Split from A&I Yukon thread: Gas Rules in OW Solo Dives

[Dyno Bill]

Jax, sorry as I didn't intend to stop a discussion. Solo diving to me is very similar to diving with a buddy. The same rules of physics still exist as least as I see it. The only difference are the depths achieved. If redundant gas is carried then the depths will also remain the same. A dive for me has a life of it's own and I make a basic plan in my own mind then it usually changes as the dive unfolds. Some times it will be shallow and much longer and sometimes I see something deeper and I will just drop in to check something out. To me scuba is a solitary sport where you are alone with your own thoughts without a dialogue with someone else, I like it that way. I lived on a boat for a couple of years and loved being behind 2 locked gates being somewhat reclusive. Others are unhappy without being in an organized group with a master dive plan. I can only share what it has meant to me and how I enjoy it myself. I have always been a rec diver, been sorta deep but definitely not a technical diver and have never really been drawn to that style of enjoying the ocean. I learned how to survive most situations that we face in the water much by myself as there wern't too many classes back then so you learned as you went. Usually diving with someone else with a lot more time in the water. A racer learns by having seat time, the best practice I know of for diving is diving. I believe the best or most important thing is to be safe however you achieve it, develop a style that fit's and enjoy it.

 

[DevonDiver]

IMHO,
Solo diving is defined as full on tech in this regard:

you assume more risk
nothing is gaurranteed
it is a personal choice
you have taken the training wheels off the rec diving
you are responsible for the outcome of your dive plan

Hi Eric,

Whilst you are, of course, entitled to you opinion I feel it is absolutely incorrect. Technical diving is much more than "recreational diving with the training wheels off".

To be honest, I would expect a newly graduated OW student to be 'responsible for the outcome of their dive plan'. The assumption of risk, lack of guarantee and importance of personal choice are issues that begin when you first sign up for open water training. Every PADI diver signs an 'Assumption of Risk' form that clearly spells out these concepts.

Your criteria not only fail to define tech diving (see below), but are also inadequate in differentiating the lesser risks and responsibilities of solo diving.

All of this is the symantics of the differance between rec and tech. More focussed on the mental aspect rather than the details.

It isn't a case of symantics. There is a common consensus about the broad definition of technical diving. That is 'technical diving' is defined as containing one or more of the following elements:

1) Gas changes using more than 1 gas mixture.
2) Overhead or ceiling environment preventing direct access to the surface.
3) Use of oxygen mixes in excess of 40%.
4) Use of hypoxic gases, containing helium and other exotic gases.

In contrast, Solo Diving is:

1) Diving without buddy support.

I think your confusion has arisen, through the fact that the nature of technical diving requires a very strong element of self-reliance in the diver concerned. This self-reliance starts with precise dive planning and continues with the self-disciplined conduct of the dive. It also strongly emphasises a divers preparation for, and ability to, self-resolve an emergency.

Tech diving training develops strong traits of self-reliance and unassisted problem resolution. In that respect, qualified tech divers possess the correct skill-set and mind-set for solo diving. Those traits should also be fostered within Solo Diving courses.

Solo Divers need self-reliance because they don't have a buddy. They need to plan dives effectively because being OOA is more serious without an air-share donor. They need to develop effective problem solving and panic control, because they won't have a 'donor brain' in an emergency.

However, whilst sharing those common traits, in every other respect Tech Diving and Solo Diving differ in the level of dive complexity, associated equipment requirements, level and nature of risks involved.

A recreational solo diver's objective will always be to remain within 'breathing distance' of the surface. This means the avoidance of all 'ceilings' and 'restrictions' to complete and immediate ascent.... whether those ceilings were accidental (entanglement) or planned (decompression) or enviromental (penetration).

In contrast, a technical diver accepts that those ceilings and restrictions are an inherant aspect of the dive.

Andy, when you train tech do you tell your students what to set their conservative setting at or do you explain the potential outcomes of the choice they make and let them decide. I feel the discussion of gas planning a solo dive falls under the same.
Eric

I provide my students with the correct and appropriate tools with which to precisely calculate all aspects of their dives. Those tools (inc gas planning calculations) are based upon 'best practice' methodology for the tech community, which has evolved from the analysis of combined community experience.

I emphasis the words 'precise', in respect to dive planning. Tech divers don't carry superfluous amounts of gas "just in case" or to be 'conservative'. That just isn't practical and can lead to dangers in itself.

The rule of thirds, in respect of tech diving, reflects a minimum requirement for safety. In respect of tech diving courses, it isn't debatable. It is considered statistically dangerous to carry less and unnecessary to carry more.

We carry what we need, plus a reserve. The reserve is as small as it needs to be.

Hope that makes sense?

 

[waterpirate]

Andy,
All that makes perfect sense to me , but we will have to agree to dis agree.
The fact that you went right back to basic ow standards and expectations is scarry. We all know how lax all those have become and the crap quality of your average ow graduate. I am sure you train your students well, but the rest?
My problem with a solo diving cert and its list of "best practices " does nothing to prepare the student for the mental aspects of solo that are shared with the tech mental aspects.
Tech divng is filled with candidates that were turned away by one instructor only to be trained by another with a lower expectation. I do not get the feeling that the solo instructor is turning away anybody or failing anybody. You pay, you sit, you listen, you might dive, you get a card.
So for me in a nutshell debating a set of best practices in regard to gas planning for a solo dive fall into your definition of gas planning for a tech dive, enough and no more. Also I feel that anyone who does solo dive of their own choice is really on the road to intro to intro tech and getting into some deco is the next step for someone that comfortable in the water.
Eric

 

[DevonDiver]

Andy,
All that makes perfect sense to me , but we will have to agree to dis agree.
The fact that you went right back to basic ow standards and expectations is scarry. We all know how lax all those have become and the crap quality of your average ow graduate. I am sure you train your students well, but the rest?

No need to disagree! I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't suggesting that OW divers were either trained, qualified or prepared to go solo diving.

I was only stating that the concepts of risk assumption and personal choice are something that are introduced at that very earliest level.

My problem with a solo diving cert and its list of "best practices " does nothing to prepare the student for the mental aspects of solo that are shared with the tech mental aspects.

Tech divng is filled with candidates that were turned away by one instructor only to be trained by another with a lower expectation.

I know that most tech instructors would not certify a below-standard candidate. However, that is virtually always rectified by remedial training and/or re-take with the same instructor.

I would genuinely be saddened to discover that people were entering the world of tech diving by seeking the easiest possible route, rather than recognising that hard work and persistance is needed to ensure that the standards (which keep them alive) are attained satisfactorily.

As with all things, the increase in popularity of tech diving is bound to lead to some instructors succumbing to the temptation to put income before ethics. :depressed:

I do not get the feeling that the solo instructor is turning away anybody or failing anybody. You pay, you sit, you listen, you might dive, you get a card.

Of all recreational training course, this shouldn't be an 'attendance' course.

So for me in a nutshell debating a set of best practices in regard to gas planning for a solo dive fall into your definition of gas planning for a tech dive, enough and no more.

Agreed. Which is why I, and several others, have been askinhg why the rule of 1/3rds was recommended by SDI...

Also I feel that anyone who does solo dive of their own choice is really on the road to intro to intro tech and getting into some deco is the next step for someone that comfortable in the water.
Eric

I do disagree with this. There is not, and should not be, any 'natural progression' or expectation of progression between recreational and technical diving. It is likely that a good tech diver will have the skill set and mind set necessary to be an effective solo diver. In fact, many tech and cave divers do conduct dives solo. I've done many solo wreck penetration dives with deco and deep (80m) solo dives.

However, the opposite is not necessarily true. Being a great recreational diver is no indication that someone would be an effective tech diver. The skills and mindset of a recreational solo diver is just a small part of what is needed in a tech diver.

For as long as an immediate emergency rush to the surface remains an option to the (recreational) diver, then the development of true tech mindset cannot be identified. Knowing that the surface is several hours away.... is an entirely different proposition.

 

[AfterDark]

I think maybe the differences we are debating here stem from our experiences.

I know I didn't wake up one day and decide to solo dive. It was an evolution.
Diving NE in low vis sets us up for buddy separation. For example last week drift diving with an experienced buddy we got separated 4 times within a 35 min dive. All I had to do was look at my float line spool to wrap a little line around it and my buddy was gone, out of sight and probably only 15' away. Sometime its agreed before hand we just continue the dive, other times we surface to try to find either and stay together.

My point is that early on as we got more comfortable in the water we were more comfortable being separated. We had discussions among ourselves about diving alone, kicked around ideas. This evolved to trying out those ideas as a group. Also a couple of us joined a dive club run by some older guys some of whom were former navy and commercial divers with insights and experience diving alone. I tapped into all this knowledge and learned from the experiences I had the 1st couple of years I started diving. One day I found myself with everything I needed to dive except a buddy. With my wife (then girlfriend) on shore timing my dive I decided to dive alone.

As time went by my buddies moved on to something else the dive club broke up and I found myself without any buddies that I had CONFIDENCE in. From about 1975 to 1980 I dove alone regularly. Most of the 80's I had a reliable buddy that I met at work. We quickly decided that we weren't going to worry about diving together unless something really different or dangerous was involved.

These days with diver education being what it is I can understand why people feel they need more training, because they do! In another thread I learned that gas management is NOT taught as basic knowledge.:shocked2:
We had a 2 hour session on GM and much discussion afterward. What do new divers learn in the 21st century? Just rhetorical I don't need an answer.

 

[FritzCat66]

There is not, and should not be, any 'natural progression' or expectation of progression between recreational and technical diving... Being a great recreational diver is no indication that someone would be an effective tech diver.

Hear! Hear!

The only thing I would add is that, not only does being a great recreational diver give no indication that someone would be an effective tech diver, but also that there's no indication a good rec diver would ever even want to be any form of tech diver.

By that kind of faulty logic, then all tech divers should "want" to "progress" to search & rescue/public safety or commercial diving; yet while I can't speak for tech divers, the ones I know personally show zero inclination towards those. Rec, tech, S&R/PSD, commercial, military, etc. are all very different kinds of diving, driven by very different personal (and professional) goals.

I don't even like the implication sometimes present within the recreational community that we should "progress" toward DM or Master Diver or Rescue or Instructor or some such. As a recreational solo diver, why in the world would I want to be taking any responsibility whatsoever for what OTHER divers are doing?

Kind of misses the entire point and purpose, as far as I'm concerned - a big part of what some of us like about recreational solo diving is getting away from all the people and monkey chatter and professional responsibilities we're bombarded with most of our waking lives; a chance to be in our own envelope, meditating only on ourselves and our personal experiences while wrapped in the myriad diversity of life, moving effortlessly in three dimensions, experiencing firsthand the underwater world from which we all evolved.

Call me a bit of a misanthrope, but when I'm enjoying all that while diving solo, the very last thing I am interested in or want to be interested in is other people, including other divers! I don't want to worry about them, and I don't want them worrying about me. And I want my concern for the technical aspects of diving to be minimized as well, in the way that only shallower, no-deco, no-overhead, single-cylinder, open-circuit recreational diving allows. Why on Earth would I want to add to my list of things to worry about when diving?

If that's what it means to "progress", then please move along, I'm quite happy right here. For me, progress from this point is honing and refining my skills to be a better diver, making the ever-present technical aspects of gas & gear management even more intuitive, and educating myself about the underwater world, including experiencing even more varieties of life and learning better how to capture some of that in pictures and video.

 

[waterpirate]

I dissagree,... Again....
The natural progression for a great rec solo diver is to move further away from the crowd/deeper/ and stay longer/deco/. That is how it happened for me, and I do not think I am unique or different. I am just really comfortable in the water. So nuff said and lets go diving!
Eric

 

[FritzCat66]

Enjoy your "natural progression" on to becoming an Instructor, then Public Safety Diving, and then to Commercial Diving then... nothing like a day of welding underwater on a saturation dive! It's the natural progression for all divers, isn't it? Besides, many of the tech divers I know never have been interested in solo diving: they went from recreational to tech in part because they like the team approach, so even going rec to tech there is no "natural progression" through Solo.

Point being: THERE IS NO "NATURAL PROGRESSION" FOR ALL DIVERS. It's too unique for each diver to say what is a "natural progression" and what isn't; yours may have led you down the tech road, but that's just you and it's no less a natural progression for another diver to go down the Divemaster road, the rec instructor road, or the commercial road.

You are unique. Every diver is. Just because several go down the same path you've chosen - maybe even all the divers you know personally - doesn't make that one any more "natural" than those who choose a different path, nor does it even make it more natural than those who choose to remain a basic open water diver for that matter.

The problem with delineating and promoting any kind of "natural progression" - besides the fact that you will never get divers to agree on what exact form that "natural progression" takes - is that it immediately introduces a hierarchy and linearity to diving that many (hopefully, most) of us find quite distasteful, aside from also being useless, inapplicable, and indefensible.

I take this as fairly obvious and will say no more on the matter.

 

[DevonDiver]

Eric... I would disagree... even though I am exactly like you.

I love solo diving. I think this stems a lot from my work as an instructor. I just enjoy the blissful stress reduction of not having anyone else to worry about. I find wreck penetration is much less complicated solitary. Some of my all time favorite dives were deep air dives on a wall... dropping down and drifting with the current at 70m...at sunrise. My theory was that it was the best time to catch a glimpse of possible Great Hammerhead or Tiger sharks on their way heading offshore after nightime foraging in a wide bay. I'd be back up the wall and decompressing on a beautiful reef just as all the other divers came splashing down the jetty. A big 7am breakfast afterwards was a treat.

However, I don't believe that this trait is a 'rule'. Many solo divers enjoy the solitude because of particular diving interests. Number one of these is photography. A very different pursuit, with a very different mindset. Others just like to enjoy the bubbles alone. There is no connection with depth, overhead environments or mixed gases....

The same would be true about tech, wreck and cave diving. Whilst some divers enjoy two or more of these areas... there are also many who stick with one pursuit. I personally love wrecks. Caves don't interest me. I don't go deep for the depth...and I hate doing deco. I tech dive to complete set objectives. I wreck dive for adventure. I solo dive to relax.

 

[muddiver]

My, hasn't the tone of this thread turned snarky. Why is everyone so determined to whack on SDI's teaching? And why will it matter because we'll all do what we darned well please, anyway?

No, not SDI's teaching, just one stupid little book they published.