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
You are asking two questions, and it is useful to separate them. Buddy diving is a standard of practice for many reasons, some based on data, some based on experience, some probably based on habit as much as anything. In watersports, the buddy system is often taught in swimming, in life guard training, etc, not just in diving. I cannot count the number of times I said, as a teenage lifeguard, to a solo swimmer in a pool full of 12 year olds, ‘Where is your buddy?'. In diving, Cousteau wrote about the (value of the) buddy system as long ago as 1953. Having a dive buddy provides specific redundancy – an independent air supply, a second set of eyes, a second brain. So, advocacy of the buddy system in diving is the very opposite of ‘nonredundancy’. As an aside, the buddy concept goes well beyond diving - in military flight operations, the ‘wingman’ concept; in commercial aviation, having two pilots in the cockpit is the rule. In other aspects of training, there is the 'swim buddy' system, or the concept of 'mutually supporting pairs'. The list of examples is long and easily crosses disciplinary boundaries. Where the buddy system has become a target for criticism, in diving in particular, is a situation where there are ‘insta-buddy’ pairings that are simply mis-matches, or pairings of divers where one (or both) are simply not capable of functioning as a competent dive buddy (two brains, and not a single thought between them). Neither of these situations meet the intent of the buddy system, beyond providing even numbers (pairs). In fact, the SDI Solo Diver manual even explicitly states that the ‘SDI solo diver course has been designed to teach you a series of skills and procedures to help you counteract Bad Buddy Syndrome . . .’. But, unfortunately, those situations have too easily become a basis for wholesale dismissal of the value, utility, and social enjoyment of the buddy system, which is simply ridiculous. If anything, criticism should be directed toward what appears to be grossly inadequate indoctrination of divers in the responsibilities, processes and procedures of buddy system to begin with. The buddy system is not perfect, and outside of diving - commercial aviation for example - examples of mismatched buddies also exist (Germanwings and EgyptAir), as do examples of reasonably matched and comparably under-skilled buddies (Air France). As should be the case in in diving, none of these situations are taken as an appropriate basis for dismissing the value of a buddy system. Rather, they argue for better training and selection of buddies. I dive solo / alone / by myself on a regular basis. I dive with a limited number of selected buddies on a regular basis, perhaps more often than by myself. Diving alone or with a buddy is not an either-or situation – I do both. But, in both circumstances, I do everything I can to be as self-reliant as possible. I did two ocean dives yesterday, with 3 buddies, and we dove together at times and apart at times on each dive, but we always dove self-reliantly as individuals. And, a substantial part of the enjoyment of the overall experience was sitting at lunch afterward, with some refreshing adult beverages, talking, and laughing, about what we did, what we saw.mick allein III:
Absolutely! I would much prefer to dive with the confidence that I have the ability to take care of the vast majority of ‘things’ that might go wrong during a dive. Having that ability makes me a better diver, more important it makes me a better dive buddy. And, I want the buddy I am with to have an equivalent level of competence. The very first exercise in the PADI Rescue Diver course, as one example and probably consistent with many other agency offering, is a ‘Self-Rescue Review’. A substantial part of the first chapter in the Rescue Diver manual is devoted to Self-Rescue. I have no doubt that the materials of other agencies are similar. Whether all aspects of self-rescue are best taught as part of a single, longer, more comprehensive entry-level dive training course, or progressively across several courses, is a separate issue. The fundamental point remains – it is better if all divers are trained and equipped for self-rescue. In fact, self-rescue training does begin in the majority of entry-level dive courses. The CESA is part of self-rescue. Cramp-removal is part of self-rescue. Emergency weight drop is part of self-rescue.mick allein III:
The training / certification agencies – with possibly a couple of particular exceptions – are general rather than specific in their specification of equipment requirements and recommendations. One example of an agency recommendation on redundancy is, ‘Carrying a backup for any equipment that is either critical for survival or critical to the dive objective’s success.’ Makes sense. Air is critical to my survival underwater. So, a redundant air supply would qualify as a necessary item of redundancy. (A 'backup' air supply according to the agency could be anything from a Spare Air to a set of backmounted double 130s with an isolator manifold. As an instructor teaching the course, I do not allow a Spare Air to be carried as a redundant air supply - my prerogative, not an agency requirement - and have not yet been confronted with a student who wanted to use the 130s, but would have no problem with that, if the student was facile in their use.) If I am in a dark environment, a light may be critical to my survival, so a back-up light would be a necessary item of redundancy. A redundant cutting tool might be critical, although that is debatable – many divers do not carry a primary cutting tool, much less a redundant one.scubadude223:
This is complete, uninformed rubbish. No further comment needed.scubadude:
A knowledgeable (as opposed to simply uninformed and opinionated) comparison of the content and standards of the PADI Self-Reliant Diver and SDI Solo Diver courses leads to the conclusion that they are far more similar than dis-similar, irrespective of the name. I readily admit, as a PADI instructor, that my first reaction when I learned of the Self-Reliant Diver course was not altogether different – PADI just can’t bring itself to use the term ‘solo’. But, the more I thought about it, and considered the actual content of the course, I came to believe (without even drinking any Kool-Aid) that ‘self-reliant’ is actually in many ways a better, more inclusive, and more accurate description, than ‘solo’. The purpose of the PADI course is to the development of skills that allow a diver to be self-reliant, whether they choose to dive as part of a buddy pair, as part of a multi-diver team, or solo / along / by themselves. That is really the purpose of the SDI course as well. The SDI course prepares a diver to engage in solo diving. The course does not promote solo diving as a better approach than buddy diving (other than avoiding Bad Buddy syndrome), only as an alternative. (An individual instructor might do so, but that is another matter, entirely.) The Solo Diver manual even states, ‘. . . solo diving and certification . . . is . . . for many divers . . . wanting to enjoy the freedom offered by self-reliant diving . . .’. To view the SDI course only in the context of the word ‘solo’ actually does a disservice to the course. As Alexander Pope asserted in 1709, ‘A little learning is a dangerous thing.’scubadude223:
