Solo Technical Why?

[uncfnp]

But that is not what SDI and PADI are saying as they have clearly classified solo as advanced recreational.

As long as we ostracize solo to the closet the longer and more difficult it will be to find solo tolerant ops.

This all is vaguely familiar to the nitrox arguments. I remember all of the same arguments made that it was to technical for the recreational diver and that nitrox was a technical topic/skill.

There is a thread about DM fitness. It is seemed to be said that if one meets the standard then they are good to go. If there are standards for solo, and there are, and they are met, why is this a problem? Why is it different from any other recreational certification? You have standards, you meet the standards, you go dive, in this case solo.

Buddy-less diving may not have been a part of recreational diving but that has changed, SDI and PADI now recognize recreational solo.

N

I am not sure I understand your arguement. Are you arguing against the nomenclature on SB because having it in the technical forum is somehow limiting solo from going mainstream and keeping it "in the closet"?

Solo is just another one of the gray areas of diving that lies between the fading lines of tech and rec.

At first blush, if it would make it better accepted among operators, my impulse is to say "heck yes." But more thought leads me to stick with my original position, at least for now. When/if solo completes the crossover into general recreational diving, just as nitrox did, and divers are introduced at an early level to at least the concept of solo, I may change my mind.

 

[MaxBottomtime]

Solo belongs in technical.

1) It exceeds the conventional limitations (Buddy diving) of recreational diving

Conventional limitations are not all they're cracked up to be. Try telling drivers that slower traffic is to stay to the right, or bicyclists should walk their bike across a crosswalk.

2) It requires equipment not associated with recreational diving, specifically redundancy

There is no "required" equipment. Anyone can solo with a single tank, doubles, rebreather or free dive. Unless I'm making a tech dive I use the same equipment no matter who else is in the water.

3) It also requires a different mindset from a recreational diver

The only thing I do differently when solo diving is not worry about where my buddy is.

 

[uncfnp]

True enough for the individual diver. But...

1) NDL is also a conventional limit but going beyond it is generally considered technical.

2) I was referring to solo primarily in the context of a dive speciality. Don't know about PADI but SDI (both referenced by Nemrod) does require additional gear for the course.

3) Again, this is most likely because you are a solo diver.

 

[DaleC]

What other "technical" equipment does a recreational solo diver need than a redundant air source? Surely a pony is not considered "technical" equipment? Where does ice diving fall in this spectrum, seeing as it also requires redundancy. Is that a technical subject or an advanced recreational specialty.

There is nothing technical about solo diving at all. It only requires a diver to do what they should already be able to do competently: Plan a dive, choose the right equipment, maintain situational awareness throughout the dive, avoid hazards, self rescue and know ones limits. Claiming one needs a buddy for any part of a recreational dive as a default suggests one is "buddy dependent". What responsibility are we offloading to the buddy?

As far as promoting to recreational divers is concerned. Do agencies not promote cavern, cave, deep and wreck diving? What do they say - get the proper training and do this. Why should you not promote solo diving the same way - get the proper training and do this. surely we aren't going to say recreational solo diving is inherently more dangerous than deep or cave diving?

The only thing that makes solo dangerous is treating it like it's a taboo subject so that people need go off by themselves to learn how to do it.

 

[uncfnp]

Hey, if you guys feel that strongly that solo should be in the Basic or Advanced forum, go for it. Then again, I don't think there are any sub forums in there so that would essentially eliminate solo as a speciality forum.

Have any of you looked at some of the other Technical Diving Specialties?

 

[Nemrod]

Hey, if you guys feel that strongly that solo should be in the Basic or Advanced forum, go for it. Then again, I don't think there are any sub forums in there so that would essentially eliminate solo as a speciality forum.

Have any of you looked at some of the other Technical Diving Specialties?

You have a point, there would have to be created a sub forum(s) in the Advanced Forum.

And, I do not want to create a melt down, it is just a discussion.

I am just of a mind, and perhaps wrongly, that the tendency to classify solo as technical limits the certification. And it is now a recreational certification to be sure. I never liked the tech vs. rec thing anyways.

N

 

[ams511]

Claiming one needs a buddy for any part of a recreational dive as a default suggests one is "buddy dependent". What responsibility are we offloading to the buddy?

I think you are going a bit over the top. A buddy is basically redundant equipment in case of failure and in case of unconsciousness, someone to get you to the surface safely. However for this to work it requires good buddy skills which some divers lack. Go to the DIR forum and tell them that they are buddy dependent. If you survive tell us how it went.

 

[drrich2]

Technically (pun intended) I think solo diving within the limits of the SDI Solo Diver course manual is a recreational diving activity, not tech. diving. I've got that certification; I don't have any tech. certifications.

I can only speculate as to the classification/organization used on Scuba Board. My speculation:

1.) That solo diving is considered to be appropriate for seasoned divers with an advanced mindset (whatever that is) who would be appropriate to enter at least entry level technical diving courses.

2.) That it subtly restricts the viewing audience toward seasoned divers, and doesn't come to the attention of newbies as much. Thus, it's less prone to 'give ideas' to people not ready for it yet.

3.) It would logically be considered advanced recreational diving, but politically/publicly speaking, just what is 'advanced' recreational diving? Anybody care to go back & count how many posts & threads we've had grousing that the mainstream agency advanced open water courses do not make one an advanced diver? How about all the contempt poured out about 'Master Scuba Diver' certifications other than NAUI's (if you even have that option in your area)? 'Zero-to-Hero' dive master & instructor tracks?

Maybe people advanced enough to at least be interested in technical diving (even if they never train in it) are considered an appropriate audience for solo diving discussions?

I'm not arguing for or against this point of view. I'm relating my suspicion this type of reasoning may have driven the practice.

Richard.

 

[DaleC]

I don't argue that a buddy is a sort of "insurance" policy in that it adds an extra person to render aid if necessary but you do not "need" a buddy to scuba dive. The solo diver compensates for the lack of that insurance policy (buddy) by planning more conservative dives, gaining skills and using redundant gear, if required. What team divers do is count on the other guy to carry their redundant gear, otherwise they to should plan conservatively (for their conditions) and gain skill.

I do talk to dir divers and none of them has ever told me they "need" another diver in order to dive. They say they choose to dive with others because they prefer the safety of a competent buddy and that, for them, it is also about a shared fun experience. Completely valid points IMO.

I was responding to these sentiments in my argument:

1) It exceeds the conventional limitations (Buddy diving) of recreational diving

2) In requires equipment not associated with recreational diving, specifically redundancy

3) It also requires a different mindset from a recreational diver

When I read them I think none are outside the norm of recreational diving. The things I alluded to should be part of a recreational divers capacity, whether they choose to dive solo or not. If you can't plan a dive, you are buddy dependent. If you can't choose the right equipment you are buddy dependent. If you can't maintain situational awareness throughout the dive you are buddy dependent. If you can't avoid hazards you are buddy dependent. If you can't self rescue you are buddy dependent and if you don't know your limits you are buddy dependent.

I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that. I would say I believe competency should be the measuring stick of what is considered within the realm of a subset (recreational/technical) not the lowest common denominator.



And I don't care where the forum is. As N says, it's just a discussion.

 

[drrich2]

When I read them I think none are outside the norm of recreational diving. The things I alluded to should be part of a recreational divers capacity, whether they choose to dive solo or not.

Bold emphasis mine.

Your statement raises a question. If, as you say, this should be so, but if the reality is often that some of these are not, should forum structure/presentation target the people the diving public should be, or the people they are?

I'm not focused on the letter of your specific examples so much as the more general thrust that the target audience of the diving public is often not at the level of knowledge/wisdom that many think they should be.

Richard.