Equip. redundancy

[Crush]

There is a 'trend' amongst novice divers to slowly transfer the contents of their local dive store onto their D-rings and into their pockets.

Too true!

 

[SEMPERAQUA]

Thanks for all the responses,basically i need to tailor my gear around the type of dive i plan to do, my wife will be my buddy 95% of the time and we carry pretty much the same gear. i suppose with more dives will come with more experience and picking the brains of more experienced divers i can avoid selling a bunch of gear on ebay. Once again, thank you.

 

[Neuatomic]

As a new diver, I'm answering your question for myself by studying the Accident and Incidents forum (and other SB fora), the DAN Fatality Workshops and associated data, and also reading books like Diver Down. From these and other sources, I am determining what I need to do/carry to prepare for an emergency situation during a dive. This includes determining:

1. What skills (and level of fitness) I need to practice and become proficient on
2. What attitude(s) and procedures I need to adopt before/during/after my dives
3. What equipment I need to carry with me and the level of redundancy

I'm using what I'm learning from the sources I listed above to prepare for those situations that seem to recur and have the worst consequences. The level of redundancy I choose for equipment I'm basing on my own evaluation of my skills, abilities, and a risk/consequence determination.

 

[String]

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..

Although id argue its a dangerous possibly lethal assumption to rely on your buddy to be at the right place, at the right time AND react correctly....

 

[Neuatomic]

Although id argue its a dangerous possibly lethal assumption to rely on your buddy to be at the right place, at the right time AND react correctly....

Since this statement is validated by numerous examples of lethal and near-lethal failures of the 'buddy system', it's my personal belief that it is worthwhile to prepare for that eventuality, in both equipment and skills. That said, I also try to minimize the possibilities of 'buddy failure' by doing my best to be a good buddy and to communicate clearly in advance with my dive buddy what my expectations are from him/her.

 

[TSandM]

Since this statement is validated by numerous examples of lethal and near-lethal failures of the 'buddy system', it's my personal belief that it is worthwhile to prepare for that eventuality, in both equipment and skills.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, a lot of the issues with the buddy system could be solved with better training of divers, in how to be better buddies. We come out of open water with the information that we should dive with buddies, but little idea of how that is actually DONE. Situational awareness, which is the centerpiece of buddy diving, is a skill. Some people start with more of it than others, but everyone can learn to be better at it, if what they need to do is made clear to them, and if they want to improve.

I have been fortunate enough to do a great deal of training that was heavily focused on honing my situational awareness (which is not my strong suit). I was on a dive boat on Saturday, where I picked up a true instabuddy -- someone I had never met and knew absolutely nothing about before the day we went diving . . . except that he was wearing a GUE T-shirt, which told me a great deal. My expectations for his ability to remain where I could see him, stay in communication, and manage any kind of issue we could run into on our dive (which was admittedly not a difficult one) were high. And we had a dive together that was as though we were old friends. This is the value of training and practice that is focused on developing a good, solid, attentive member of a dive team.

 

[DevonDiver]

Although id argue its a dangerous possibly lethal assumption to rely on your buddy to be at the right place, at the right time AND react correctly....

I agree and disagree.

Firstly, the 'buddy system' is only part of a complete approach to recreational diving, that also should ensure that the diver concerned also had direct, unimpeded access to the surface, along with depth limitations that ensured an OOA (CESA) ascent remained a last-ditch option for survival.

Buddy System + Surface + CESA =

Secondly, a well trained, responsible, diver doesn't have to rely on their buddy. The buddy system shouldn't be passive and based on assumptions.

I've had more than my share of inattentive buddies before... but I've always taken it as my responsibility to ensure that distance and communication were maintained. If my buddy was prone to inattention and likely to abandon me, then I would take responsibility for my own safety; through effective monitoring of them and being active in maintaining contact with them.

I've spent thousands of hours underwater with student divers. I've never lost contact with one of them. That's because I see it as my responsibility to monitor them. It's a pro-active attitude, rather than a passive reliance. I don't expect my students to be perfect, so I compensate. Why can't that attitude be replicated within a buddy system?

I maintain contact with my buddy.
I ensure that I can access their AAS in an emergency.
I direct and control any air-sharing ascents.
etc etc etc

Quite frankly, if you dive with an unknown buddy... and you observe that their buddy awareness is low... and knowing that, you still manage to let them disappear on you... then you are equally guilty of not applying effective buddy procedures.

 

[2 Big 2 Fail]

After reading the accounts in the "bad buddy" thread, obviously you can't always maintain contact with a "buddy." If they take off into circumstances that were not agreed on and were not within your own qualified comfort zone, you'd be foolish to chase them into a spot you don't want to be be in, just to honor a "system" that you just assumed was in place.

But also reading many accounts, I see the buddy system break-downs that begin before they are in the water. If you haven't come to an explicit agreement of what "buddy" means, you don't really know what to expect. For some diving in a group of strangers, being a "buddy" clearly means just lip service to the DM's instruction to buddy up and little more. I don't see how you can expect a by-the-book buddy performance without the equivalent of a full briefing on the plan and possible deviations, mutual gear, communications, and agreed responses to difficulties. I think that if you want that textbook performance, you have to do it, including actually saying things like, "If I lose track of you, I will search for one minute and then meet you on the surface, and if you lose track of me, you will search for one minute and meet me on the surface, and if I don't find you on the surface within two minutes, I will declare an emergency."

I don't see how it can be any different from briefing for any other kind of hazardous action where you will depend on the reactions of your partners. Anything less isn't necessarily wrong. It's just that you're foregoing the actual buddy system within the intended meaning, and that changes things in ways you may have to account for on your own.

I have to say that in an otherwise good OW course, the buddy system operation was briefly described, with an emphasis on mutually checking gear. We were never directed through a real buddy briefing. The buddy thing, then, was left hanging as a vague kind of good practice recommendation, and the danger of that is that it leaves students with the impression that everyone is on the same page and it requires little effort. Nothing is further from the truth. I suspect it's not really an effective briefing unless you feel slightly silly going through it all. When you're down to stating the "obvious," you're probably also covering what needs to be covered. It was sure like that briefing for things like serving hot warrants.

As DD said, you don't just rely on your buddy. But if you don't know exactly what's agreed on, you can't really put a buddy into the dive safety formula in any meaningful role. You're just guessing, and guessing is bad juju in critical situations.

 

[DevonDiver]

After reading the accounts in the "bad buddy" thread, obviously you can't always maintain contact with a "buddy." If they take off into circumstances that were not agreed on and were not within your own qualified comfort zone, you'd be foolish to chase them into a spot you don't want to be be in, just to honor a "system" that you just assumed was in place.

That's a fair point. It's easy for a diver with good situational awareness to maintain contact with an unobservant buddy. However, a really irresponsible buddy may deviate from the dive plan to an extent that it exceeds your own safety boundaries.

I'd say that the 'textbook' answer to this, is to switch into self-preservation mode. Wait/look for the diver for the pre-agreed time. If they don't return...abort the dive, ascend safely, return to the boat and raise the alarm that your buddy is missing.

I always make a point of discussing the 'missing/separated diver' protocol as part of the pre-dive briefing, dive planning and/or buddy check. One of the benefits of this is that your buddy will be aware that if they disappear, you will treat it as an emergency, abandon your dive and raise an alarm. Most divers will take it more seriously if they know it will cause 'a big fuss' if they leave you.

But also reading many accounts, I see the buddy system break-downs that begin before they are in the water. If you haven't come to an explicit agreement of what "buddy" means, you don't really know what to expect.

+1

When the buddy system breaks down, it is usually because it was never started properly in the first place. The buddy system begins with mutual dive planning and/or dive briefing. It continues with a comprehensive buddy check, entry and descent. Communication starts at the earliest stage.

I think that if you want that textbook performance, you have to do it, including actually saying things like, "If I lose track of you, I will search for one minute and then meet you on the surface, and if you lose track of me, you will search for one minute and meet me on the surface, and if I don't find you on the surface within two minutes, I will declare an emergency."

+1 That's the solution.

It's pretty frustrating to hear all these accounts of irresponsible insta-buddies, when the pontificating diver could have been pro-active in establishing the right procedures in the first place.

I won't get in the water with someone if I haven't satisfied myself that we both understand the plan, the contingencies and the procedures we will lose. Going through this process is also a form of 'vetting' for your insta-buddy. If I have an insta-buddy who isn't interested in going through that process, and displays a bad or negligent attitude on the boat, then I have ample time to discretely see the DM and request a new buddy before the dive.

 

[Neuatomic]

I maintain contact with my buddy.
I ensure that I can access their AAS in an emergency.
I direct and control any air-sharing ascents.
etc etc etc

Quite frankly, if you dive with an unknown buddy... and you observe that their buddy awareness is low... and knowing that, you still manage to let them disappear on you... then you are equally guilty of not applying effective buddy procedures.

I generally agree with your points but not in how strictly and rigidly you stick to them. In the quote above you're solely pointing out instances where buddy contact is lost (for whatever reason). There are numerous examples and situations where buddies did indeed maintain contact and attention but one or both behave in a manner that leads to disaster, even during relatively shallow recreational dives with no overhead obstructions.

My point, related to the OP re: equipment redundancy, is that just like any piece of equipment or system, the buddy system can and does break down for a variety of reasons. Having begun studying case incidents leading to fatalities or near fatalities, I think it reasonable to treat the buddy system as a primary method of maintaining safety, but one requiring redundancy nonetheless.

And in all instances self-reliance should be one's main goal and the level of redundancy a diver choses should be based on a reasonable cost/benefit and risk/consequence evaluation.