Safe Diving for "Mission Focussed" Folks

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

deepseafalcon

Contributor
Messages
180
Reaction score
1
Location
China (temporarily)
# of dives
200 - 499
Hi,
in his article "Doing it right, Part 2", Dan Volker writes

"Ok, what about the photographers and lobster hunters----they are "mission focused", and often CAN NOT be considered anyone's buddy. Frequently, they end up solo, whether this was the plan or not. Since they have no rea l buddy system, they can not really comply with the Hogarthian or WKPP, "Doing it Right" version philosophy.

We will have to create a special set of procedures just for their style of non-attentiveness to their air supply or any other diver/buddy in their vicinity. We realize we will not be able to change this behavior in most photographers, so what can we offer them to make them safer. This will be an entirely different article. "

http://www.sfdj.com/fall/

I think he is very right with his analysis. I have to admit that, as a photographer, I tend to do these very things he describes. I think he is also right that it is a lost cause to try change the fundamental behavior in someone who is really into photography. I am lucky that I usually have my wife as a "true" buddy, at least "one-way". But I don't think that's good practice or truly safe.

So my questions are:
1. Is anyone aware of published "special sets of rules for the mission focussed diver", i.e., "the entirely different article" mentioned by Dan?

2. Who of you sees him/herself in a similar situation, and what is YOUR way of making your diving safer?

First thought might be to apply general rules for solo divers, but that may not be the perfect approach, as solo divers may pay more attention to critical things than above group.

Please don't kill this thread with general criticism and explanations why this behavior isn't safe or bad. I am aware of that. I was lucky in the past 20 years, but this doesn't mean it'll be for the next 20. That's why I am asking this question.
Or maybe it's just that I am becoming a scared old fart, now that I am closer to 40 than to 30 :wink:

Thanks for all your combined experience.
d-s-f
 
deepseafalcon:
So my questions are:
1. Is anyone aware of published "special sets of rules for the mission focussed diver", i.e., "the entirely different article" mentioned by Dan?

2. Who of you sees him/herself in a similar situation, and what is YOUR way of making your diving safer?

Or maybe it's just that I am becoming a scared old fart, now that I am closer to 40 than to 30...
There are no universal answers, mostly because risk tolerance varies from diver to diver, and can vary significantly from day to day for the same diver - depending on the parameters of the dive environment. Warm clear calm water is different from deep cold dark water.

With respect to your first question, there are no 'sets of rules'. Its pretty simple. Like pregnancy - you can't be "a little bit" pregnant. You either are or you're not. Similarly, you can't be "a little bit" buddied up. You're either with a buddy who is consistently aware of your status throughout the dive, or you're alone.

I've heard of 'team spearfishing' where one diver has the gun, the other deals with the bag. The divers take turns with the gun, and the bag man keeps the shooter in view. Its much easier under some conditions than others. Other than that, spearos tend to get separated.

I don't know of any parallel in photography, except those lucky souls who have a buddy content to simply hover and watch as they compose their shots.

The point is that unless you take deliberate measures to remain with a buddy, you are gambling that everything will go as you expect. If it does, you win. If it doesn't, you lose. Thats about as simple as it gets.

IMHO, each diver really needs to ponder losing, however, before getting into such a situation in the first place. Here is a thread off another board, contained in the thread directly beneath it, from the most recent case I'm aware of involving spearfishing:

http://spearboard.com/showthread.php?t=21178&page=1&pp=15

http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=110113&highlight=failed+to+surface

And I was physically present the day two years ago when a temporarily solo videographer swam into a gill net. He is alive today ONLY because he could inflate his BC and drag the gillnet to the surface where he could call for help from divers on shore. He was otherwise immobilized by the gill net. Photographers have no more assurance of safety while taking shots alone than any other solo divers. Entanglements can happen anywhere, at any depth, on any dive.

So with respect to your second question, the only sure answer is to dive with a team mate, even while hunting or recording images. With all due respect to the words of a grieving father, there is no such thing in diving as a "team of one". Take turns, switch off 'safety diver' status dive to dive, whatever. Anything else is a gamble, plain and simple. :wink:
 
It might help to look at divers who are really 'mission focused' all the time.
In commercial diving we do not use buddies.
We do use a team diving system but most of the team is not in the water. There is the diver who is in the water doing the job and concentrating to the greatist extent possible on the job. The tender is looking out for the diver and the dive supervisor is running the show. In an emergency the tender or sup can go in for the rescue while the other tends. On some jobs there are more people in the team.

Now, as sport divers we are not likely to go surface supplied with paid surface suport crew but we can use some of the ideas.
A photographer should have a buddy/tender who is looking out for the photog and the photog still needs to be looking out for their buddy but not to quite the same level.
Two photographers as buddies, both with cameras on the same dive is likely to end up with two solo divers as they both concentrate on their shots and not on the team.
 
Doc Intrepid:
I've heard of 'team spearfishing' where one diver has the gun, the other deals with the bag. The divers take turns with the gun, and the bag man keeps the shooter in view. Its much easier under some conditions than others. Other than that, spearos tend to get separated.

True team spearfishing is when both divers are armed and co-operate at all times in the stalk and hunt. This MANDATES that both divers constantly STAY aware of his buddy's position and condition. Developing this team can take hundreds if not thousands of hours in the water together learning communication, navigation, and complementary hunting skills. A true hunting team will take home way more meat, be it bugs or finfish, than 2 good hunters working independently. All meat taken is shared equally among the team members. In over 35 years diving I've been part of exactly 2 good teams, and one that is still in development. I've only seen about 3 other teams that worked well together.


FT
 
I'll readily concede to your vastly greater spearfishing knowledge, Fred.

In my limited experience its always been the case that whenever two divers both enter the water carrying guns, they tend to eventually pursue independent objectives with predictable results.

The guys I saw operating out of VA Beach who went down as buddies but with only one gun were the only two I've ever noticed staying together.

In a general sense, we're all making the same point... It takes a lot of deliberate planning, decisions, and actions underwater to ensure that a 'mission oriented' diver has someone watching over them.

Anything less than that level of effort is unlikely to be very effective.
 
well, from the replies so far it looks like I am lucky with my wife as a very attentive buddy. She actually enjoys searching for objects for me, plays once in a while model, and also loves watching small critter or or just hang around still and observe. Both of us don't like to rush over the reef.

I guess main weak points are me not enough watching out for her, sharks sneaking up on me I won't notice :) , and my own air supply. The latter so far never became a real problem. In earlier days I used (the now uncommon) reserve valves. For a few years I now use an air integrated computer. Really is a help in that I see air supply at the same time than dive time or depth.

So I guess what we should improve on are certain elements of redundancy/self-reliance. Like ponies. Any other thoughts in this direction?

d-s-f
 
deepseafalcon:
Hi,
in his article "Doing it right, Part 2", Dan Volker writes

"Ok, what about the photographers and lobster hunters----they are "mission focused", and often CAN NOT be considered anyone's buddy. Frequently, they end up solo, whether this was the plan or not. Since they have no rea l buddy system, they can not really comply with the Hogarthian or WKPP, "Doing it Right" version philosophy.

We will have to create a special set of procedures just for their style of non-attentiveness to their air supply or any other diver/buddy in their vicinity. We realize we will not be able to change this behavior in most photographers, so what can we offer them to make them safer. This will be an entirely different article. "

http://www.sfdj.com/fall/

I think he is very right with his analysis. I have to admit that, as a photographer, I tend to do these very things he describes. I think he is also right that it is a lost cause to try change the fundamental behavior in someone who is really into photography. I am lucky that I usually have my wife as a "true" buddy, at least "one-way". But I don't think that's good practice or truly safe.

So my questions are:
1. Is anyone aware of published "special sets of rules for the mission focused diver", i.e., "the entirely different article" mentioned by Dan?

2. Who of you sees him/herself in a similar situation, and what is YOUR way of making your diving safer?

First thought might be to apply general rules for solo divers, but that may not be the perfect approach, as solo divers may pay more attention to critical things than above group.

Please don't kill this thread with general criticism and explanations why this behavior isn't safe or bad. I am aware of that. I was lucky in the past 20 years, but this doesn't mean it'll be for the next 20. That's why I am asking this question.
Or maybe it's just that I am becoming a scared old fart, now that I am closer to 40 than to 30 :wink:

Thanks for all your combined experience.
d-s-f

This is a very interesting post and it's bound to stimulate a very lively discussion.

I decided to answer before reading the other replies so forgive me if I'm repeating things.

First thing you need to understand is that Dan Volker is an articulate writer and undoubtedly a hell of a diver but this easily hides the fact that he's simply not the world's biggest superstar on logic. His obsessive need to underpin the need for DIR in every day diving has lead him in the past to many ridiculous statements about the other things people do and this is, in my relatively humble opinion, one of them.

So here is a bit of context to put that little blurb into for starters:

The logic problem, which is a silly logic trap that he walks into over and over again is to confuse GOALS with SKILLS, PROCEDURES and TASKS. It's understandable because in his own development as a diver (and this holds true for many people who are just learning how to dive--DIR and otherwise) the "procedure" IS the "goal", the "task" is the "dive". This idea pervaded DIR and in some ways went straight to the core of DIR in the early days and Dan has, unfortunately, perhaps, found himself unable to let this go and/or to rise above the material enough to grasp the logic trap.

It's really unfortunate, if you ask me because he's a good enough writer that if he could get his thinking unknotted he'd be an excellent ambassador for DIR. As it is, he usually comes across as if he's grasping for straws.

So, with that context in mind, lets take a look at his claim. :

they are "mission focused",
good for them! Every dive should be mission focused. Having a "goal" is a good thing! Do you think otherwise about the need to consider your goals for a dive? Would you make a dive without thinking ahead of time about what you wanted to do?

and often CAN NOT be considered anyone's buddy.

Here is the first disconnect. How does having a goal for a dive lead to the conclusion that you CAN NOT be considered anyone's buddy?

Along these lines, let me ask you another question. If a cave diver is mapping a new run and making notes on a slate (performing a task), does that also mean that he CAN NOT be considered someone's buddy? If a wreck diver is performing an artifact recovery (task)....what about that? How about (task) if a nature lover is looking at a fish? How about a photographer taking a picture (task). Or a tek diver launching a blob (task)..... Every meaningful dive involves some kind of goal and some kind of tasks whereby you attention is not 100% focused on your buddy. Does that *automatically* mean that you are also *unaware* of your buddy..... that's the assumption he's making here and if you ask me it's an absurd assumption. The argument that he will go on to make if you ask him about this disconnect is that DIR divers are trained to keep buddy awareness under task loading and other divers are not. This may be true to a point but it doesn't eliminate the disconnect in his logic when he assumes that having a task to perform automatically makes non-DIR divers unfit buddies. The twists of logic needed to draw these conclusions are enormous.

Frequently, they end up solo

Disconnect.....Here we have another problem altogether. Here we have a dead-ordinary skills problem that he's connecting to divers having a task or a goal to perform. This does not logically follow from the previous remarks.

Since they have no rea l buddy system,

Where in God's green earth is THIS coming from? Now he's throwing in a procedures problem to sweeten the pie. How does a procedures problem automatically follow from having a skills problem? How does the skills problem automatically follow from having a task to perform.....he's very nearly managed to get his entire head up his *** now....

they can not really comply with the Hogarthian or WKPP, "Doing it Right" version philosophy.

On the surface of it it looks like he's right. Someone who has no-goal, is overly task-loaded, unskilled and is experiencing serious procedural problems is definitely not DIR. However, he seems to be suggesting the opposite here, namely that someone who is not DIR has no-goal, is overly task-loaded, unskilled and is experiencing serious procedural problems. He's done an end-run in his logic now and the disconnects in his thinking are flying in formation.

Moreover, and this is just me getting picky but it irritates me to no end, but DIR (which is Dan Volker's focus) and Hogarthian have little to do with one another. DIR is a standard set of procedures, skills, equipment and so on, and Hogarthian is set of principles. Maybe you can see DIR as a superset of Hogarthian but in my mind they approach the material from very different angles. He knows this but after all the spankings he's taken over the years for ambushing on non-DIR divers in the way he has done here he has apparently started to feel vulnerable using the word DIR and he appears to be relabelling it to keep himself out of the wind.

For the casual reader he seems to make some kind of sense, especially when you are experiencing some of these problems. However he throws it all in a blender and fails to distinguish between goals, tasks, skills, procedures and diving philosophy. If you *are* able to make these distinctions, which you are now that you have read this post, then you are (a) one step further than this article assumes you are and (b) well on your way to finding an *effective* way to analyze your own diving instead of relying on articles like this, which has an agenda, and that is *not* to improve your diving.

R..
 
which came first? The chicken or the egg? For Divers new to the sport, DIR gives them comfort in an environment that is foreign to them. I guess that's good. More expereanced divers can make gear adjustments without asking permission. They can also decide on what kind of task loading they are comfortable with. If an expereanced diver wants to be a mission focused solo photo diver , then who's to say they are wrong ? A diver with 25 dives and straight out of fundies? That's the real disconnect!
 
Diver0001, you clearly have issues with Mr. Volker, but what about the underlying question?

It's been my experience that diving with photographers, whether they are DIR photographers or not, is not the reassuring and enjoyable experience that diving with an attentive buddy is, DIR or not. As I understand from reading Jablonski's book and talking to DIR divers that buddy awareness is a fundamental tenet of DIR diving, I have wondered how they deal with photographers.

I'm too naive to be able to split Hogarthian (which I think has more to do with equipment configuration?) from DIR (which I think is Hogarthian-type equipment combined with some skills emphasis and team protocol ideas?) But I've wondered how an ethic that emphasizes buddy awareness and team function copes with self-absorbed divers like photographers . . .
 
I am lucky that I usually have my wife as a "true" buddy, at least "one-way". But I don't think that's good practice or truly safe.

deepseafalcon:
2. Who of you sees him/herself in a similar situation, and what is YOUR way of making your diving safer?

First thought might be to apply general rules for solo divers, but that may not be the perfect approach, as solo divers may pay more attention to critical things than above group.

It appears you prefer to maintain the buddy approach to diving, so let's just leave solo out.

I have, as many here have, hunted and taken photography with a buddy with varying degrees of effectiveness from a safety, task execution, and goal accomplishment perspective. What determines an effective buddy/team hunt or photo dive? This may not surprise anyone, but it all comes down to adherance to the basic, fundamental principals of buddy/team diving. It's really all so elementary.

To build cohesiveness: You need to plan. You need to have the discipline to carry it out. There is a time for monitoring the dive environment, for monitoring a buddy, your gauges, taking photos, communicating, etc. There is a time to properly execute proper dive tasks - all of them. All this has to be mutually co-ordinated and agreed to pre-dive. You must both agree and keep your agreement. And practice makes perfect. Better, that is.

The difference between a good and bad team is that a good team will device a good plan and execute, a bad team will not properly plan and/or execute. All the examples given were a team member goes his own way and even ignores his own basic dive needs, is an example of diving without a plan, having a bad plan, or of braking the rules of the plan. If you find yourself ignoring the most basic elements required to monitor your diving and your buddy because you rather take that photo or chase that fish, you need to re-examine your priorities - or accept the risk. Plain and simple, and I'll add that changing over to Solo will not help. One can Solo badly, too. There is plenty of time in the dive to accomplish goals and responsibilities. All types of diving come down to being aware of and monitoring circumstances, while carrying out different tasks.

I did get into
general criticism and explanations why this behavior isn't safe or bad
but this what I believe makes my diving safer. This may seem disappointing, but there are no shortcuts, no magic bullits.

An addition you may want to consider is a redundant gas supply for you and your buddy. Then again, if she is really always there for you she should be able to be there for you or come to you in the event of a gas loss. Good, solid, rescue and contingency planning and practice would be useful. How do you know she is a good buddy if you don't reciprocate? Trust? ..... But verify.
 
http://cavediveflorida.com/Rum_House.htm

Back
Top Bottom