BSAC & Regulator Donating : A Statement

"Rob Lucas" <RobLucas1972@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>> Being careful not to shoot the messanger here, I think ST5.10 will
need
changing.

>Why? ST5 in itself is a discussion of the numerous different kit
>configurations available and gives the advantages and disadvantages
of each.
>I can't see why that should need changing in the light of Lizzie's
>statement.

I would change the slide to say that the Air II should not be used by
OD/SD as an AAS as you cannot donate it to your buddy (to make it in
line with Lizzie's statement). The slide discusses pros and cons but
does not state that it shouldn't be used as a sole AAS by OD / SD.

If we don't recommend it as a sole AAS to OD / SD, why stop there.
Surely we should recommend that it is not used at all?

>Of more importance and concern is OS2.10, the teaching of AAS - this
>specifies the AAS technique to be taught on BSAC courses.

I'm afraid I don't have a copy to hand.

> All that is being
>said is that's what's in the book, that's what must be taught. No
training
>agency that I am aware of allows you to scrap and ignore part of it's
>documented training scheme and replace it with something that you
personally
>prefer. That's the issue here.

Fair enough I accept that. But one of the great things about the BSAC
is that some things are flexible and can be adapted by the club. But
there are several issues where we are being too prescriptive, and this
is one of them.

Rob

"Rob Lucas" <RobLucas1972@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c8d7b61.0311220601.114787ff@posting.google.co m...
> "Rob Lucas" <RobLucas1972@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> >> Being careful not to shoot the messanger here, I think ST5.10 will
> need
> changing.
>
> >Why? ST5 in itself is a discussion of the numerous different kit
> >configurations available and gives the advantages and disadvantages
> of each.
> >I can't see why that should need changing in the light of Lizzie's
> >statement.
>
> I would change the slide to say that the Air II should not be used by
> OD/SD as an AAS as you cannot donate it to your buddy (to make it in
> line with Lizzie's statement). The slide discusses pros and cons but
> does not state that it shouldn't be used as a sole AAS by OD / SD.
>
> If we don't recommend it as a sole AAS to OD / SD, why stop there.
> Surely we should recommend that it is not used at all?
>
> >Of more importance and concern is OS2.10, the teaching of AAS - this
> >specifies the AAS technique to be taught on BSAC courses.
>
> I'm afraid I don't have a copy to hand.
>
> > All that is being
> >said is that's what's in the book, that's what must be taught. No
> training
> >agency that I am aware of allows you to scrap and ignore part of it's
> >documented training scheme and replace it with something that you
> personally
> >prefer. That's the issue here.
>
> Fair enough I accept that. But one of the great things about the BSAC
> is that some things are flexible and can be adapted by the club. But
> there are several issues where we are being too prescriptive, and this
> is one of them.

As a non bsac diver etc, I've got a tad more distance from the issue here.
Since I also dive a hog rig, when OC, I can also speak from experience.

Keith has raised some interesting (valid) points regarding kit config etc. I
can see BSAC's position given the spread of kit configurations. At the end
of the day, they have to ensure that whatever is taught is safe for their
members.

Unless/until all agencies teach the long hose and kit manufacturers deliver
this as the default option, you're going to exist in a state of compromise.

I for one dont envy the recreational agencies.....

As the chinese say "May you live in interesting times".

/Zak

"Rob Lucas" <RobLucas1972@hotmail.com> wrote...

> >Why? ST5 in itself is a discussion of the numerous different kit
> >configurations available and gives the advantages and disadvantages
> of each. I can't see why that should need changing in the light of
> Lizzie's statement.

> I would change the slide to say that the Air II should
> not be used by OD/SD as an AAS as you cannot donate
> it to your buddy (to make it in line with Lizzie's statement).

??? Lizzie's statement relates to TRAINING and TEACHING, please state
exactly which part of Lizzie statement you have got your view from.

> If we don't recommend it as a sole AAS to OD / SD, why
> stop there. Surely we should recommend that it is not
> used at all?

What an excellent idea. Maybe we should also get rid of decompression diving
and ban people from using stages as well - after all, they aren't used in OD
training either! I'm sorry Rob, you are reading into this and making wild
extrapolations =THAT ARE NOT THERE=. Lizzie's statement relates to training,
all that is being said is that instructors should follow the DTP during
training and not hack bits out to be replaced with their own personal
techniques. Please tell me about the agency that does allow you to hack
about and change its DTP!

> >Of more importance and concern is OS2.10, the teaching of AAS - this
> >specifies the AAS technique to be taught on BSAC courses.
> I'm afraid I don't have a copy to hand.

I do.

> > All that is being said is that's what's in the book, that's
> > what must be taught.

> Fair enough I accept that.

Good, then we are in agreement then and there is no problem.

> But one of the great things about the BSAC is that some
> things are flexible and can be adapted by the club.

Flexibility and adaptability only goes so far, changing the DTP is not
something that flexibility extends to. A club may not omit elements of the
DTP, they may not make mandatory additions, they may not make unapproved
substitutions(*). If you want something changed then go through the proper
channels, don't just hack things around because you feel like it. A BSAC
club either accepts BSAC training or they are not a BSAC club, it's a simple
as that.

Tell you what, here's another approach to flexibility - why don't you ask
GUE to accept that traditional AAS systems should be accepted into THEIR
training programme and taught as an optional extra. That would be an
excellent example of flexibility and would probably solve all of the
problems.

> But there are several issues where we are being too
> prescriptive, and this is one of them.

For the last time - NO IT IS NOT! Read Lizzie's statement, then read it
again. The BSAC is insisting that its training program is followed, if you
are reading that as "too prescriptive" then you are either reading it wrong
or we will have to agree to differ on the opinion of being "too
prescriptive".

Regards

Keith L

(*) The DTP may be amended in special circumstances at the discretion of the
NDO. The most frequent example of this is when teaching disabled divers.
Here elements may be omitted, changed or substituted to suit the divers
being trained - provided there is good reason to do so and the change is
approved.

> Lizzie's statement relates to training, all that is being
> said is that instructors should follow the DTP during
> training and not hack bits out to be replaced with their own
> personal techniques.

"their own personal techniques"? But as long as I've been with BSAC, there
has been a heavy emphasis on "there is no one BSAC way". The term used
throughout the DTP is "Alternative Air Source", _not_ "octopus".

> Please tell me about the agency that does allow you to hack
> about and change its DTP!

I'm not sure that we are. I think what we have been teaching is entirely in
keeping with the wording of the Instructor Manual.

> Tell you what, here's another approach to flexibility - why
> don't you ask GUE to accept that traditional AAS systems
> should be accepted into THEIR training programme and taught
> as an optional extra.

We've discussed this elsewhere. Since when did GUE advocate "personal
preference"? OTOH, that's _exactly_ what BSAC (claim to) promote.

> That would be an excellent example of flexibility and would
> probably solve all of the problems.

It would do nothing of the kind. GUE aren't the ones threatening to stop
BSAC instructors teaching a perfectly legitimate technique which is endorsed
by at least two of the other three major UK agencies (I don't know about
ScotSAC)

> For the last time - NO IT IS NOT! Read Lizzie's statement,
> then read it again. The BSAC is insisting that its training
> program is followed, if you are reading that as "too
> prescriptive" then you are either reading it wrong or we will
> have to agree to differ on the opinion of being "too
> prescriptive".

I'm with Rob on this one. Until now, primary/backup could (and was) taught
with absolute adherence to the DTP as per the instructor manual. There is
_nothing_ in there to prevent us teaching donating the primary. The
statement that "we do not teach donate/take of the primary DV." is hence
something that DOES NOT APPEAR in the DTP and is a new and additional
restriction.

(And before anyone jumps up shouting about OS 2.10, try to think
constructively how one could teach this part of the lesson with
primary/backup. It can be done.)

Iain

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

> I'm with Rob on this one. Until now, primary/backup could (and was) taught
> with absolute adherence to the DTP as per the instructor manual. There is
> _nothing_ in there to prevent us teaching donating the primary. The
> statement that "we do not teach donate/take of the primary DV." is hence
> something that DOES NOT APPEAR in the DTP and is a new and additional
> restriction.

We are going to have to agree to differ on the pedantics of this point Iain.
Although the exact words used by Lizzie of "we do not teach donate/take of
the primary DV" do not appear in the DTP as words they are the NDO's and
NDC's quite clear interpretation of what =DOES= appear in the DTP, it is not
new, it is not additional, it is simply restating what is already there.

Let me quote you the EXACT words from OS2.10 of the DTP -

"... 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. 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).

Therefore the words used by the NDO are =NOT= new or additional, they are
simply restating what is already there. Your statement that "Until now,
primary/backup could (and was) taught with absolute adherence to the DTP" is
also incorrect, given the above extract from the DTP I want you to explain
how you could interpret using primary/backup techniques is "with absolute
adherence to the DTP" because I just can't make the actions fit the words.


I'm sorry Iain, I am disagreeing with you completely on this one. If you
have interpreted the current DTP as allowing long hose remove/donate then I
believe that interpretation to be incorrect, please explain it to me given
the words in the DTP. I am also seeing nothing new or additional in Lizzie's
statement, again given the words in the DTP please explain it to me.

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.

Regards

Keith L

I've got a couple of things to bring to this discussion, primarily for
consideration of others.

1. I've paid a lot of attention to BSAC over the years. In my opinion,
their biggest and, perhaps, only advantage over other systems is the concept
of one diver teaching the next, the sharing of information between people
that know and care enough about their fellow members to teach. A system
that is so rigid that it must follow a predetermined agenda set by somebody
at a higher organizational level, gives up that advantage and will surely
fall to the marketing machine that backs all of the commercial agencies and
PADI in particular.

2. The advent, and popularity, of combination inflator/alternate devices
makes it mandatory for at least some divers to learn to donate the primary.
When DIR came a long, promoting the short hose, necklaced, alternate, the
number of people for whom donating the primary is the only logical choice,
increased dramatically. While I don't know that it has, it would not
surprise me to find that the number of people who really need to donate the
primary has grown to be greather than the number that still have practical
options. Even if it's not the majority, I think it's safe to say that there
are enough people out there that need to donate the primary to make it
foolish not to teach everybody how to do this effectively and safely,
whether you teach other methods or not.

I have always believed that learning more ways to deal with a possible
emergency is better than learning only one. There is no way to predict what
will go wrong or what will be necessary to survive a crisis underwater. The
more you know, the better the chances that you'll have at least one
combination of skills that will allow you to survive. Of course, I'm also
the one that believes that buddy breathing should be taught as part of the
introductory scuba course. At least I'm consistent.

Lee

> "... 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.

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

> 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.

Or to accept that "stowage" merely means "where something is kept".

> 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.

But note that the Dive Training Program does not require us to teach the use
of an octopus. It requires us to teach the use of "an Alternative Air
Source". An octopus is one form of AAS. A donated primary is another form of
AAS. What they both have in common is that they are only of use (to the
diver) if attached to the buddy's tank! A combined inflator/DV is further
away from an octopus in this regard in that people refer to it as an AAS but
it is not the reg that is taken/donated.

> 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.

Interestingly, I know Keith has seen correspondance from a particular agency
that stresses that they only teach donation, not taking. I disagree with
this particular approach, as I've been involved in a donation that went
badly wrong. I think I've discussed it before, but it does not hurt to
revisit why taking the primary can be preferable.

During an OOA exercise, my twinset right post was closed off by my
instructor (with my consent), while my buddy was swimming away, thus
simulating a realistic unexpected OOA situation. I felt him do it and
decided to be a smart-arse and switch to my backup...without realising that
he had switched it off as well. I now swam rapidly after my buddy, grabbed
his fin and pulled myself up his body. By this stage, I was feeling that I
would really like to breath quite soon. I believe something of this urgency
transmitted itself to my buddy, who tried to help by passing back his
primary...just as I grabbed for it. My thumb went straight into his mouth
and as I realised what had happen, I swept my arm out to the left, knocking
the primary from his grasp. After a few more moments chasing regs, we both
ended up with something to breath from!

However, I do believe in giving an OOA signal (where possible) before taking
a regulator (whether octopus or primary). If nothing else, it alerts the
donor to the fact that something is up. Being "climbed" also achieves this!

> 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.

<applause>

However, I think that we should be careful not to confuse two subjects. The
"Pros and cons of donating the primary at whatever level" is one subject.
"Whether the DTP allowed us to teach it" is the other and is the subject
with which Keith and I were primarily concerned. I cannot dispute the fact
that the NDO's statement now prevents us from teaching this skill under any
and all circumstances.

Iain

> During an OOA exercise, my twinset right post was closed off by my
> instructor (with my consent), while my buddy was swimming away, thus
> simulating a realistic unexpected OOA situation. I felt him do it and
> decided to be a smart-arse and switch to my backup...without realising
that
> he had switched it off as well. I now swam rapidly after my buddy, grabbed
> his fin and pulled myself up his body. By this stage, I was feeling that I
> would really like to breath quite soon. I believe something of this
urgency
> transmitted itself to my buddy, who tried to help by passing back his
> primary...just as I grabbed for it. My thumb went straight into his mouth
> and as I realised what had happen, I swept my arm out to the left,
knocking
> the primary from his grasp. After a few more moments chasing regs, we both
> ended up with something to breath from!

Just a quick question, where was the instructor when all this was going on?
Its all very nice to simulate OOA, but surely the instructor should have
been right next to you with his octopus ready the second you indicated you
needed it...?

David

> Just a quick question, where was the instructor when all this
> was going on?

He was right with me. I didn't realise it, because I was focussed on getting
to my buddy, but the moment we had sorted ourselves out he was there
confirming "OK".

> Its all very nice to simulate OOA, but surely
> the instructor should have been right next to you with his
> octopus ready the second you indicated you needed it...?

It would have been his primary, not his octopus, but it would have been
there had I asked for it. Of course, if things had _really_ got that bad,
I'd have simply reached back and turned my own gas on.

Iain