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

[Dave1w]

Interesting ... three-quarters of their own members think it's a foolish decision ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I think more realistically, it is 3/4s of the small number of people who are bothered enough to voice an opinion (200 in the poll), out of the tiny minority of BSAC's members who bother at all to use an internet forum, and as it was in the public section (not members) section, the respondants could be from anywhere anyway.

That said, this whole affair has been somewhat of a cock-up unfortunately, with the substance of the letter only really saying that the technical commitee of BSAC state that their instructors cannot teach long hose stowed in a hogarthian etc. manner.

(They say primary DONATE is OK)


The other key bits that are upsetting and being debated at length are the details and method of communication and the arguments against, mainly

a) the mistaken statement that a certain agency teach "primary take" when everyone is screaming from the rooftops that it isn't and it is "primary donate" that is taught exclusively. OK, this was mistake,
(As a thought, when you see guys with long hoses doing buddy checks, or explaining their set up, how many of them tend to say "if you need air, just take the one from my mouth", rather than, "swim up to me and signal out of air and I will give you the reg from my mouth"? I would reckon a fair number, which suggests the take / donate concepts are easily muddled and it is not as clearly taught as everyone is insisting it is

b) The description of hog looping and the comments and arguments against are pretty poor. (although, another thought on the strength of arguments of the true superiority of hog looping against a reg in the triangle, because the OOA diver can come from above, behind, etc. but, erm, if they are coming from above, behind, etc, are they really signalling OOA and waiting for a donate, or are they going to reach around and take the reg.....)
I don't see a problem with wrapping a hose, I don't see a problem with stuffing a hose properly into some bungy sometimes. I have a little bit of a problem if someone tells me there is only one way, and it seems there are lots who think similar hence the shouting

c) The release of the statement was poorly handled, coming a couple of weeks after the BSAC Diving officer's conference. Oh well, we all make mistakes, but people also have to bear in mind that this wasn't a totally new position, just that with the release of the new courses, they took a (not so well executed) opportunity to put it in writing in an unsuccessful attempt to make things clear.

d) There is a bit of upset that a diving agency would have the cheek to tell it's instructors that there was only one way to dive, (or rather one particular method used successfully elsewhere they definitly were not supposed to teach) and that you cannot do it any other way on there courses.......


I think it is generally agreed over on the YD side of the pond that while his opinions on this matter are pretty different to the generally accepted (or widely read on the internet) view, Mr Rowley is a well respected "technical" diver/instructor. You have to accept he didn't pop out of the mold that the internet diving world seems to think all technical divers must come from. Not all diving methods have to come from Florida caves etc.

It has been suggested, with probably quite a bit of basis that his view is tainted by the fact he does a lot of diving on rebreathers, at which point the long hose argument and primary donation all become a bit different don't they. I wonder if these rebreather things will catch on with tehnical divers?

Anyway, I am still a current BSAC member (review the theads on YD or even the BSAC forum for how many complaining are not actually BSAC members, or lapsed a long time ago) and I am a bit upset, a touch embarrased that they have made this gaff but really, it's not the end of the world, and maybe there will be a retraction to some degree and hopefully better clarification, but if there isn't, then it still isn't the end of the world.

Dave

 

[Gombessa]

Astute observations, Dave.

(As a thought, when you see guys with long hoses doing buddy checks, or explaining their set up, how many of them tend to say "if you need air, just take the one from my mouth", rather than, "swim up to me and signal out of air and I will give you the reg from my mouth"? I would reckon a fair number, which suggests the take / donate concepts are easily muddled and it is not as clearly taught as everyone is insisting it is

I have done this, and I imagine it's not all that uncommon. However, let us not confuse that with actual training. As mentioned before, being taught that "primary donate" facilitates unexpected incidents of "primary take" may certainly lead to a diver telling someone inexperienced with the gear, "If you have an emergency and can't get my attention, just grab the reg in my mouth," but it doesn't mean the agency teaches or promotes that view. After all, of all the s-drills practiced by divers trained under "long hose" agencies, how many do you think involve primary take? From my own experience and observations, the answer is none. Does any agency teach primary-take as anything other than a contingency to signalling and proper communication?

d) There is a bit of upset that a diving agency would have the cheek to tell it's instructors that there was only one way to dive, (or rather one particular method used successfully elsewhere they definitly were not supposed to teach) and that you cannot do it any other way on there courses.......

Perhaps it hurts to have it spelled out so baldly, but I imagine every agency is like that to some degree. GUE/UTD are infamous for their allegedly proscriptive approach to gear and procedure, I imagine many cave/tech courses are equally so when you get down to it, and even PADI/NAUI/SSI have standards from which instructors are discouraged or disallowed from teaching.

Mr Rowley is a well respected "technical" diver/instructor. You have to accept he didn't pop out of the mold that the internet diving world seems to think all technical divers must come from. Not all diving methods have to come from Florida caves etc.

It's not so much a difference of opinion that rubs people the wrong way, it's the lack of factual consistency and the numerous straw-man arguments presented. I thoroughly believe that for most dives, you can be perfectly safe and competent in any number of gear configurations, but reading the statement, all I see are mistaken and long-discredited stereotypes of "long hose divers."

(Anyway, I am still a current BSAC member (review the theads on YD or even the BSAC forum for how many complaining are not actually BSAC members, or lapsed a long time ago) and I am a bit upset, a touch embarrased that they have made this gaff but really, it's not the end of the world, and maybe there will be a retraction to some degree and hopefully better clarification, but if there isn't, then it still isn't the end of the world.

Hey, the internets like their drama. Anyone who puts a statement like that out there should really expect some kind of blowback, and I'm sure BSAC expected this and is just waiting for the masses to move on to the next cause du jour; they've made their point.

 

[Thalassamania]

...
It's not so much a difference of opinion that rubs people the wrong way, it's the lack of factual consistency and the numerous straw-man arguments presented. I thoroughly believe that for most dives, you can be perfectly safe and competent in any number of gear configurations, but reading the statement, all I see are mistaken and long-discredited stereotypes of "long hose divers."

...

Rowley revealed himself to be a narrow, provincial type with apparently little or no understanding of the actual issues beyond trying to assure that the adopted protocols smoothly transition into CCR use, perhaps the most bizarre criterion that might be selected, not to mention his lack of care with the mechanics of the English language in a letter that he must know would receive, shall we say, critical reading.

 

[Gombessa]

not to mention his lack of care with the mechanics of the English language in a letter that he must know would receive, shall we say, critical reading.

Sadly, I've become quite desensitized to spelling and grammar on the internet. I'm almost to the point where I assume any well-written, spelled and punctuated post must be authored by a non-native speaker.

 

[Thalassamania]

"The Internet" is one thing, we all create small offenses all the time. This was a policy letter of some import, and to neglect the mechanics is such a case is, IMHO, both ignorant and disrespectful of the audience.

 

[Hank49]

Having tried to save someone who blew their lungs secondary to a failed attempt to donate an octopus secured in the triangle, and therefore seen an actual fatality where the octo gear config was involved and failed to deploy, what I like most about donating the primary is that the *mouth* is a fantastically designed quick-release that:

I'm trying to get a mental picture of this. Maybe I'm missing something. Why didn't the donor just give him his/primary and ascend while buddy breathing and try to release the octo?
This doesn't sound like system failure. Just untrained divers.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I'm trying to get a mental picture of this. Maybe I'm missing something. Why didn't the donor just give him his/primary and ascend while buddy breathing and try to release the octo?
This doesn't sound like system failure. Just untrained divers.

Actually both divers were pretty experienced ... just not very careful and not mindful of the training they had received. There were numerous errors that led to that fatality, including rushing into a dive without a reasonable dive plan, not following even the poorly thought-out plan they had made, running out of air at a depth of nearly 100 fsw ... and at a place where it was (to say the least) inconvenient to make a direct ascent, and failure to do a proper buddy check to make sure the octopus was accessible and working. Once she ran out of air, she couldn't access her buddy's octopus because it was clipped off using a bolt snap ... which she couldn't SEE well enough at 100 fsw in typical Puget Sound conditions to be able to work the bolt slide. At that point she panicked and fled for the surface ... holding her breath. By the time she hit the surface ... although she was still alive ... she'd blown her lungs apart sufficiently to not be able to sustain her life.

In this case, even if they had training in buddy breathing ... which I believe at least the buddy did ... it wouldn't have helped. However much you've trained and practiced, any skill is only as good as your ability to think to put it into use ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[InTheDrink]

And that for me is the crux of the problem with the octopus setup.

I think it is fairly common for an octopus to be in a difficult to deploy config. You can say all you like that this should be dealt with during a buddy check but clearly this is not always the case. I think the long hose and necklaced backup suffers less from this problem.

J

 

[halocline]

"The Internet" is one thing, we all create small offenses all the time.

I believe that would be "we all commit small offenses all the time"

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

I believe that would be "we all commit small offenses all the time"

At least in your case you prove your point.