BSAC & Regulator Donating : A Statement

"Keith Lawrence" <false@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3fc1493a$0$52887$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk

> 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.

OK - here goes. Here's a statement from a bloke you might know. I
understand he's a Council member, and AFAIK he's speaking on behalf of
BSAC here.


http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...p.net.uk#link1

Note that the second line of the statement says "we do not teach
donate/take of the primary DV".

That's a prohibition. It says that we don't do it - whether instructor,
student, passing divinity wants to - we don't.

That's a prohibition, however nice a slant one might like to put on it.

Vic.

p.s. d236 appears to have died...


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

Oh, and BTW, I thought I'd just let you know how deeply in the shit I am for
spending so much time explaining our position. My fiancee and I finally had
our engagement party yesterday night and were supposed to be having a
relaxed day together. For some reason, I didn't find it easy to settle...



Iain

"David Walker" <wbsdavenews@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bprk3n$6vp$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk

> So if you were NDO for BSAC now, what would you do?

I would take pains to make sure that we were *enabling* people to do
what they wanted, within a certain framework. This is probably what BSAC
intended to do with this statement - unfortunately, that is not the
result.

Vic.


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

> Note that the second line of the statement says "we do not teach
> donate/take of the primary DV".
>
> That's a prohibition. It says that we don't do it - whether instructor,
> student, passing divinity wants to - we don't.

From what i've read, there seems to be several different situations all
getting mixed up:

1) Teaching as part of a BSAC course, instead of the conventional way
2) Teaching as part of a BSAC course, in addition to the conventional way
3) Teaching someone to do it, but under the condition that they know you
aren't doing it as part of BSAC, but just as a diver and a friend learning
from each other
4) Two divers using that as their primary method of AAS in the normal course
of non-training diving

Once these different positions are separated, the whole thing will become
much more clear.

For what its worth, my interpretation is:
1) A definate no-no!
2) Probably not!
3) They can't really stop you.
4) Again they can't stop you.

As for insurance issues, I see the point people bring that if they are
diving with configuration that is seen to be against bsac rules, then if
they had an accident then the insurance may say 'no, sorry you're not
covered'. However, if there was a statement by bsac to say 'yes, you can
use it in this situation, but not in this other situation' then people could
use it with confidence that their insurance cover was valid. If it is a
case that bsac insurance won't cover you under normal diving using that as
your primary method of AAS then that would effectively be prohibition - I
don't believe that would happen. Apart from anything else, you could just
argue that you would donate the other reg, just that you wanted to keep them
close! :O)

David

"Iain Smith" <iainmsmith@btinternet.com> wrote ...

I am sorry Iain, I do not have the time nor the inclination to pursue this
to the nth level of pedantry and a complete appraisal of the entire BSAC
DTP.

As my interim position pending the formal clarification -

+ Stowage does not equal active use.
+ Take does not equal donate.
+ You will teach the DTP as it is written and you may not change it.
+ There is no formal ban on the teaching of optional additional techniques
as far as I am aware.

I have nothing more to add to that and no time left with which to add it.

Keith L

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

> Note that the second line of the statement says "we do not teach
> donate/take of the primary DV".

Oh FGS! Lizzie is perfecting correct within the context of the BSAC DTP, we
do not teach long hose techniques within any of the BSAC courses. Now you
have taken that to read "we must not teach...".

Give me a bloody break. I'll go back to Lizzie, I'll ask for yet more
clarification of the statement in advance of the full clarification. I know
what she will say, "wait for the formal response", and quite frankly I don't
blame her!

Do you know how difficult it can be getting people to say something when
you're all baying for an answer like you were after the NEC? For some
strange reason people get sick of the pedantry and endless tearing apart,
interpretaions and reassembly of everything that they say. They try to be
helpful and it is thrown in their face. Then what happens is that they don't
say anything because it is more trouble than it's worth.

Keep going folks, you're making my job of trying to help people difficult
enough as it is, with a bit more effort you can make it absolutely
impossible and not worth me trying any more!

Cut me some slack on this, give me a bloody chance - or get somebody else to
do it, because I am now very rapidly running out of time, patience and
inclination. I am trying to deal with real issues that affect real divers in
real clubs, not get bogged down in endless pedantry.

Keith L

Tired, p*ssed off, going to bed and had enough of this.

> 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,

Acknowledged.

> that it would be very expensive for clubs to change all their
> regs to long hoses

You do _not_ need to use a long hose to use this technique. The majority of
our club sets have "conventional" lengths of hose on them.

> and given that you want all bsac divers to be able to
> dive with all other bsac divers without all doing different
> things

That isn't ever going to happen! You will never get all BSAC divers using
the same kit in the same way. That doesn't stop us diving together.

> so all clubs should teach the same way, not a way
> determined purely by what kit they teach on!

I would allow clubs to teach AAS drills the way that they want to teach. I
would specifically include discussion of primary/backup techniques in the
DTP so that _everyone_ becomes aware of them whether they are
teaching/learning that technique in their own Branches. I would stress
within the DTP (even more than at present) that different people use
different AAS techniques and familiarity with buddy's equipment and
agreement of techniques to be used MUST be discussed and practiced before
doing anything other than a noddy dive.

And I would stress that if a buddy pair or team are working well together,
then the OOA diver is not going to come from amongst them, but will be
someone that they may never have seen before, who is not going to know what
plans and agreement they may have and is going to act entirely on survival
instinct.

Iain

"David Walker" <wbsdavenews@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bprkrq$7hu$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk

> For what its worth, my interpretation is:

Ah - and there's the problem. That's *your* interpretation (and a
reasonable one, IMHO) - it's decidedly *not* what the BSAC statement
says.

The NDO's statement quite clearly states "we do not teach donate/take of
the primary DV". So the first 3 of your situations are explicitly
prohibited, and whilst the fourth case is still possible, we're not
allowed to train divers to do it if they want to.

That's the problem...

Vic.


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

"Keith Lawrence" <false@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3fc157a6$0$52883$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk

> Oh FGS! Lizzie is perfecting correct within the context of the BSAC
> DTP

So if the statement is valid only within a given context, would it not
make sense to state that context?

> Now you
> have taken that to read "we must not teach...".

I have - because others will. If that's not what's intended, then l;et's
say what *is* intended. We come back once again to the situation where
we need to say what we mean...

> Do you know how difficult it can be getting people to say something when
> you're all baying for an answer like you were after the NEC? For some
> strange reason people get sick of the pedantry and endless tearing apart,
> interpretaions and reassembly of everything that they say.

How often do we get reminded of the fact that we live in an increasingly
litigious society? When we are exposed to risk as a result of someone
making an ambiguous statement, it's hardly surprising that we want to
see it modified.

> They try to be
> helpful and it is thrown in their face.

No-one's having anything "thrown in their face" - what's just happened
is that a statement has been assessed by a number of people and found to
say sonmething it didn't intend to (or at least I hope that's what we've
discovered). This sort of proof-reading is better conducted prior to
publication, but it will certainly happen afterwards - it pays to be
clear...

> Keep going folks, you're making my job of trying to help people difficult
> enough as it is, with a bit more effort you can make it absolutely
> impossible and not worth me trying any more!

Why take it like that? There's been no hostility here - there's been a
thorough assessment, during which a few holes have been identified. That
improves the statement, it doesn't detract from it. And that *just
might* stop a few people leaving. Isn't that a good thing?

> Cut me some slack on this, give me a bloody chance - or get somebody else to
> do it, because I am now very rapidly running out of time, patience and
> inclination. I am trying to deal with real issues that affect real divers in
> real clubs, not get bogged down in endless pedantry.

I for one see this as a real issue. I truly hope BSAC do as well.

Vic.


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

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

> So if the statement is valid only within a given context, would it not
> make sense to state that context?

> > Now you
> > have taken that to read "we must not teach...".

> I have - because others will...

We don't formally teach ankle weights either, so lets say we have a "ban" on
them as well shall we...

BOTTOM LINE
===========
I have now run out of time to argue pedantics and semantics of an interim
statement, I am not going to waste any more of my, Lizzie's or anybody
else's time on it. I can work to get the entire thing clarified for
everybody or I can argue dictionary definitions, I can no longer do both. I
have made my choice and I am therefore withdrawing from this entire
exchange.

Read into Lizzie's statement what you will, if you try hard enough I am sure
that you will be able to construct at least as many possible meanings as we
have members, I prefer to just read the words. You will now have to wait for
the final clarification.

Keith L