Rights and Responsibilities Between Buddy Divers

[thez_yo]

You know, for what it's worth, I had a dive where I was diving high 30-something% and my buddies were on air (new/instabuddies). I told them I'm not going past 85fsw because of my mix, and we all agreed ok - this was a team of 3. It was in cold (50-55degreeF) low-viz waters on the edge of some kelp beds. There was structure in the form of rocks/reefs up at around 75-80fsw, but it was a little swim away from the drop point off the boat which is deeper and I think sandy at the bottom. We begin descending, and where I stop at 80fsw, they just kept going down past about 87fsw based on viz that day. I hadn't dove there a lot, but I think the bottom is at about 95-100fsw.

At that point, I thought to myself, ok well they aren't looking for my light and seem to just be going down to the bottom.. there are two of them and I guess if they disappear for more than a minute I'm just going right back up to the boat based on 5-8' viz, it was pretty cold (I'm in a wetsuit), it's a new site, and the scenario that it seemed most like was a lost-buddy scenario. If this happened, I would hope they would come back up too, having lost a buddy. Best case scenario they'd find me hanging out at 30fsw for a while, and I'd still hop out after that stop.

Luckily, they re-appeared from the murky-depths after what seemed an eternity but was probably just a few seconds later, and we stuck at the top of the structure for the rest of the dive. I definitely did lose some trust there.

Now, to answer the questions, theoretically:

1 & 2. If you're comfortable that that isn't risking your life to save your buddy, go for it. If it would be a risk, begin an ascent while (and I'm assuming this is a boat/someone is topside) shooting up an smb with a note that describes the situation if you have those items. Perform a safe ascent.
3. I would not dive with that buddy. That demonstrates intent to break the dive plan.

Having never been in that situation, thankfully, I can't say what I'd *actually* do.

 

[NAM001]

When i was taking a cave course this same question, as always, became a discussion point. As hard core as the answer is, It boils down to this. How much self risk are you willing to take for the sake of the other. My instructor after going over the proceedures said that is it were his family mamber he would use his last breath to save them. Then.... if it was me then I was on my own. Even that "last breath" option would not be valid when there are dependants involved. So you make a reasonable required attempt and then you are also on your own when you put aside your safety for an UNKNOWN hopeful result. Would i go to 2.0 ppo2 to grab your valves and pull you imediatly to safer depths. probably without thinking about it as long as i could see you and continue to do risk assessment. Once I loose sight of you your chances of being saved drop drastically. As to moral obligation,,,,,I dont know, What works for me is that when confronted I must make a choice as to whether the loss of myself and my buddy is more of less a loss to those left behind than that of my buddy alone. One mourning family is better than two.

How does one establish a moral obligation?

---------- Post added June 24th, 2014 at 02:54 PM ----------

I dont know why your comment sits wrong with me. I think that it is just something about the overeasy use of the word TEAM DIVING (buddy diving +). Per the hypothetical given a team would have never got into the water to begin with. Different gasses being used, each diver having different limitations. That does not make for Unified ( common or like) diving. I am neither a proponent or opponent of the unified team diving concepts for most dive profiles, but to ignore the unified process untill things go south and then return to it when handy, appears to be less than legitimate. The true team member would have never left the buddy behind adn put themselves in harms way. So if everything has gone right then the problem is a non planned issue. Unexpected health problem or such, leaving the victom diver out of full control of them selves. It takes but a look away for a buddy to get away from you and a recreational dive turns into a rescue dive. In short prevention should preclude any and all forseen problems. So under the premis thta a problem is now generated from something unforseen what obligation, moral or other would you have to rescue the soon doomed diver and to what extent.

[/LIST]
[/LIST]
As a team you monitor your buddy so they don't exceed the depth so as not to get into the CF in the first place. After the dive discussion they should find new buddies.

 

[markmud]

I'm curious what the OP meant by rights.

Hello mindset,

Thanks for the question. There currently are two different theories regarding rights. Politically, the U.S. is involved in a philosophical battle between collective rights and individual rights.

I believe that I (me) have a creator granted right to Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness. People who believe in collective rights feel that the group holds the rights and individuals are subservient to the collective.

So, to rephrase the question, is my right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness', subservient to the diver who violates the dive plan and then expects me to exceed 1.6 ATA of oxygen to save him?

I hope that makes sense. I tend to switch gears, without notice, between the emotional plane of thought (I try to avoid that one), the reality plane of thought, and the philosophical plane of thought.

markm

---------- Post added June 24th, 2014 at 05:22 PM ----------

How does one establish a moral obligation?

Hello mathauck0814,

This is from Merriam-Webster:
Moral- 1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> (for brevity I used the first definition and did not list them all, markmud).

I establish a moral responsibilities for myself based on religious tenants (ten commandments for one example) and societal norms (ethics).

If the air diver was a dog, I would not have a moral, or societal responsibility to save it at high risk to myself. A higher level of risk tolerance is ethically required to meet the societal norm for human beings.

All human beings are valuable. Except for Charles Manson, et allia.

Please respond if I did not understand your question.

markm

---------- Post added June 24th, 2014 at 05:34 PM ----------

[/LIST]
[/LIST]


First off you are wrong on the point above.

Second, your hypothetical dive is not a buddy dive but two solo divers with different goals. As a team you monitor your buddy so they don't exceed the depth so as not to get into the CF in the first place. After the dive discussion they should find new buddies.

Hey jadairiii,

Philosophically, I agree with your last paragraph. However, after 54 years on this earth, I have rarely come across black and white decisions. Being recalcitrant and dogmatic has only made me an outcast. I try to avoid that.

Your last paragraph is why I am asking the question. Where is that line. For you, your individual rights are very important to you. Me too!

Thanks again,

markm

---------- Post added June 24th, 2014 at 05:52 PM ----------

The reality is that some people probably have a higher tolerance to high PP of oxygen than others- however this doesn't mean there is an acclimation effect.

If the Nitrox diver was smart, he would have his pony filled with air. He could go on the pony, shoot down to 125 or a little deeper, provide assistance, haul butt back up to a safe depth, switch back to nitrox and make a direct ascent. I would help the air diver.

Also, depending on the nature of the problem, the nitrox diver could use the air diver's octopus at the deeper portion of the dive. I would most definitely take on some risk to save someone.

Hey Dumpster Diver,

Your response is tactically brilliant. Use the pony as your rescue gas. Yeah, I use a 6 cf pony when I dive with a buddy (13 cf when I solo).

I know I am changing the parameters of my OP, but what if the air diver is totally narced on 3.25 ATA PP nitrogen? And things get testy u/w and the EANx diver can't grab his octo. What if the air diver is dying because he is narced and is OOA. The options for the survival of the EANx diver are becoming more complicated. What if the EANx diver is physically taxed by the effort and he becomes narced on 3.25 ATA PP nitrogen?

I know the additions to my scenario are bordering on ridiculous. Things do escalate with depth.

markm

PS: I know that a 3.16 ATA PP nitrogen will only lead to mild narcosis while a diver's workload is light.

---------- Post added June 24th, 2014 at 06:00 PM ----------

Hey TsandM,

Your post #5 was good. Your cognitive reasoning skills are honed well; I hope they are because I agree with your opinion (if they are not, what does that say about me?).

Thanks,

markm

 

[Colliam7]

One buddy is breathing 21% (air) and the other diver is breathing 36% EANx.

Buddy Briefing:

1. The EANx diver responds that he will not exceed 95 fsw to save his buddy. He then states that the maximum depth for this dive should be 90 fsw and no deeper.
2. The air diver agrees and the two splash and dive the wall.

Questions:

1. If the air diver violates the dive plan and descends to 115 fsw where he promptly gets in trouble and needs help, is the EANx diver morally obligated to make an attempt to save his buddy even though he is at some risk of experiencing a CNS hit?

NO.

2. What if the air diver descends to 125 fsw and gets in trouble (in excess of 1.6 ATA PP oxygen for the EANx diver)?

NO. The divers agree a plan. The plan is that the buddy team will not descend below 90 ft. The nitrox buddy has made it clear - he won't descend below 95 ft.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

Having read through the last post by the OP, I feel confident in saying that, morally, this mess belongs in the Pub.

 

[Levigarrett]

Oxygen toxicity is a product of both elevated ppO2 and time. I'd be willing to exceed my MOD to at least 1.6 to aid someone with whom I'd agreed to buddy up. On the other hand, how did he get to 115 without me making a fuss and trying to get him back? Let alone 125 . . . If I've tried to signal him and he's appeared to get the signals and blow me off, he's on his own. If he's gotten hopelessly narced at 95 and has drifted down, my bad for not having intervened before he got that deep, and I'd probably try to retrieve him.

Don't make a second victim is the central creed of rescue. That doesn't just involve being good at rescue skills; it means situational awareness good enough to prevent a disaster situation from ever occurring. In the posited scenario, the EAN diver did what he should have done during the pre-dive. If the "buddy" violates the agreement knowingly and willfully, he is owed very little. If he violates it because he's not capable of understanding what he's done (ill, narced, or otherwise incapacitated) then I believe the buddy does have a moral obligation to assume increased risk to intervene.

BTW, as far as I know, there is NO evidence that you can build a tolerance to oxygen toxicity.[/QUOTE


Great post. I think many folks understanding of PPO2 and dosage is incomplete. I'd be willing to accept a momentary deviation below MOD. When I say momentary, I mean a minute or two. Additionally, I agree. I have never read or even heard anyone advocate increased tolerance for high PPo2. Indeed everyone is effected differently and divers have and continue to expose themselves to PPO2 dosages above reco limits but acclimation is not part of the picture in my estimation.

 

[swimmer_spe]

Hello All,

Scenario (based on conjecture--not a real life incident--for me anyway):

1. Two certified and experienced divers decide to buddy-up for a wall dive. The wall is dead vertical and in excess of 100 fathoms deep.
   1. Both divers have in excess of 100 dives in similar conditions and both have certs in excess of AOW.
   2. This is a rec dive; and,
      1. it is NOT a tech or staged decompression dive.
2. One buddy is breathing 21% (air) and the other diver is breathing 36% EANx.

Buddy Briefing:

1. The EANx diver explains to the air diver that he is using 36% nitrox and that his MOD (1.4 ATA, PP) is 95 fsw. He further explains that his Maximum Depth (1.6 ATA, PP) is 114 fsw.
2. The EANx diver explains that he has not dived in over a month and has not dived at MOD (1.4 ATA, PP) for many months.
   1. This is pertinent because conditioning and exposure does increase a diver's tolerance to high PP of oxygen and nitrogen. It is not a method for safely exceeding MOD or Maximum Depth; however, a diver's tolerance to oxygen and nitrogen can be increased.
3. The buddy responds that it is OK to exceed 1.6 ATA PP of oxygen as the Teams do it all the time, and in fact dive with a PP of oxygen at 2.O ATA.
4. The EANx diver responds that he will not exceed 95 fsw to save his buddy. He then states that the maximum depth for this dive should be 90 fsw and no deeper.
5. The air diver agrees and the two splash and dive the wall.

Questions:

1. If the air diver violates the dive plan and descends to 115 fsw where he promptly gets in trouble and needs help, is the EANx diver morally obligated to make an attempt to save his buddy even though he is at some risk of experiencing a CNS hit?
2. What if the air diver descends to 125 fsw and gets in trouble (in excess of 1.6 ATA PP oxygen for the EANx diver)?
3. If during the Buddy Briefing, the EANx diver offers the air diver a complete pony rig, and the air diver refuses, would that change your opinion? (obviously, the pony rig would only be a factor for this question if the primary system failed or an OOA situation was causative)

Thanks,

markm

I never dive with a buddy who is breathing something different. So, everything you are looking at becomes invalid.

 

[jadairiii]

Hey jadairiii,

Philosophically, I agree with your last paragraph. However, after 54 years on this earth, I have rarely come across black and white decisions. Being recalcitrant and dogmatic has only made me an outcast. I try to avoid that.

Your last paragraph is why I am asking the question. Where is that line. For you, your individual rights are very important to you. Me too!

Thanks again,

My "line" is that I would not enter the water because:

1. its wall dive with no hard bottom;
2. Each diving very different mixes
3. one member being very clear and honest that they will not attempt ANY rescue below their set limit of 95'
4. Then setting a max depth of the dive of 90'

If this guy was the "only game in town" I might suggest that, based on his "statement", that we limit our max depth to 60', giving us each plenty of cushion to attempt a rescue should that be necessary. If you cant keep your buddy within 30' vertical of you then its not a buddy dive anyway. If I tell someone I will be their "buddy" then I am going to do everything I can to bring them back and I would expect nothing less of the other guy, if he is telling me he wont, I will thank him for his honesty and either not dive at all or go solo and adjust my dive accordingly. I wont take on a "moral obligation" to rescue my buddy knowing full well he will not return the favor.

---------- Post added June 25th, 2014 at 09:28 AM ----------

I dont know why your comment sits wrong with me. I think that it is just something about the overeasy use of the word TEAM DIVING (buddy diving +). Per the hypothetical given a team would have never got into the water to begin with. Different gasses being used, each diver having different limitations. That does not make for Unified ( common or like) diving. I am neither a proponent or opponent of the unified team diving concepts for most dive profiles, but to ignore the unified process untill things go south and then return to it when handy, appears to be less than legitimate. The true team member would have never left the buddy behind adn put themselves in harms way. So if everything has gone right then the problem is a non planned issue. Unexpected health problem or such, leaving the victom diver out of full control of them selves. It takes but a look away for a buddy to get away from you and a recreational dive turns into a rescue dive. In short prevention should preclude any and all forseen problems. So under the premis thta a problem is now generated from something unforseen what obligation, moral or other would you have to rescue the soon doomed diver and to what extent.

I think my other recent response clarifies my position. But I consider any buddy group a "team" and because we (should) will share common goals. If not I will happily move on to another person or go solo and adjust accordingly. I try to avoid "Thunderdome Diving" at all cost.

 

[DivemasterDennis]

I appreciate TS and M's comment, but in this case both buddies have obligations. Both buddies are obligated and have a duty to dive within the dive plan, provided they are able to dio so. If an equipoment failure, down current, or other unforeseen and unpreventable situation occurs, I as the "EANX" buddy" would be willing to take risk up to a point IF I perceived I could accomplish something of value based upon my training, skills, and experience. Both buddies have an obligation to be aware of each other's location and gas supply. If I knew air buddy as a safe diver who understood the importance of following a dive plan, and who was not a "hot dog," I'd do the dive. I would not do this dive with someone with whom I was not familiar. By the way, I though this was a great discussion question.
DivemasterDennis

 

[mathauck0814]

I see this as a basic failure of the buddy system and poor planning where a solo dive is more appropriate.

Here you have two people who independently arrive for a dive with very different plans and goals in mind. This incompatibility is the first red flag.

If the divers pay lip service to remaining at an acceptable depth for one another, then the buddy system is working and all that remains is for the pair to execute the dive in the manner which was described.

Part of the pre-dive briefing should necessarily include the EANx diver explaining that if, for some reason, the air diver were to drop below a certain depth, the EANx diver will not be able to retrieve him. This takes care of the "moral responsibility" - fair warning.

There are circumstances which may be beyond the air divers' control - such as a loss of consciousness which, if the air diver is concerned about, should be factored into the plan and the floor moved much, much shallower to provide the EANx diver enough cushion to have a chance at retrieving the air diver before he fell below that depth. Beyond that depth, the air diver is on his own. As I understand it, the scenario is that these two met on the boat that morning. Obligation is quite low compared to a long standing buddy pair or buddy pair which are personally significant to one another; then the acceptable risk profile may change dramatically.

Ultimately, the string of bad decisions that would have to happen to turn this into a tragedy is long and preventable. Though, this does underscore the reason many divers opt to train and practice both in buddy pairs with trusted divers and to dive alone when no such suitable buddy is available. This scenario sounds like a classic case of an example where the two would be better off alone.