Equip. redundancy

[fnfalman]

We use Miflex hoses where they're effective to keep things compact and streamlined. No danglies. There's an experienced diver participating in this thread who has already poked some fun at this arrangement in another thread; maybe he can refrain here. We think it's a sensible arrangement.

Last I checked, God/Allah/Jaweh/Buddha/Odin/Zeus/Shiva didn't annoint one person on this planet to be the Master-Know-It-All-Expert-Diver.

You rig your equipment up the way you need them to be rigged up. Nobody knows the way you dive better than yourself.

 

[Osric]

The whole concept of the buddy system is redundancy and I regularly brief my divers that we "are a buddy team of 7 people, so we all look out for each other and if anybody has a problem, just ask the closest person for assistance."

You have a lot more experience than me, so there must be more merit to the 'team buddy' approach than I can appreciate.

I personally prefer when the DM divides the group into specific pairs. Then I know who to watch, I can make sure they're OK, and I don't have to worry about everyone in the 'team'. Do you really find when diving with a group of 7 that everyone always has someone near them in case of trouble? My experiences in these scenarios have always varied from neutral to negative.

Osric

 

[DevonDiver]

You have a lot more experience than me, so there must be more merit to the 'team buddy' approach than I can appreciate.

The merit is that the buddy system provides complete redundancy. In your diving partner you have access to 'redundant' air, gauges, propulsion, buoyancy... and even a brain and set of eyes..

 

[Osric]

The merit is that the buddy system provides complete redundancy. In your diving partner you have access to 'redundant' air, gauges, propulsion, buoyancy... and even a brain and set of eyes..

I think you misunderstood my post. Of course I believe in diving with a buddy. A specific buddy. I've seen the worst dive errors when the group is told "we're a group of 7 and we're all everybody's buddy". In situations like that, one person goes AWOL and nobody is watching him; someone forgets their gear because nobody has double checked them; errors are made. When I only have one person to watch out for, they are watched at all times; I consider what they want to see and follow them and they follow me; I am confident that my buddy will not get into trouble I can't get them out of (and with a little luck, confident in them for me, too).

The poster I was responding to advocated the team approach as better, and I don't understand why it is better than pairwise buddies. Since my experience is limited, I could use some examples.

Osric

 

[lowviz]

....................The poster I was responding to advocated the team approach as better, and I don't understand why it is better than pairwise buddies..................

I think that he was just stating his situation. That poster's bio says that he is an experienced dive guide. Dives in nice places. Sounds like someone used to "herding cats" in high visibility conditions. Maybe pairing them up and keeping a tight group of pairs is better. But that isn't too much different from what he describes.

Pairing up highly inexperienced divers does not make the pair all that much better. False sense of security. Better, yes, but nothing approaching what one would want.

-just guessing...

 

[DevonDiver]

I think you misunderstood my post.

Nope. We're in complete agreement

If it isn't a specific buddy system, then it isn't a buddy system at all.

The system relies upon communication, monitoring, understanding, distance and effective reaction at all stages of the dive (pre, during & post).

Simply acknowledging "you're my buddy" and jumping heedless into the water as part of a cattle herd isn't the application of a buddy system.

 

[The Chairman]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

Personal remarks have been removed.
Please stick to the topic at hand.

---

 

[highdesert]

The merit is that the buddy system provides complete redundancy. In your diving partner you have access to 'redundant' air, gauges, propulsion, buoyancy... and even a brain and set of eyes..

... and consequently, there should never be a reason for one of a buddy pair to thumb a dive due to equipment failure??

 

[DevonDiver]

Ok..fair point... I amend... the buddy system provides complete redundancy for safety.

In recreational diving, the surface is always an option... so aborting, and using the buddy system properly, answers pretty much every eventuality of single-diver kit failure.

Redundancy for convenience (not aborting dives)... is still pretty limited. What are we talking about? Torches for night/low viz dives, masks.... and computers?

By the 'book' a diver should have a back-up torch anyway for a night/low viz dive.
Both divers would probably have computers, but they shouldn't share.

Anything else??

Air/Regulator/Hose/BCD failure...you're still gonna surface, even with redundancy.
SPG failure... you're still gonna surface.
Compass failure... if your buddy has one, no dramas.
Snorkel failure.... wtf?
Fin failure... gonna surface.
Drysuit failure...gonna surface.
DSMB failure...if your buddy has one, no dramas... you're surfacing anyway.

 

[mikecotrone]

If you NEED one then take at LEAST two.

However, 3 dive lights for an openwater dive in daytime which ive seen. No. Not needed!

(and spare air, no not needed. Ever. In any situation!).

Blame overzealous sales from shops with no real ethics. These people probably also have really expensive octopus holders, the most expensive mask and fins in the shop, a BCD with 300 d-rings as well.

Phew .. Good thing the BC I bought only has 289 D Rings