Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bill Gardner on March 12, 2010 at 4:01pm

Thats part of an ongoing debate over on offshorediver.com

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D Layda on March 12, 2010 at 5:23pm

I don't want to debate much, I just want to know how I can feel like I'm doin my part as a seasoned pro in all of this. Helping where I can and being involved more with the association than making sure my cert is current every few years.

I do like the idea that it don't havta be an us -vs- them deal and that it'd be a productive outlet for grief over brothers lost. How can we do it better, safer and all of that, a great way to honor Andy and the many others(? how many of us have died in total?)?

Should be pretty easy to drop a line to the association, or request information or something....why does this seem to be harder than it should be?

I ain't two-h***d in my thinking am I, for all we know they could be setting it up as we speak...who knows...



Seriously, who?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph on March 12, 2010 at 6:04pm

FWIW

Below is copy that I posted on www.offshorediver.com

This is the only information I have located about the "PROPOSED CHANGES".

Also have posted several time;

...Anyone Have a copy of the Proposed "New ADC Consensus Standards" that they would post and or place on a site to download?

No reply to this...The Silence is Deafening!

NOT ONE REPLY!

WHY?

Remember ~......."ADC was formed by a group of five diving companies who were operating in the Gulf and decided to fight unionization. Their goal was to establish standards so that the government would not start imposing regulations on the diving companies."

This Has NOT changed!

Regards

Joseph


..........COPY BELOW ...............

Posted by Joseph on 2/25/2010 at 14:34:04, at offshorediver.com

PROPOSED CHANGES..????

The copy posted below is old, located on URL;
http://www.cda-diver.com/articles/03-11-08.htm

Consensus Standards for Commercial Diving and Underwater Operations

A Message from the Executive Director of the ACDI

My last message focused on the ADCI's Strategic Plan and its implementation for 2007 and beyond. One of the items that I mentioned was the proposed draft for the 6th Ed. of the Consensus Standards for Commercial Diving and Underwater Operations. Changes over the last 5 - 10 years in our industry have warranted the revision of our source doc**ent.
Of course, when embarking on any revision of this magnitude it is important to remember that there is a defined process for review, approval, and finally ratification. Once the first draft has been completed, it will go before the Board of Directors for review and approval.
Once the draft has successfully progressed from this point, it will be posted for review by all industry stakeholders. This review period for comments and suggested input is tentatively slated for a period of no less than six to eight months. At the conclusion of this period, the second draft will be put forth before the Membership for ratification. It is hoped that the doc**ent will be ratified sometime before 2010. However, we must be very careful not to set a timeline that is too accelerated. Some of the changes that we are looking to implement involve major expenditures in equipment, especially in the area of saturation diving. This will require fair and realistic timelines and dates for when these new recommended standards will take effect. I want to take this opportunity to elaborate on some of the proposed changes to date.

PROPOSED CHANGES
The first area that will be changed is the overall format of the Consensus Standards. It will be more user-friendly; the format will no longer require users to refer to three separate areas to access all the information. For example, if you wanted to obtain all information relative to surface-supplied air diving, all one would have to do is go to that section. In addition, there will be an expanded reference section at the back with such items as:

* Generic Excursion Files; Bums and Sums
* Callout List for UHMS, NEDU, and DAN
* Work Day Formulas
* List of all Hyperbaric Med. Facilities
* Bailout Calculations
* Four major Line Pulls
* First Aid Kit Contents Checklist
* Recommended Drills
* Emergency Tap Codes
* Condensed Rigging Guidelines
* Burning Guidelines
* Metrology Formulas and Tables The overall new proposed format will be set up as such:
* Table of Contents
* General Provisions
* Personnel Requirements
* Commercial Diving
* Scuba
* Surface-Supplied
* Air
* Mixed Gas
* Saturation
* Equipment and Systems
* ROV (Remote Operated Vehicles)
* ADS (Advanced Diving Systems)
* Dynamic Positioning
* Appendix
* Reference Doc**ents



A FEW SPECIFICS
There will also be some guideline changes to all applications of diving, from scuba to saturation. I will just highlight a few of these changes, while saving the specifics for the General Membership Meeting at UI 2008. With scuba there will be a new proposed operational maximum of 100 feet (30m). There will also be a requirement for two-way communications. For mixed-gas diving there will be a requirement for an open-bottom bell, equipped with a manifold, emergency breathing equipment, gauges and excursion umbilicals of calculated length; necessitating the presence of an in-water tender at the bell. In the event that an open-bottom bell cannot be deployed because operations are conducted in a physically confining space with limited ingress, an alternative supply (excluding the diver's umbilical) of emergency gas must be provided. For saturation diving there will be a new recommended requirement for a hyperbaric emergency system, excluding the bell. This will also have specific parameters for emergency on-board gas and the need for a portable LSCS (Life Support Control System), located within 24 hours of the of the dive site. There will be requirements for all LARS (Launch and Recovery Systems) to be man-rated, a secondary system for bell recovery, as well as a redundant power supply. There will be new manning requirements for all applications of surface supplied diving applications.

NEW BELL CLASSIFICATIONS
Other areas for revision will include the elimination of the classing system for different types of diving bells. The need for this arose, as there are different interpretations for what constitutes a Class I vs. Class II diving bell, domestically and outside of the US. Since we are an international association, we need to have language in our source doc**ent which illustrates universality. We will now use literal terms for bells and stages - closed bell, open bell, open bell with manifold, stage, etc. On that same note, there will be overall wording changes to reflect true international representation. Constant references to the USCG and OSHA will be dialed down, as these have no relevance for many members outside of the US. Instead, we will lean on such general references as Flag State and National Regulatory Authorities, as well as IMO, ABS, DNV, etc. A requirement for a third source of emergency gas (in-water) for the diver on any planned in-water decompression dive will also be incorporated into the 6th Ed. draft.

CERTIFICATIONS
Other areas of focus are harness upgrades, (with leg straps and a positive buckling device with "D" rings specifically designated for the safe recovery of an injured diver), as well as the streamlining of the three levels of certification for Entry Level Tender/Diver, Diver, and Diving Supervisor. These three diving certification levels will be brought up to date with the current a****sment, formal training, and field experience requirements, or any combination of the three. Another certification that has been discussed over the past few years has been that of the Life Support Technician. No longer will an LST be required in the manning of surface-supplied HeO2 operations. If a company wants to utilize an LST in HeO2 operations, they can, as an LST will be certified to work on any given diving assignment, from saturation to surface-supplied air. This certification will require the successful completion of an online a****sment, similar to that taken by diving supervisor candidates. There will also be a field-hour requirement, in addition to the a****sment that will be necessary for issuance of the LST certification. At a minimum, an LST will be certified to be employed primarily to control and constantly monitor the hyperbaric environment and system in which divers live while saturation diving. Also in the realm of saturation diving is the newly defined role of the Saturation Technician. The Saturation Technician is responsible for the setup, maintenance, and repair of the saturation diving complex. In the draft of the 6th Ed., we will have a new and detailed description of this individual's responsibilities and requirements. There are also revisions to Equipment and Systems, Procedures for Hand-Held Power Tools, Welding and Burning Procedures, Emergency Procedures, and Live Boating. As you can see, there are too many details to cover in this writing. It is an exciting process that brings forth everything which comes about when attempting to make a change of this magnitude. The amount of learning, compromise, and communication that has taken place within the focus group responsible for coming up with the first draft will make this a positive and memorable lifetime experience. So far presentations on the Proposed Draft of 6th Edition have been given at ADCI chapter meetings internationally and in the US. Presentations have been shared at various operator safety meetings, and a detailed account will also be made at UI 2008. I want to thank the General Members of the Executive Committee; Bill Crowley, Tim Beaver, Mike Brown, Craig Fortenbery, and Claudio Castro for the professional and personal sacrifices that they have given the association in this effort. For those of you involved in undertakings such as this, I offer this little piece of advice that I came across not too long ago: "It is important to take criticism seriously, but not personally. Once you start taking it personally then you are incapable of taking it seriously. Then you're not capable of sorting through what's accurate and inaccurate."
More to come. Be safe. UW

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D Layda on March 12, 2010 at 7:20pm

Response to proposed changes in order presented.

Agreed, a reformatting of the consensus standards to make the various standards easier to locate, navigate and cross reference is a great idea.

Would the board find it beneficial to the ADC to check into the viability of an electronic, searchable version of the consensus, done in a cross-researchable, virtual encyclopedia format, rather than the current unlinked electronic format?

This would be a great help to supervisors and others who need to rapidly make a decision, as well as the estimating and PM staffs.

Agreed, Scuba operations should be more limited and require two way communication.
Although, I would suggest a 90’ limitation to make the depth limit the same as the live-boating requirement, ergo easier to remember. Why was 100’ chosen?

I agree with the proposed changes in the mixed gas diving requirements.
I may also suggest a redundant system in the event of break-away of the class 2 bell, a lot of guys won’t ride a bell in the bell. Is this a common issue to others?

I agree with the changes in the sat standards, there has been a lot of variation on items like onboard gas between bells and systems over the years. Are older systems grandfathered in or will refits be required for standard adherence?

I agree on the second method of recovery on all bells, will this be pre-installed prior to dive, and spooled simultaneously, or a redundant reeling system for the same load wire. What type of provisions are made for bell break-away, especially with open bottom bells, with or without manifold and stage? (see above)

A better distinction between diving bells has been needed for a long time now. Agreed, the format offered will more aptly describe what specific type of system is being referenced, required or otherwise.

The new personnel requirements are overdue. Does it raise the req minimum dive team to four members for jetting or construction? Penalties for fielding insufficient crew?

Great idea on the elimination of OSHA, USCG and other non-flag type references, they carried no real value. Referencing Flag State rules (PVHO and HSE, right? ) and National Regulatory Authorities, and especially ABS/DNV will ensure that people are satisfying all bodies above us.

Guess I agree with the safety harness, it’s a lot safer, but…ow…Hope they aren’t a fouling hazard… can we wear them under our cover-alls, and put a regular bailout harness on over that, and link the d rings at the top of the two harnesses together with another d-ring or the one on the fall harness? Clarification please.

I agree with the redundant-redundant supply of breathing media, three is one, two or one is none. Sounds safer to me.

Has it ever been commonplace for divers to utilize a fully separate regulator (octopus) run from their bailout in the event of a regulator failure due to over whelming, in-water physical damage? I always wondered that, I see them in open bottom bells with manifolds all the time… probably a good reason, I just don’t know it…

The cert changes all look relevant too, not much pertaining to me…..


All in all it looks like these guys have been well at it. Good job fella’s!

• ▶ Reply