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

[Thalassamania]

Where can I get one of those, please?

That is, in essence, what I make; may I build one for you?

 

[AfterDark]

Someone who insists on teaching himself may find that he has a fool for a student.

When I started solo diving in 1970 there were no solo diving courses so yeah this fool taught himself and being the luckiest guy on the planet I survive. Same thing with wreck penetration and decompression. Mentors and self taught. Oh and add night and ice diving to that list.

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

I'd estimate ~95% of the cavern diving I dive in Hawaii is not really an "overhead" for me; I can CESA with half full lungs to start. So, except for that ~one lava tube each off Maui, Oahu and Kauai, the surface is always my buddy.

Very often I start a dive with only a vague plan; scooter around and find subjects to photograph. When I went to 130' over a half mile off shore, it was because nothing had captured my attention until then. I was still a few hundred psi above half a tank in a nearly cave filled LP95 and total dive time was <30 minutes on a scooter that will probably be pretty weak at 70 minutes. I had been mostly 60-80' deep on the way out, so by returning mostly 40-60' deep I will need less gas.

Unfortunately, the dark deep reef area was only a minor overhang, not the big secret cavern I was hoping for. Even on a dive that turns at 130 fsw half/half (air/battery) the last third of the dive (tank) is within a third of a mile from shore; that's my rule of thirds!

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/hawaii-ohana/220360-al-below-500-psi-pics.html

 

[waterpirate]

This is not meant to be elitist so please think before you type.

voodoo gas
deep penetration
decompresssion
self reliance
solo diving
cave diving

All of these things were worked out by people actually doing them. Standards/guidelines were developed later for people without the reasoning skills or access to the time required to be mentored by a current participant. All standards are developed for the preservation of the masses, a short cut to equality if you will. Formal education is fine, but this whole disscussion only points out the need of people to debate the symantics of something that is clearly personal choice and un quantifiable.
They did a good thing by bringing that course forward I guess. The argument was for solo divers to be able to solo dive where the "standards" prohibited it. Truth is people who solo dive avoid most of those places, and I have never been denied my choice when diving off boats all up and down the east coast.
The argument about this gas planning when diving solo is vauge on purpose. Solo diving is full on tech diving. That means that you personally must decide what is correct for you, not a standard. I would liken it to the intro to decompression and advanced nitrox standards. No where does it say that if you are x you should dive x for x to be safe. Everyone when they get to this level understands personal choice and resposibility in regard to conservancy and po2 levels. The same goes for gas planning, that is why the book is vaugue on this topic.
Eric

 

[DevonDiver]

Standards/guidelines were developed later for people without the reasoning skills or access to the time required to be mentored by a current participant. ..... the need of people to debate the symantics of something that is clearly personal choice and un quantifiable....The argument about this gas planning when diving solo is vauge on purpose. .

I understand (hope) that standards are a formalized reflection of whatever best practices are agreed by consensus by those members of the diving community actively involved with that practice.

The reason why some forum members have felt compelled to "debate the symantics" of the SDI Solo Course, is because those standards seem to have been applied arbitrarily, and do not reflect any community-agreed best practice formulated from solid analytical evidence or expert consensus.

As the SDI course results in a qualification, it is, IMHO, necessary to define that qualification by the procedures to be used and limitations to be adhered to. Those post-qualification 'standards' serve to define the goals and training expectations of the course. They accurately illustrate to students what the course prepares them to do.

Solo diving is full on tech diving

No.... it isn't. Not by any currently accepted or utilised definition of 'technical diving'.

 

[FritzCat66]

Solo diving is full on tech diving.

The fact that it's SDI issuing the Solo cert here and not TDI, which is their tech arm (i.e. SDI is the recreational branch of TDI) I think says a lot, that they consider the Solo cert to be an advanced form of sport or recreational diving, not quite tech.

It's a bit of a grey area, and there have been other threads debating whether or not Solo is tech. One can make a pretty good case for either side.

I personally identify as a solo diver, but not at all a technical diver. Cavern certification is about as technical as I get, and that's almost too techie for me. While certainly a good technical diver has all the discipline necessary for solo diving - which also probably explains why a tech agency like TDI doesn't even bother to issue solo certs for technical divers - nevertheless, a large part of technical dive training seems to me to be team-oriented in nature. That is, 180-degrees out from solo diving.

The folks I know for whom the SDI solo cert has been appealing have been divers who prefer doing their thing alone like photographers and spearos, as well as people who are tired of bad instabuddy experiences. None of these kinds of activities are otherwise technical in nature; that is, we're otherwise typically recreational, no-deco, no-overhead, <130'/40m, single-cylinder, open-circuit divers and happy that way. We just would rather dive alone, or at least be prepared to dive without a dedicated buddy, and do it comfortably within our training parameters.

So, I don't see Solo as necessarily a technical certification.

 

[waterpirate]

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

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

 

[LeadTurn_SD]

...So, I don't see Solo as necessarily a technical certification.

Neither do I.

A solo dive to recreational depths, within NDL limits, with nothing preventing a direct ascent to the surface (either a physical barrier or decompression requirement) is not a "technical" dive.

Solo does not require a unique technical "skillset", but solo does require a different "mindset".

A solo diver needs to be able to use abstract thinking versus concrete thinking when planning and problem solving.

A "concrete" thinker will recite Boyle's Law and state emphatically that you must never "hold your breath" while scuba diving.

An "abstract" thinker can take the same basic information but apply it intelligently and problem-solve, allowing them to control their buoyancy with lung volume without being in violation of the "rule".

Which brings us back to gas planning for solo divers. Strictly following the "Rule of Thirds" is an example of concrete thinking.

Actually determining whether or not the "Rule of Thirds" even applies to the dive you are considering is an example of abstract thinking.

Solo divers are not necessarily "tech" divers, but had better be "abstract thinkers".

Best wishes.

 

[Dyno Bill]

After reading this thread as well asa number of others I think that a number of folks have way too much free time on their hands. This is clearly debate for the sole purpose of debate itself. It isn't as much about the need for certain specific preparations being done as a precursor to a safe practice but instead it seems to be a debate about the size of ones dog, you know the my dogs bigger than your dog debate. Is it really important as to which agency does what or does having a cert card make a person safer than a diver that's dove solo for 20 years having perhaps more solo experience solo than most in the discussion have all tolled. It does make for interesting reading until the same arguments are made multiple times.

 

[Jax]

After reading this thread as well asa number of others I think that a number of folks have way too much free time on their hands. This is clearly debate for the sole purpose of debate itself.

:huh: This is a problem?


Sorry. The nice thing about a good debate is that the 'listeners' (readers) can evaluate the point and counterpoint on their own, according to their own best rules of 'common sense'.

Also, when one person puts forth something that no one else agrees with, it helps the uninitiated make credibility calls.

On the whole, this has been a good discussion on gas rules, planning, and has some fine viewpoints from those that have many dives under the belts. However, those of us that don't have that experience may chose to dive differently, but will (hopefully) do so with a good recognition of the reasons why one does what one does.