use of long hose
>> remove donate techniques at the very elementary level. (OS2 is the second
>> pool session for brand new newbie's for those not familiar with BSAC
>> training).
>
>Not waiting for a regulator to be offered is completely consistent with the
>use and donating of the long hose. One of the standard elements of donating
>the long hose is that the OOA diver is not requested to or expected to wait
>for it to be offered. You need it, you take it. I'll be the first to admit
>that this requires new divers to be trained for this possibility and to be
>taught not to have a mouth and teeth death grip on the regulator while
>diving, but I also am one of the first to say that these are things that
>should be taught regardless. As long as we can't reliably predict what an
>OOA diver will do, we'd better keep training for all likely actions.
>
>> The BSAC DTP is quite clear IMHO, Lizzie's statement is also quite clear,
>> correct and in line with that DTP IMHO. Given those very clear words in
>the
>> DTP and Lizzie's very clear confirmation of the meaning of those words it
>is
>> now up to you to convince me otherwise.
>
>Then it's time to change the DTP. It's less safe than teaching the broader
>range of equiment configurations and possible situations.
>
>Lee
>


Do remember though that this is the basic course. This is for newbies.
It's important to teach newbies how to be safe underwater in the first
place instead of filling their heads with so many ideas and approaches
that they can't do anything well. Going for an AAS is something that
they shouldn't have to think about.

To be fair, if I'm diving with twins I will run through all the
options (fairly long octopus on the left, bungied long hose in my
mouth, you're OK to take either of those, short hose reg on the cord
about my neck, that one's just for me) but I won't be using the twins
in training dives.
-------------------------------------
York BSAC Web Page:
http://website.lineone.net/~york_bsac

"Iain Smith" <iainmsmith@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:v85wb.2090$qn4.16757@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net

<snip a shedload of material with which I basically agree>

> In other words, if a couple of
> non-instructors decide that they like the idea and go off and experiment
> with it, that's fine. But as a BSAC Instructor I now CANNOT teach any BSAC
> member of whatever grade how to use this technique under ANY circumstances.

It also means, of course, that if two CDs (or maybe even CD trainees - I
ahven't thought about it enough yet) decide to experiment with donating
the primary, we'd be in no position to stop it. A BSAC instructor can't
teach them to do it properly, but it's a simple skill, so they'll be OK.

Of course they'd only get the idea if someone were to leave some written
material carelessly lying around. Or maybe emphasised how much we're not
allowed to teach it...

On a more serious note, we're once again in the position where BSAC is
prohibiting, rather than enabling diving. This helps no-one unless
what's being prohibited is actually dangerous. I do hope BSAC has some
evidence that this is the case here - otherwise we're back to the Nitrox
debacle ;-(

Vic.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Vic" <vic@innocent.com> wrote...

> On a more serious note, we're once again in the position where BSAC is
> prohibiting, rather than enabling diving.

[FX; GROAN!]
No Vic, =THERE IS CURRENTLY NO BAN OR PROHIBITION=, how many times do I have
to say that? Just how many ways can people reinterpret and redefine a simple
statement of fact? No, don't tell me, don't demonstrate...

K

"Nick Eden" wrote

> Do remember though that this is the basic course. This is for newbies.
> It's important to teach newbies how to be safe underwater in the first
> place instead of filling their heads with so many ideas and approaches
> that they can't do anything well. Going for an AAS is something that
> they shouldn't have to think about.

Not everyone agrees with you. Some believe that even a newbie should have a
full range of skills before being presented with a card that says "go forth
and dive safely."

Lee

> Not everyone agrees with you. Some believe that even a newbie should have
a
> full range of skills before being presented with a card that says "go
forth
> and dive safely."

But thats just not ever going to happen. You couldn't (using BSAC as an
example) put everything from Ocean Diver, Sports Diver and Dive Leader into
the initial course before you let them dive without an instructor, and its
not until Dive Leader that you really know the full range of skills. It
would kill the sport! There has to be compromise on what they really need
to know to be able to dive without more experienced instruction, and at that
level you can't show them every alternative way of doing anything. Think
about it, by the end of Ocean Diver they'll have done 5 (or is it 6?) open
water dives - you could spend one of those dives just showing them all the
different options for AAS and you'd never get anything done. The way it
works now, is that they should all be taught the same way, and diving with
any other Ocean Divers should hopefully both know the same way and have
similar kit configurations. Only diving with more experienced divers and
instructors should they be introduced to alternative ways, and under those
circumstances they could be shown - *after* their initial training.

Thats my thoughts anyway! :O)

David

"Keith Lawrence" <false@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3fc12c77$0$52883$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk

> [FX; GROAN!]
> No Vic, =THERE IS CURRENTLY NO BAN OR PROHIBITION=

Yes there is!

If there were no ban, BSAC instructors could teach donation of the
primary.

They can't, can they? That's what this whole thread is about.

If that's not a prohibition, I don't know what is.

Vic.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:47:50 +0000, Keith Lawrence wrote:

> There you go, you’re hacking lumps out of the everyday DIVING practices
> and applying them to the TRAINING practices. As Lizzie’s statement
> states this is a TRAINING issue.

Is it? As I've already pointed out and you've ignored it. The full
statement includes this:

"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"

What you teach to BSAC members is a BSAC issue. As a non-BSAC diver who
buddies BSAC divers on a regular basis, what are the implications of
someone diving with the long hose, contrary to BSAC recommendations, on a
non-training dive?

If it was just a TRAINING issue, there would be none. Unfortunately,
especially regarding insurance, I have a hard time believing that's the
case.

Jason

--
http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/ for Maldivian trip reports including Kuredu,
Fesdu, Meedhupparu, Summer Island Village and Velidhu

"Vic" <vic@innocent.com> wrote ...

> > [FX; GROAN!]
> > No Vic, =THERE IS CURRENTLY NO BAN OR PROHIBITION=

> Yes there is!

Oh well, I suppose that it is the panto season

Tell you what Vic, one of us is right, one of us is wrong. It is impossible
to prove a negative, therefore I want you to produce or reference the
official BSAC document that backs up your assertion that a ban is in place.
I want PROOF, not hearsay, not words or manipulated words of people who do
not speak directly for the NDO, NDC or Council.

Provide me with that proof and then come back to me, if you can't then at
least concede that you are wrong. Until that proof is produced I see no
point in continuing this exchange.

Regards

Keith L

"Jason" <jason.usenet.nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote ...

> > There you go, you're hacking lumps out of the everyday DIVING practices
> > and applying them to the TRAINING practices. As Lizzie's statement
> > states this is a TRAINING issue.

> Is it? As I've already pointed out and you've ignored it.

You have NO IDEA of how much time and effort that I've put into this on
behalf of BSAC members, I am not ignoring you but non-member queries are not
at the top of my priority list.

> The full statement includes this:

> "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"

> What you teach to BSAC members is a BSAC issue. As a non-BSAC diver who
> buddies BSAC divers on a regular basis, what are the implications of
> someone diving with the long hose, contrary to BSAC recommendations, on a
> non-training dive?

You find me the BSAC documentation that specifically precludes the use of
the long hose as a BSAC recomemended practice and I will try to answer your
question. Until you can find me that document you are simply making
assumptions and reading into things what may or may not be there, at present
I do not have the time nor the inclination to engage in speculation to the
nth level of possibility on something that isn't even written down.

> If it was just a TRAINING issue, there would be none. Unfortunately,
> especially regarding insurance, I have a hard time believing that's the
> case.

Jason - you can believe what you like! Insurance issues are not for me, you
or the BSAC to decide, they are for the courts and the legal system to
ultimately decide. Make a judgement, exactly the same sort of judgement that
you have to make when driving your car at over the speed limit and deciding
on whether your insurance cover could be affected by your actions in breach
of guidelines.

When you have made that judgement, and you are EXACTLY sure of any likely
outcome, in ALL possible situations and scenarios - then lend me your time
machine, I'll pop into the future for you and answer your questions re
insurance issues with authority.

Stop asking for the impossible and you may get a better answer.

Keith L

> And if you've done any teaching around BSAC, you'll know perfectly well
that
> there are a thousand possibilities which are completely acceptable to the
> DTP, yet which result in a group of divers from DL to AI being unable to
> locate an AAS in a controlled instructor training event.

Hehe - we all managed at the one I was at! I have to say, if someone at one
of those had a long hose and a short one round their neck, then i'd have
gone for the shorter one, and then probably had a problem. I'd expect a lot
of divers would go for the one round the neck if that was just as clear as
the one in the mouth, and so we'd have a problem - unless of course we did a
buddy check before, which we would have done, so would know anyway... but
then that way everyone should always know where their buddies AAS is and so
this whole thread is completely academic!

> My believe is that we should teach the best way first, then let them
> experiment with alternatives afterwards. Not one of our four intakes who
> have been taught primary/backup and then played with "conventional" kit
did
> anything other than primary/backup after the course was over.

So if you were NDO for BSAC now, what would you do? Taking into account the
thousands of people who've been taught the 'conventional' way in the past,
the fact that 99% of club-owned kit is set up the conventional way, that it
would be very expensive for clubs to change all their regs to long loses,
and given that you want all bsac divers to be able to dive with all other
bsac divers without all doing different things, so all clubs should teach
the same way, not a way determined purely by what kit they teach on!

David