Long-hose in the time of COVID-19
- Thread starter David Novo
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I'm not privy to the latest training standards, certainly their Safe diving guide simply states (something like) The Buddy check is perhaps the best time to brief your buddy on unfamiliar procedures (LH or CCR).
I've said above that BSAC are conservative in their approach. My understand was that primary donate should only be used if proper training is undertaken - and that it's not taught during normal OD & SD. Their organisation their rules
Remember they teach skills that are focuses around UK diving hence they teach Back gas Deco as part of SD (RD in PADI world).. I know also that since 2017 BSAC have been working with GUE Uk, with regard to perhaps adopting some of their skills/ methods into their own training syllabus. So maybe once they revise their training standards their situation will change
HOwever, what started for me this rabbit hole ws people dismissing teh BSAC annual reports
They are a hugely valuable resource for divers and instructors alike. BSAC of course use them to identify weakness in diver training and improve that where they can in order to try to reduce incidents and fatalities
No other Dive organisation world wide (to my knowledge) does this.
While the incidents can be interesting reading and something to learn from (like SB's AI) but unlike SB's AI if it's a UK incident often you'll get the results of the investigation since it's public domain.
The Table below is from theri 18-19 report:
First line - Alternate air source use. What is shows is not what type of method (LH, Primary donate, secondary take etc ) is best, but unequivocally, being practiced in what ever yoru preferred method is, and carrying out the skill correctly significantly contribute to saving lives.
Rather than people bickering about what method is best, it should be a unified message, that having the skill well practiced and second nature is most important - especially since its rarely used for real if ever.
I also use the CPR statistics on my Rescue courses. Not to suggest people don't engage in CPR but to prepared them for the fact that unlike the movies, CPR is often unsuccessful and that there will be feelings of guilt and failure
There are two ‘threads’ of history here. Above you are quoting from a period of time when HQ and a number of people in particular had a sense of humour failure over a particular branch deciding to teach hog looped primary donate at Ocean Diver level. Other than being dicks why did they do that?
If BSAC training it is absolutely the case that the OOG diver takes the alternate regulator. Why is that? Well (and we are now relying on my memory over a very long time) it used to be that secondary donate was taught and they changed, presumably due to incident reports of divers waiting to be given a regulator when they could perfectly well take it or being unable to get the attention of the buddy with the gas. So we teach taking a secondary. People are welcome to donate if they notice but it is not assumed they will notice.
Primary donate isn’t really compatible with that. There is no regulator that an OOG diver can take, so now the stressed OOG diver can’t follow their training.
The higher level diving in the U.K. is largely done on rebreathers. By some, hog looping is seen, especially the people in BSAC that counted at the time, as a sort of teenage fad.
This meant that accommodating hog looping was difficult, at the time of the quote it was badly handled. Subsequent, more fashion conscious, people have improved that and there is talk of teaching it on twinset and trimix courses. The position is mostly about entry level divers, grown up divers are expected to be able to adapt to a buddy hog looped or on CCR. The talk has gone far enough that I recently had to double check whether it is allowed yet (it is/was not) as I have seen it used on courses.
The second thread of history is about the numbers of people reverting to training. They are more recent than the 2010 era hog loop can strangle you ‘study’, but still a few years old now. They are from different people. The safety/incident report people are not the same individuals as the technical group, nor the designers of the training. They really have no axe to grind. The observation is that people largely do what they are trained to do.
Maybe the slow approach of clubs with repetition over weeks embeds learning better than a whole course over a couple of weekends. Perhaps the resulting divers are actually better. We can’t say that because that would be agency bashing and not polite. If people want to argue, “You should ignore those British diver stats because they are trained to be at least half competent, whereas American divers are all trained in a weekend and so not very good.” then feel free, but I don’t think that is entirely true and if it is there might be bigger problems than deciding what hose to use.
drk5036
Contributor
This seems like a really nice design. I've made a separate thread in the 3D printing subforum to discuss some designs (Developing a Useful retainer clip for a stowed second stage (octopus)). It seems like we could make a really robust design in a configurable manner based on this design!
I think the critical misunderstanding here is not that the bsac results aren't valuable, but that people treat them as empirical and representational of all diving. If you view the reports in the correct context; that sample sizes aren't large and that bsac reports are largely made up of bsac divers, diving in the UK; and you view their recommendations as having multiple goals in mind; being consistent with the narrow focus of bsac training and limiting legal liability; then you're good to go. When you strip away the context, say the data empirically proves things, and it is applicable everywhere is where the dismissal starts to come in.
saxman242:
Have you actually read any
How do you draw the conclusion that their training is narrowly focused
Where is your empirical data that contradicts their conclusions. If you can show me a sample that measure trends over a similar time frame I'll be happy too read with interest
I'll wait.
I'm not saying it's narrowly focused as an insult. I'm saying it's narrowly focused as they have very specific requirements they've levied that they're trying to meet. This isn't some big secret, they're very open about what they're trying to achieve.
You're asking for empirical data in an area that ethically can't have empirical data. The studies that would be required to generate that will never happen.
Instead, one must look at the anecdotal data available and draw conclusions from that that are appropriate to their needs. One can take steps to improve the quality of the anecdotal evidence, as not all is created equal, but that doesn't make it empirical. Bsac has different needs that other groups. Their conclusions may be appropriate for their needs, but that doesn't mean they apply across the board.
What are these special needs? Divers you are prepared to dive with? I think SDI says instructors can’t certify a diver you’d not be happy to allow your loved ones to dive with.
Things are very much focused through the lens of club diving that allows any random person of any skill level to dive with any other random person of any skill level in a way that limits their legal liability as much as possible. Their training is done in a specific way to facilitate the make up of their divers, so new concepts are filtered through how the fit into the pre-existing training frame work and do some in a way that allows them to act as the insuring body.
Other areas don't have 10% of their divers on rebreathers and expect them to make good buddies to fresh out of open water divers. Other groups teach different things, so making a decision based on fitting into the bsac training doesn't matter. Other areas don't have as "strict" tort considerations to deal with. The requirement sets are different.
I think you are being a bit of a Humpty Dumpty in your interpretation of empirical.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
Since I assume you are from the USA, I will refer you to the Merriam -Webster definition, rather than the better British dictionaries
, as you may think that because they are British dictionaries they are too narrow a subset of the English language ... :sarcasm:empirical
adjective
em·pir·i·cal | \ im-ˈpir-i-kəl , em- \
variants: or less commonly empiric \ im-ˈpir-ik , em- \
Definition of empirical
1: originating in or based on observation or experience
empirical data
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
an empirical basis for the theory
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
empirical laws
4: of or relating to empiricism
adjective
em·pir·i·cal | \ im-ˈpir-i-kəl , em- \
variants: or less commonly empiric \ im-ˈpir-ik , em- \
Definition of empirical
1: originating in or based on observation or experience
empirical data
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
an empirical basis for the theory
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
empirical laws
4: of or relating to empiricism
You are using Empirical in the narrow sense of the third meaning above. Other posters are using the word Empirical in the sense of the first and second meanings above. They are also correct in their use of the word Empirical.
Similar threads
