Solo vs. Buddy perspective

[redrover]

I think too much thought is going on here. .... Not sure I understand the reason for the question.

My employment at times required interaction with diagnosed (and undiagnosed ) malevolent personalities and has perhaps affected my level of tolerable risk. I have to agree this may be a bit esoteric on my part. Refusal to share air doesn’t seem to be common, or there would be far more discussions along the lines of ‘my buddy didn’t!’

Much of what I learn is transferable to other aspects of my life. This board is no exception, I’m questioning to refine my thinking.

 

[Nemrod]

In another thread (-would-you-dive-someone-who-wouldn-t-share-air-) I was thinking semantics may have blurred the issue presented. As many Solo divers also Buddy dive, I’m wondering what your thoughts are.

Do you equate diving with a buddy unwilling to share air to diving Solo or, is it more complex than that?

Were you to know a diver was not willing to share their air with you (or someone else) would you automatically assume they had other issues onboard you would not want to be diving anywhere near?

When considering diving with a Buddy, they stated they were unwilling to Share Air, would that fact alone prevent you from diving with them?

NO. Solomeans you, the diver, isin the water ALONE, completely, on your own. There is no hypotehtical question as toa buddy or who will share air with the solodiver because there is NO buddy, no thought of a buddy and no consideration of a buddy because you are totally ALONE.

When I dive with a buddy, it is a whole different thing, I am prepared and ready to share air or whatever and perhaps in some cases my life for theirs.

Buddy divers often confuse exactly the meaning of solo. Not being directly responsible for another diver who nonetheless your in the water with is not--NOT-solo diving. It may share some aspects of solo diving but some is far from ALL. Solo is that---SOLO.

N

 

[redrover]

Okay, thinking a little harder, I came up with a possibility. It's not relevant to the whole discussion (hehe) that got to this point, of course, but it *is* something.

*If* I were planning a pushing-the-limits solo dive in which I needed all my air to follow my dive and contingency plan, and if someone wanted to buddy up on that dive, I would have to tell them that I could not share air with them, given my plan. That's not the same thing as saying I would not share air; rather, it is saying that my solo dive plan is not compatible with sharing air.

Would I do such a solo dive? Probably not. I like my "safety" margins. Would it be a theoretically valid reason to say for that dive that I cannot share air? It seems that could be the case. Where I diverge from the "would not share" side of things, however, is that *I* would refuse to allow a *buddy* to dive with *me*, as I would not consider myself to be in a position to be able to carry out the duties that I expect of myself and my buddies.

If I were to say I'd buddy with anyone but would not share air if they need it, I would consider that a very bad sign about my care for those with whom I may dive. On the other hand, saying, "I don't have enough air to share, so I cannot in good conscience allow you to dive with me this dive" shows precisely the opposite. Between two true solo divers, there may be a middle ground, where there is a plan mutually agreed upon that says that this is a solo-and-solo dive and relatively very little assistance may be possible. I would not be able to make such a dive (when I'm around others, I cannot release myself from a basic standard of care -- it's just who I am), but I would not judge two solo divers who *did* make such an agreement.

For non-solo divers, I can't think of a case where it would be acceptable behavior to deny outright the standard of care which is the basis of non-solo diving.


Sorry about that. I'll certainly try again. :biggrin:

Basically, in my head at least, I make a strict distinction between solo diving as a choice and diving alone due to any other reason. To me, solo diving must have intent. If a buddy team gets separated, I do not consider that solo diving -- any incidents that may result are (bad) buddy diving incidents, *not* solo diving incidents. If one person willfully swims away from his buddy, he may be solo diving, but his buddy is not.

Perhaps it's a bit arbitrary, but I believe it yields far better information when you make a distinction between poor buddy diving and willful solo diving. (I don't mind other interpretations of what is and isn't solo diving, of course, but I've chosen the one that makes the most sense and provides the most utility for me.

I’m struggling here to figure out how to say thank you so it is not misinterpreted. I’m certain there is a way much simpler than the time it’s taking me to muddle on….

That was most helpful and appreciated far outside my topic questions.

I don’t see arbitrary at all. For me, lines must be drawn somewhere....and I prefer them to be logically arrived at for future reference.

 

[dave4868]

Yes it is turning out to be the most of it.
Presuming there was likely to be some valid reason to, I completely missed the boat on the reason would be unfriendly. Just my logic – you tell me up front you are not going to, seems different than not disclosing critical information.

I see the slight difference, but the fact that this person is openly disclosing an unwillingness to share air doesn't redeem his major character flaw. That character flaw will definitely impede the main goal of buddy diving, that is, to assist as needed, if reasonable. Why would someone trust this guy in a dive? If you can't trust him, why dive with him?

This overly simplified intellectual exercise hasn't narrowed down his reasoning, unfriendly or not, valid or not.

What's valid? Self-preservation? Giving himself his best chance of survival? How about just a fair chance of both surviving?

The implication in the original oversimplified proposition is that this person, in advance, made a blanket refusal to provide the life-saving assistance of sharing air regardless of whether he could easily and safely do so. It was basically a dogmatic thing.

I'd suggest this indicates a major character flaw that makes him unreliable for other emergencies, such as entrapment, etc. Would he risk getting entrapped himself?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a realist. Self-preservation is paramount. I prefer solo diving because really tuned-in buddies are hard to find. But the primary agreement in buddy diving is to provide life-saving assistance when needed.

The implication given to my prospective buddy is that I'll honor my agreement in the buddy contract to the best of my ability even if it increases my risk.

But that's just me....and most other people here, I think.

Dave C

 

[b1gcountry]

NO. Solomeans you, the diver, isin the water ALONE, completely, on your own. There is no hypotehtical question as toa buddy or who will share air with the solodiver because there is NO buddy, no thought of a buddy and no consideration of a buddy because you are totally ALONE.

When I dive with a buddy, it is a whole different thing, I am prepared and ready to share air or whatever and perhaps in some cases my life for theirs.

Buddy divers often confuse exactly the meaning of solo. Not being directly responsible for another diver who nonetheless your in the water with is not--NOT-solo diving. It may share some aspects of solo diving but some is far from ALL. Solo is that---SOLO.

N

I assume you would also consider it solo if there were other people at the same divesite conducting independent dives?

 

[Dive-aholic]

NO. Solomeans you, the diver, isin the water ALONE, completely, on your own. There is no hypotehtical question as toa buddy or who will share air with the solodiver because there is NO buddy, no thought of a buddy and no consideration of a buddy because you are totally ALONE.

When I dive with a buddy, it is a whole different thing, I am prepared and ready to share air or whatever and perhaps in some cases my life for theirs.

Buddy divers often confuse exactly the meaning of solo. Not being directly responsible for another diver who nonetheless your in the water with is not--NOT-solo diving. It may share some aspects of solo diving but some is far from ALL. Solo is that---SOLO.

N

I've been solo diving in a cave with other solo divers on a few occasions. The understanding is that we're alone. But there's also an understanding (at least on my part) that if I come across another solo diver that is OOA, I'm sharing. When I solo, I take that into account and still dive as if I may have to share air.

 

[Tigerman]

No, I would not do a buddy dive with someone unwilling to share air. I would probably just go dive somewhere else and alone instead of having responsibilities for another diver that take none for me. "You wont give me air? Ok, I can live with that if you wont get my cutting device if you get entangled" kinda aint an option im prepared to live with..

 

[Nemrod]

I assume you would also consider it solo if there were other people at the same divesite conducting independent dives?

If you arrived with them, then your with them. A group dive where there are no official buddy teams is not solo.

N

 

[Papa_Bear]

Is this a discussion of Solo Vs Buddy or a whine fest? "I would do this" "I would do that" Why don't you take responsibility for yourselves? Become a real Solo Diver and then when you have a buddy you will be a better one! You will understand who's air it is! If you train enough you will be able to handle panicked diver without killing yourself and becoming the victim! It's all about training, experience, and keeping your head! Solo training is the next step for those who want to become real divers! They say the safest dive is a Solo dive! Why is that, Capt. Ron? Because if its going to happen its going to happen out there! And your buddy is the most dangerous thing in the water!

 

[b1gcountry]

Interesting take on it, although I don't agree. Even if I came with them, if I'm at depth , and they aren't, I'm just as alone, carpool or not.