BSAC on “Hogarthian rigging” and “Primary take” for “out of gas response”

[boulderjohn]

This does, however, completely clear up a question we had from the original statements. They talked about agencies that teach "primary take," and we wondered what agencies were teaching that, since none of us knew of any. In this statement they supplied the answer.

It is BSAC.

f. Under no circumstances whatsoever does the above infer BSAC accepts the introduction of techniques by individual divers that differ from those prescribed by the main training agencies. For example NDC is aware that ‘Primary Take’ methods are being promoted by some BSAC divers and instructors within BSAC Clubs, this is unacceptable to BSAC. History informs us that this leads to unacceptable levels of incidents in training and diving. In the past 12 years, using the current training techniques, there were only three reported incidents where the out-of-gas buddy has deliberately snatched their buddy’s regulator from their buddy’s mouth.

 

[boulderjohn]

Their explanation of technical diving, which says that technical divers are independent, relying almost exclusively on their own redundant air supplies and rarely relying on a buddy as a resource, shows that their concept of technical diving is completely out of step with many technical diving agencies.

It is clearly a BSAC position, but can anyone tell me the other technical diving agencies that teach this? I only know of GUE, UTD, NSS-CDS, and TDI, so everyone I know teaches to work as a team and rely very much on the buddy. Can anyone tell me the agencies other than BSAC who teach this?

 

[String]

That reliance on redundancy thing is new with this latest "clarification". It wasn't mentioned before at any point. Again its possibly there now to delay the inevitable - people showing that CCRs with autoair, indie twins etc and long hoses are no better than HL. So instead of explore that they say everyone should look after themselves.

Ironically, its the ONLY part of the entire thing i agree with - every diver should at every point have the skills and equipment to get themselves out of any situation they should get themselves into. I feel too much reliance is placed on the buddy system to the extent people become completely reliant on a 3rd party.

At technical level it depends on the instructor, my TDI training was made quite clear although there maybe a buddy or 2 around don't rely on them, you're responsible for your own safety.

 

[UCFKnightDiver]

Mike Rowley's letters are laughable, what a poor training agency or at least board it would seem.

 

[Sas]

This does, however, completely clear up a question we had from the original statements. They talked about agencies that teach "primary take," and we wondered what agencies were teaching that, since none of us knew of any. In this statement they supplied the answer.

It is BSAC.

I have been taught primary take in one course and it wasn't BSAC. Taught if no viz, take the reg from buddy's mouth.

 

[Gombessa]

I have been taught primary take in one course and it wasn't BSAC. Taught if no viz, take the reg from buddy's mouth.

The original BSAC letter implied that primary take was taught exclusively by one technical training agency, but they never explicitly said who (probably since it's not even true). I'm sure there are instructors affiliated with many agencies who individually or regionally teach it, but so far, from BSAC's mouth, the only agency implicated by name is BSAC itself?

 

[elan]

Who cares about that BSAC methodology anyways ? There is a bunch of other agencies anyways. Many do crossovers... If there is something one does not like about BSAC one can get training from another one. Let the common sense and market play their role.

 

[Sas]

The original BSAC letter implied that primary take was taught exclusively by one technical training agency, but they never explicitly said who (probably since it's not even true). I'm sure there are instructors affiliated with many agencies who individually or regionally teach it, but so far, from BSAC's mouth, the only agency implicated by name is BSAC itself?

I presumed they meant GUE. Now I have no idea if GUE teaches primary take but it came across that they were talking about GUE.

This whole thing is really lame. I have done BSAC training with an excellent instructor and been very happy with it. I've learned well beyond the requirements and basically lots of extra stuff has been added in. Takes a bajillion years to do a course but I am in no hurry. This whole thing is stupid though I'd be interested to see how instructors handle it and whether they adopt the standards (not sure how things like that are policed). Given I have a very good instructor if I had to do a course with a bungeed long hose I'd probably get over it and just do it for the course (currently I have non-BSAC approved setup ). Same with if I did a GUE course, I'd just change my equipment over to how they like it. *shrug*

 

[boulderjohn]

I presumed they meant GUE. Now I have no idea if GUE teaches primary take but it came across that they were talking about GUE.

GUE does not teach primary take. It teaches primary donate.

 

[Gombessa]

I presumed they meant GUE. Now I have no idea if GUE teaches primary take but it came across that they were talking about GUE.

I think that was clearly the thinly veiled intent, though of course everybody knows that GUE teaches no such thing as a matter of policy, and BSAC never came out and said it outright.

Given I have a very good instructor if I had to do a course with a bungeed long hose I'd probably get over it and just do it for the course (currently I have non-BSAC approved setup ). Same with if I did a GUE course, I'd just change my equipment over to how they like it. *shrug*

Once you're done with the class and have gotten whatever it is you wanted from it, you can do whatever you want. I'm guessing however that most people tend to follow their training, and in light of that BSAC just picked an poorly worded/implemented method to clarify their protocols.