Solo Diving: PADI Worldwide's Position

[redacted]

I'm curious how you came to that conclusion?

I don't believe that solo diving is any more dangerous than buddy diving. In fact, some buddy dives could be more dangerous than solo diving.

I think it depends on putting the right qualification on which ever statement you want to make. I might accept that the average solo diver may be at no more risk than the average diver with a buddy. But I also believe that I (certified & experienced solo diver) am safer when diving with one of my regular buddies than when diving solo. There are just so many more things that a good buddy can do for you than what your yellow buddy can.

 

[Gnashrak]

Just some thoughts:

I think these type of statistics are going to be impossible to nail down. There are "true" solo divers who die while doing a "true" solo dive. What percentage does this represent of all solo dives completed during the same reporting period? That is the main problem. There is no accurate measure.

A study can be implemented quite easily by enrolling divers from both group and study their safety records. That might take a couple of years but would give a true answer to the question.

Is solo diving more dangerous than buddy diving?

Certainly.

But is solo diving statistically more dangerous, or do solo divers actually have an equal or better safety record than "buddy" divers?

I have no idea.

Personally, when I solo dive I am hyper-vigilant with regards to my equipment and surroundings. And I "perform" better as a diver when solo because all of my attention is focused on "me" and my surroundings, rather than part of it being focused on my dive partner. My RMV actually drops when I'm solo.... which is opposite what I expected.

Best wishes.

It is instinctive that solo diving bears more risk than diving with a known buddy. Brain cannot be redundant... But instincts can be mistaken, that's why I would like to quantify the risk taken while solo diving.

 

[it_mike]

But is solo diving statistically more dangerous, or do solo divers actually have an equal or better safety record than "buddy" divers?

I would expect the statistics to be similar to a comparison of reported fatilities and serious injuries among motorcyclists in helmet optional states. Those who intentionally take the risk probably are more attentive and more risk adverse in other areas than those to take the 'safe' route.

For example, a comparison of motorcycle accident reports before and after helmet law changes demonstrates fewer deaths/serious injuries per accident among those who ride without a helmet vs. those who ride with a helmet. While this is not indicative of the safety margin (helmet vs. non), it does suggest that when intentionally riding without a helmet, the motorcyclists in question may be operating at slower speeds or with greater care.

Similarly, those who choose to dive solo may do more dive planning, be more risk adverse with regards to their air volume and redundancy, and work diligently to improve their dive skills.

 

[DaleC]

I would expect the statistics to be similar to a comparison of reported fatilities and serious injuries among motorcyclists in helmet optional states. Those who intentionally take the risk probably are more attentive and more risk adverse in other areas than those to take the 'safe' route.

For example, a comparison of motorcycle accident reports before and after helmet law changes demonstrates fewer deaths/serious injuries per accident among those who ride without a helmet vs. those who ride with a helmet. While this is not indicative of the safety margin (helmet vs. non), it does suggest that when intentionally riding without a helmet, the motorcyclists in question may be operating at slower speeds or with greater care.

Similarly, those who choose to dive solo may do more dive planning, be more risk adverse with regards to their air volume and redundancy, and work diligently to improve their dive skills.

I think your example is a good one and represents what might occur.

While it is often said that two brains are better than one I don't agree that this is always the case. Sometimes two brains have different ideas that can cause problems by diverging from a (mistakenly believed) common plan. Two brains also have a way of becoming complacent, leaving some aspect of planning or execution to the other (that in turn leaves it to the other). The presence of a second brain can also influence the other (overtly or subtly) to do things it might otherwise not do.

I don't like using stats for this sort of thing. One would have to study two groups (solo and buddy teams) that were committed to safely practicing each discipline. I think it would be a pretty boring study with fatalities only occuring in rare or unforseen circumstances.

Where's the sex appeal in that??

 

[LeadTurn_SD]

I would expect the statistics to be similar to a comparison of reported fatilities and serious injuries among motorcyclists in helmet optional states. Those who intentionally take the risk probably are more attentive and more risk adverse in other areas than those to take the 'safe' route.

For example, a comparison of motorcycle accident reports before and after helmet law changes demonstrates fewer deaths/serious injuries per accident among those who ride without a helmet vs. those who ride with a helmet. While this is not indicative of the safety margin (helmet vs. non), it does suggest that when intentionally riding without a helmet, the motorcyclists in question may be operating at slower speeds or with greater care.

Similarly, those who choose to dive solo may do more dive planning, be more risk adverse with regards to their air volume and redundancy, and work diligently to improve their dive skills.

Interesting point. I would not have guessed that (regarding helmet use vs injury in motorcycle riders). But I certainly can see why it would be true.... and do see how this example could apply to solo diving.

Funny/strange personal comment: Growing up, our family business was a motorcycle shop. I rode and raced motorcycles long before I was old enough to drive.... but, while I will dive solo on occasion, I have never and will never ride a motorcycle without a helmet

Go figure.....

Best wishes.

 

[biz_nate]

I, for one, am grateful to the OP for posting what they did. It's a decent start at formulating an argument that novice divers should mentor under more experienced ones in the context of a broader dive community.

The article did have several logical flaws; most irritating to me was discussing what "defines" solo diving, and then citing out-of-context statistics that include scenarios clearly excluded by that definition. I would really like to see some legitimate statistics.

I wish it had been written more professionally and scientifically; some actual food for thought would go a long way in determining the merits vs. risks associated with my choice to dive solo. Until that day, my decision making toolkit will have to consist of anecdotes, experience, and imagination. So far the benefits of going solo have outweighed the risks.

I'm happy to entertain different viewpoints, and as such am grateful for the reading, but would like someday to hear something more substantial than rhetoric from either camp.

-Ben

 

[biz_nate]

<Begin Thread Derail Rant>

As far as standards go, this sport (as a commercial entity) is very new and constantly evolving. I expect that 30 years from now, certification standards will be as different as they were 30 years ago. It's an exciting privilege to watch it all unfold. For now, though, it seems to me that the system as-is is fine. To the extent that training standards have attenuated, conditions have become more controlled. New divers these days dive under the supervision of divemasters (on vacations/boats) or more experienced community members (locally), and many new divers seem perfectly content with that. Those that aren't do what it takes to grow out of that paradigm.

This sort of system yields two types of divers:
(1) those that want to occasionally go underwater and relax, see pretty things, and feel good without doing much work
(2) those that are drawn deeper (no pun intended), and make the effort to grow into a greater level of self-sufficiency (not necessarily solo, but enough independence to safely buddy dive without a divemaster, or lead a newer diver)

There's really no way to shortcut mentoring for those that are serious about diving. The only question is whether the decision to grow and the choice of a mentor are in the hands of the individual diver, or dictated through an agency's standards. My opinion: give me access to rentals and fills (OW card), and let me decide where/how much I want to grow.

Currently, it seems that the economics of the current paradigm are sustainable. Despite all the noise about inadequate training, fatality/incident statistics seem to indicate that this sport, with its current training standards, is relatively safe. If both of those factors indicate stability, why narrow the field by introducing more restrictive standards and depth of training? Not only would this result in less money going into the industry, it would limit the number of people who choose to experience the beauty of our underwater world. That makes no sense to me.

<End Thread Derail Rant>

 

[NAM001]

I am anti buddy and pro solo. When you dive you are diving solo with someone else doing the same. Seldome are you close enough to provide the buddy function. As padi is concerned they are not much different than most other agencies. As new situations and environments become norm training is updated to add to curiculum. However when situations and envuronments die the course lives on.
Esamples

1. Drivers Ed ...... signal for all turns and lane changes..... How many functionally signal at a corner when there is no one but you at the intersection. Why do they not teach that? . One fule fits all... Litigation... Cop behind the bill board... Each of those reasons have nothing to do with funfctional use of signals. such is the same for the training of newby's as a commercial setting.

2. I started diving before alulminum tanks were common. You had a 50/72 steel tank. On (maybe)a small back board with straps. Watch seahunt someday. The only ones who took diving courses were serious routine divers. it was not a fasion item.. There was no c-cards needed to get services/air. Bc's ??? never heard of. did not exist.. What the course taught was ballast partial presure depth change rates, and basic skills.. Only a mention of dive tables. Why ?? 50 cu ft can not get you deep enough long enough to have to concern yourself with a table. No safety stops either. Saving your buddy stuff.... stay close cause we didnt have a backup reg either, not to mantion we all had j valves. The only air available to the buddy was yours. God save us all (by todays standards)from poor training of the past. Your buddy was your life line for every failure. That training meet the era's environmental and technological needs.

3. When you were a kid you were told to never cross the street alone and to stop look and listen. How many of you still refuse to cross alone. At some point you question the logic of the rule and you cross by your self. You run and trip in the street a few times till you learn that walking by your self is in fact ok, if done safely......... then the next thing to go was asnta clause and the easter bunny because you were lied to by those who you trusted.

Now we have octo's second airs. Bcd's pony bottles. Sausages, double's cave/wreck diving. The environments, equipments, and situations have changed.

Bcd's are in... horse collars are out. They all add the new stuff to the course. The lawyers, ins co's, and agencies keep the old stuff from going away. Keeping it is not all that bad ... however.. there is no realistic theory as to why it is there. New divers do not understand the reasons behind buddy's. They do unfortunatly learn to understand that a buddy in not needed if you have a second /octo/spare air to breath. A bc to blow to the surface. God knows they cant drop weights from all the stuff layered of them. The snow birds that dive once a vacation when they fly south, i would bet ,are the most of the problems. That is a profieciency issue and not a buddy issue. When so-so experienced people have imposed on them the one rule fits all .....they ignore it more than they comply.

Look at the talk of depth limits on 1.2 atm vice 1.4 or 1.6. i was taught 1.8 Those who believe that 1.2 is a legit limit , and not an insurance mandate, should not be diving and if they do they need a buddy to die with at 1.2. Perhaps another way tp put it is that beginners believe in santa's cousin scubaclause. Teckies study and know the truth. And those inbetween .. well.. they are testing the system to find the truth, and get in trouble.

Its hard to get into trouble with a 50 cu ft tank ...... give a 50's diver a 150 cu ft tank and he goes to places he is not prepared for. And gets in trouble.

There is a lot of learning that takes place in the ow to ao plase of learining.

To require 100 dives to get a solo cert suggests the diver has worked out his problems understands the reasons for the sstandards and is not the once per year snowbird diver.

It is only logical that there is an expertice training level that teaches diving independance skills whether used in a buddy or buddyliess situation.

By the time your buddy can figure out there is a problem and reacts it will have grown to a panic situation. how many ow's would you trust to save you.

I personally do not trust my survivability to another diver. I have backups for everytihing. Ways to save my backside in any conceived problem. With or with out a pony bottle or a second mask strapped on. When you are a firm believer in need for a buddy you tend to pass your responsibilities and survivability to your buddy. when you dive with the solo mentality you depend only on your self you become an asset to your buddy when you have one.

 

[NAM001]

One more thing on padi's position. Why does padi still uphold the assent rate that they always have. The other agencies have changed thiers to a slower rate. Padi will come around when the lawsuits have cleared and timing of the change is not construed as admission that the trained assent rate caused a diver to get hurt. Litigation litigation litigation. The larger the organization the more you teach to lawyer needs and not the divers needs. Like santa clause once you find out one lie you mistrust everything from that source. And then you get inm trouble.......

 

[Amphibious]

great thread. like so many other things, it can be answered in one short question

"why should anyone give a ***** what PADI thinks?"

ah, I feel better now.

great solo dive this morning.