Give up my primary regulator???

[tbone1004]

Please provide the evidence?

From your location I doubt you've had much, if any, real experience of BSAC divers. However, feel free to continue your campaign against the organisation. I won't be responding again.

the BSAC opinion is based on BSAC incident reports. BSAC divers provide incident reports to BSAC. All BSAC divers are trained for secondary take. BSAC incident reports validate secondary.
See the dilemma?
Of course there are outliers if you are reporting incidents from non-BSAC divers but those are going to be irrelevant in the number of incidents they review.
You have a biased data pool based on all of their training and since incident reports do not contain all incidents, there may be further skewing of the data pool where people that did not have a response based on their training protocol will be embarrassed to submit an incident report out of shame.
That data pool is not scientifically valid to base conclusions on because of the above incidents.

This is no different than an agency like UTD or GUE concluding that primary donate is superior because all of their incident reports say it is. Obviously they will because that is how those divers are highly trained. What it doesn't factor in is how knuckleheads in the caribbean respond when they panic and haven't been trained recently.

You'd be surprised at my experience with BSAC divers btw, just because I'm in SC doesn't mean I haven't dove with plenty of ex-pats who were BSAC trained.

I will leave this on one last thought. BSAC is the only agency that trains with this protocol to my knowledge. None of the mainstream agencies teach it and in fact most are moving towards primary donate as a preferred strategy. Why would the industry as a whole disagree with that type of training concept, yet BSAC stands firm that they are superior to literally everyone else based on evidence from their own internal data pool instead of looking at incident reports from global entities that are not agency/training paradigm specific.

BSAC is also weird in that it focuses on training divers for some of the harshest conditions in the world and it is focused on local diving. That attracts a diver much more similar to the GUE type diver than the PADI type diver. Does that skew your data pool even further in that the incident reports are unlikely to include divers that were trained 10 years ago and have done 10 dives since then but none in the last 2 years and decide to do an 80ft reef dive and run out of air? Or is it more likely to include guys that dive at least once a month in the harsh local conditions of the UK?I'd be surprised given the nature of people that BSAC attracts if that was a large number of your incidents compared to say a PADI incident list which is going to include very few cold water, nasty environment, deep ocean dives compared to warm water reef dives.

 

[Jerome O'Neil]

Yay! Ignore your training, what is the worst that could happen?

You become a more competent diver?

 

[rmssetc]

I can see this from a couple of perspectives. I won't say one is 'righter' than the other. I may have a different preference.

a) I understand the point that you are making, about training divers to take the alternate air source. That is what has been done as long as I have been diving, and is still done today in the vast majority of cases. That is how I was taught. That is how I was taught to teach. That is how I have been teaching for many years. I would frankly be surprised if the divers that 'mugged' you were trained any other way. Yet, they went for your primary. I suspect that a stressed, possibly panicked OOA diver is VERY likely to forget all of that training, and go for whatever they can find. I am actually not at all surprised they went for your primary; at the same time . . .

Divers are trained to do something much more frequently than grabbing another diver's AAS (whether it's donate or take)....that other training consists of all sorts of things to avoid running out of air (pre-dive plan, diving your plan, check your gas supply, etc). I'd start from the assumption that if a diver was surprised by their OOA condition, having forgotten or disregarded all the training designed to prevent winding up in that place, that they've also forgotten any particular protocol about which regulator to use from another diver, or how to get that regulator.

I am perfectly happy to have OOA divers mug me for my primary. In fact, I invite them to - that is why I put a yellow purge cover on the second stage that is in my mouth. Frankly, I dive in reasonably good horizontal trim 95% of the time (alas, I am not perfect), and I would be surprised if the OOA diver could actually find an alternate in 'the triangle', irrespective of how securely it might be attached. Now, with my configuration, they can actually find that alternate pretty easily - right beneath my chin. But, why would they bother reaching for that, when there is a big, fat, juicy, second stage with a yellow purge cover sticking out in front of my face, saying 'take me'?

Human beings are really, really deeply wired to look at faces. If someone's in a panic, and they're capable of looking at other people at all, they're probably looking at (or for) a face, not for some strange yellow puck-shaped thing on a hose near someone's waist. When the OOA diver looks towards another diver, really elemental parts of their brain make out a face...and, if they're lucky, they also realize that the funny thing on the mouth of that face is supplying air.

I doubt there's much more processing & "following training" going on for anyone in a panic situation.

I also suspect that anyone who's capable of using hand signals to ask for another divers AAS also has enough presence of mind (and residual O2) to deal with take, or donate, or whatever the providing diver, um, provides.

 

[KenGordon]

the BSAC opinion is based on BSAC incident reports. BSAC divers provide incident reports to BSAC. All BSAC divers are trained for secondary take. BSAC incident reports validate secondary.
See the dilemma?
Of course there are outliers if you are reporting incidents from non-BSAC divers but those are going to be irrelevant in the number of incidents they review.
You have a biased data pool based on all of their training and since incident reports do not contain all incidents, there may be further skewing of the data pool where people that did not have a response based on their training protocol will be embarrassed to submit an incident report out of shame.
That data pool is not scientifically valid to base conclusions on because of the above incidents.

This is no different than an agency like UTD or GUE concluding that primary donate is superior because all of their incident reports say it is. Obviously they will because that is how those divers are highly trained. What it doesn't factor in is how knuckleheads in the caribbean respond when they panic and haven't been trained recently.

You'd be surprised at my experience with BSAC divers btw, just because I'm in SC doesn't mean I haven't dove with plenty of ex-pats who were BSAC trained.

I will leave this on one last thought. BSAC is the only agency that trains with this protocol to my knowledge. None of the mainstream agencies teach it and in fact most are moving towards primary donate as a preferred strategy. Why would the industry as a whole disagree with that type of training concept, yet BSAC stands firm that they are superior to literally everyone else based on evidence from their own internal data pool instead of looking at incident reports from global entities that are not agency/training paradigm specific.

BSAC is also weird in that it focuses on training divers for some of the harshest conditions in the world and it is focused on local diving. That attracts a diver much more similar to the GUE type diver than the PADI type diver. Does that skew your data pool even further in that the incident reports are unlikely to include divers that were trained 10 years ago and have done 10 dives since then but none in the last 2 years and decide to do an 80ft reef dive and run out of air? Or is it more likely to include guys that dive at least once a month in the harsh local conditions of the UK?I'd be surprised given the nature of people that BSAC attracts if that was a large number of your incidents compared to say a PADI incident list which is going to include very few cold water, nasty environment, deep ocean dives compared to warm water reef dives.

Imagine that, spending 50 years tracking how people screw up and adjusting the protocols to eliminate those screw ups... Madness clearly. You could just have waited 30 years for someone diving in a completely different environment to come up with all the answers...

 

[Waterwulf]

Well, this seems to have been an interesting conversation! I'll just stick to my training and give up/ask for the spare, not the primary. That's the way I was trained and practiced so I'll just stick with that. I just wanted to see if I was understanding the posts correctly about giving up the primary. I first dove with a Hookah rig in 1968 and there was no secondary on that. Then I got my European certification in 1972 and none there either. It was all buddy breathing training. Then I got my NAUI certification training in 1974 and was trained for both but the "give up" was always the secondary. That's the way I have dove ever since so I'll just stick with that and make sure to go over it with my partner prior to getting wet. Thanks!

 

[Codger81]

BSAC is also weird in that it focuses on training divers for some of the harshest conditions in the world and it is focused on local diving. That attracts a diver much more similar to the GUE type diver than the PADI type diver. Does that skew your data pool even further in that the incident reports are unlikely to include divers that were trained 10 years ago and have done 10 dives since then but none in the last 2 years and decide to do an 80ft reef dive and run out of air? Or is it more likely to include guys that dive at least once a month in the harsh local conditions of the UK?I'd be surprised given the nature of people that BSAC attracts if that was a large number of your incidents compared to say a PADI incident list which is going to include very few cold water, nasty environment, deep ocean dives compared to warm water reef dives.

My brother is BSAC and dives in the UK; I'm PADI are prefer tropical diving. No matter how experienced and conservative I am, I'm sure he'll always be a better diver than I.

Going back to the main topic, from other posts I've seen I think we find in the same Dive Rite gear. I've found their AOW set excellent, and having a yellow primary and a bungied backup has made things much easier. I never have to worry about reg recovery as the primary is clipped off when neither is in use. I use my backup for entry and exit, so it gets some use too (always pre-dive checked anyway). I definitely prefer donating my primary.

 

[chrisch]

the BSAC opinion is based on BSAC incident reports. BSAC divers provide incident reports to BSAC. All BSAC divers are trained for secondary take. BSAC incident reports validate secondary.
See the dilemma?
Of course there are outliers if you are reporting incidents from non-BSAC divers but those are going to be irrelevant in the number of incidents they review.
You have a biased data pool based on all of their training and since incident reports do not contain all incidents, there may be further skewing of the data pool where people that did not have a response based on their training protocol will be embarrassed to submit an incident report out of shame.
That data pool is not scientifically valid to base conclusions on because of the above incidents.

The BSAC reports are open to all divers and the BSAC simply compiles the results. There is no requirement to any diver (BSAC or otherwise) to report the incidents. For sure there will be a slight bias towards BSAC members as they will be predisposed to contribute. I would therefore be very cautious about inferring anything from the reports as they are statistically flawed. The value is in being able to understand and correct - as is the case with air crashes.

..
I will leave this on one last thought. BSAC is the only agency that trains with this protocol to my knowledge. None of the mainstream agencies teach it and in fact most are moving towards primary donate as a preferred strategy. Why would the industry as a whole disagree with that type of training concept, yet BSAC stands firm that they are superior to literally everyone else based on evidence from their own internal data pool instead of looking at incident reports from global entities that are not agency/training paradigm specific.

Again I don't think there is any data that justifies or questions the efficacy of secondary take. The main issue that has been contentious (in the UK) is the prohibition of the teaching of primary take within BSAC even at the level of post-basic and technical level training. BSAC lost a lot of it's technical level members over this issue. As best I am aware the matter is now under review for (IIRC) the third time with an expectation that the prohibition will be relaxed. BSAC does not prohibit primary donate at any level, just the teaching of it. I have been unable to get a definitive answer from them on the difference between teaching it and demonstrating it. In my mind demonstration would include a pre dive briefing, but would that be considered teaching if the brief is from a BSAC certified instructor?

I am sure this will be sorted out in due course and the issue go away. A lot of people in the UK will be relieved when that happens.

BSAC is also weird in that it focuses on training divers for some of the harshest conditions in the world and it is focused on local diving. That attracts a diver much more similar to the GUE type diver than the PADI type diver. Does that skew your data pool even further in that the incident reports are unlikely to include divers that were trained 10 years ago and have done 10 dives since then but none in the last 2 years and decide to do an 80ft reef dive and run out of air? Or is it more likely to include guys that dive at least once a month in the harsh local conditions of the UK?I'd be surprised given the nature of people that BSAC attracts if that was a large number of your incidents compared to say a PADI incident list which is going to include very few cold water, nasty environment, deep ocean dives compared to warm water reef dives.

I am not sure I agree with this. The UK conditions are not particularly harsh and certainly hold no world records for being so. Nor indeed does the BSAC (or commercial dive training operations) in the UK attract any particular type of diver or person. Many BSAC members dive more in the Red Sea than in UK waters. Some - I am sure - will have only dived in the UK during training. Much UK training takes place in quarries rather than the sea and it is not impossible (although unlikely) for someone to qualify as an instructor without ever diving in salt water. I worked at an inland centre (PADI) many years ago and for the first few years of diving I had virtually no salt water in my log book.

The incident reports contain divers that have had an incident and reported it. Beyond that I think you can make little generalisation. PADI does not compile a list of incidents in the UK. BSAC is simply the administrator of the UK list as it is the governing body for that geographic region. You are welcome to download and examine the report for free from the BSAC website Annual Diving Incident Report - British Sub-Aqua Club This excellent resource contains much worthwhile information, but it's voluntary nature makes the statistical analysis much less valuable.

 

[Steveed]

Back to another point by the OP, I wanted to point out that I have seen US Navy sailors filling tanks, and from what I have been told, the J-Valve is required. So... it's not completely retired. That's probably just because it takes ... 'an act of congress' to adjust their rules, though.

 

[Bob DBF]

Back to another point by the OP, I wanted to point out that I have seen US Navy sailors filling tanks, and from what I have been told, the J-Valve is required. So... it's not completely retired. That's probably just because it takes ... 'an act of congress' to adjust their rules, though.

US Navy divers still use j-valves. When diving in water you can't see your SPG, never mind read it, it's nice to know when you are almost out of air. Navy divers can't just call a dive on bad viz, or anything else, if the job has to get done.


Bob

 

[Mustard Dave]

We were trained to hand over our EXTRA second stage..the one that usually rides along clipped to our harness. You kept your primary in your mouth where it belonged! If your partner was in a hurry, he might grab you by your harness and unclip the octopus himself. Now I read that you're supposed to hand him/her your primary and you use your octopus. Say what? Why would I want to do that? It seems to me that if he needs some of my air, it's already a declared emergency so why would we want to have both of us with our regulators out? Somebody please explain that to me. Thanks.

This is a matter of opinion. The techie types often favour primary donate on a Hog-looped long hose. It gives the benefit of the out of gas diver knowing what he is taking is breathable, and when a Hog-loop is used, it can easily be re-stowed Some divers have their long hose (either primary or octopus) stuffed in a bungee wrapped around a cylinder - the problem here is that it cannot be re-stowed without assistance.

Techie types often carry different gas mixes that are not breathable at a particular depth; a panicking OOG diver might take the wrong mix if they do not go for the one the donor is breathing.

Most recreational instructors are still teaching primary in the mouth, with AAS clipped off on your chest. Personally, I would like to see novices taught primary donate at the beginning though; it works well, and in the event of them being paired up with a buddy with extra cylinders and regs, they know which one to take.