Strongly considering solo diving - lets talk

[Genesis]

And you never will. Nobody is collecting this type of information. The collection of dive injury/death data is sporadic at the very best. It's reallly pitiful.

Common sense tells me that if I have a GOOD dive buddy, I have a better chance to survive a potentially dangerous situation. I don't need to see a graph to tell me this.

"Common sense" is not always correct science.

A dive buddy, even a GOOD dive buddy, increases the number of things that can "break". A BAD dive buddy almost certainly raises the risks, since in addition to the risks of them being along you ALSO add the risk of them mishandling whatever breaks.

However, what is not known is whether a GOOD dive buddy's contribution to LOWERING the risks (by being able to deal with whatever happens) is outweighed by the INCREASED risk that having them along presents.

There are a lot of ANECDOTES that suggest that maybe this is the case, but there is no evidence. There is however evidence that suggests that perhaps it is NOT the case; specifically, there are a number of DOUBLE fatalities every year which almost certainly began with ONE problem, not two, and yet the ONE problem calimed two lives. It is inescapable that if the second person wasn't there, they wouldn't be dead.

I find it to be somewhere north of cultish behavior to espouse a party line on this topic when the evidence simply isn't available, and those who DO espouse that line rely on anecdotes rather than evidence that THEY could put forth the time and trouble to collect and present, along with appropriate review.

Second, the idea that many present of a "good buddy" is simply unobtainable for many divers or even most divers most of the time. Some people are willing to dive only when they can be a "unified team." Others simply are not willing to put such a stricture on their diving. That doesn't make their decision "wrong" or "right" - it just makes it different - at least until someone can present evidence of an objective and statistically significant difference in safety.

 

[detroit diver]

You know, you will never be convinced (evidence) without some numerical data in front of you. You are black, or you are white.

I'm not going to even try to argue with that.

"Common sense" is not always correct science.

A dive buddy, even a GOOD dive buddy, increases the number of things that can "break". A BAD dive buddy almost certainly raises the risks, since in addition to the risks of them being along you ALSO add the risk of them mishandling whatever breaks.

This is one of the dumbest arguements I've seen you make yet. Are you telling me that 4 regulators are worse than 2 regulators? Two well-trained brains are worse than one? Please re-read my comment again. We're talking about GOOD buddies here, not bad ones.

However, what is not known is whether a GOOD dive buddy's contribution to LOWERING the risks (by being able to deal with whatever happens) is outweighed by the INCREASED risk that having them along presents.

This is just plain absurd. Again, you don't have some numbers in front of you, so the whole picture is lost. Two well-trained dives who practice together often-please tell me that this increases rather than decreases your risk. Don't give me the "bad buddy" garbage-that's not the issue here.

There are a lot of ANECDOTES that suggest that maybe this is the case, but there is no evidence. There is however evidence that suggests that perhaps it is NOT the case; specifically, there are a number of DOUBLE fatalities every year which almost certainly began with ONE problem, not two, and yet the ONE problem calimed two lives. It is inescapable that if the second person wasn't there, they wouldn't be dead.

The only inescapable thing here is that you know nothing about these accidents other than two divers are dead. Nothing about skill, nothing about training. Your arguement is meainingless without this information.

I find it to be somewhere north of cultish behavior to espouse a party line on this topic when the evidence simply isn't available, and those who DO espouse that line rely on anecdotes rather than evidence that THEY could put forth the time and trouble to collect and present, along with appropriate review.

Again, no party line, no cult. Just common sense that seems to evade you. And speaking of anecdotal evididence, read your reply one paragraph up. It's YOU who is using it.

Second, the idea that many present of a "good buddy" is simply unobtainable for many divers or even most divers most of the time. Some people are willing to dive only when they can be a "unified team." Others simply are not willing to put such a stricture on their diving. That doesn't make their decision "wrong" or "right" - it just makes it different - at least until someone can present evidence of an objective and statistically significant difference in safety.

Funny, I agree with the notion that good buddies are unobtainable sometimes. That doesn't change things. When I'm in Mexico, good water is hard to find. That doesn't mean that I drink it anyway.


In any case, my original question still stands. Is the risk (perceived, statistical, common sense, or otherwise) worth what will happen to your family and friends if you don't come home one night? Is doing the dive worth the result? Simple questions that each person has to ask themselves. No calculus, no graphs, no statistics.

 

[Genesis]

In any case, my original question still stands. Is the risk (perceived, statistical, common sense, or otherwise) worth what will happen to your family and friends if you don't come home one night? Is doing the dive worth the result? Simple questions that each person has to ask themselves. No calculus, no graphs, no statistics.

Your original question lacks foundation.

Specifically, until you answer the question (with some degree of certainty!) as to whether or not diving with a specific buddy increases or decreases risk, you have no idea whether having a buddy (good or otherwise) gives you MORE or LESS risk that you will not come home that night.

The risk that you will not return always exists, even if where you go is simply to the mailbox to retrieve the afternoon mail.

Therefore the question you posit, without further information, is without foundation.

One must decide for themselves exactly how much risk is acceptable, then calibrate this against the risk presented by a given specific activity. Only then can you answer the question "is the risk inherent in this activity acceptable to me today."

Blanket statements like "diving with a buddy is safer" are the product of cult behavior rather than rational analysis.

 

[detroit diver]

And yours lacks common sense.

Your original question lacks foundation.

Specifically, until you answer the question (with some degree of certainty!) as to whether or not diving with a specific buddy increases or decreases risk, you have no idea whether having a buddy (good or otherwise) gives you MORE or LESS risk that you will not come home that night.

The risk that you will not return always exists, even if where you go is simply to the mailbox to retrieve the afternoon mail.

Therefore the question you posit, without further information, is without foundation.

One must decide for themselves exactly how much risk is acceptable, then calibrate this against the risk presented by a given specific activity. Only then can you answer the question "is the risk inherent in this activity acceptable to me today."

Blanket statements like "diving with a buddy is safer" are the product of cult behavior rather than rational analysis.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

I have yet to see any evidence presented (not just claims - evidence) that having a buddy materially changes the odds of you coming back safe from any dive.

I agree.

In my experience, solo diving is much safer than diving with a bad or inexperienced buddy. All my close calls in 18 years and over 1500 dives have been buddy induced.

There are also situations where I am actually more comfortable and safer without a buddy. If you are solo, the task loading that comes with keeping track of a buddy is absent and you can totally focus on the dive.

Similarly, there is no need to communicate with a buddy and zero risk of miscomunicating with a buddy.

There is also 1/2 the chance of a piece of critical equipment failing as the buddy's equipment is not along on the dive to fail.

 

[IndigoBlue]

Other then my recent switch to buddy diving when I am diving my closed circuit rebreather, I dove open circuit solo for the last 20 out of 31 years....

In all that time, there has never been a situation I couldn't handle or could have used a buddy for other then closing off a lobster back door escape....

I personally never needed to dive with a buddy.

That may be good and true for you SoCalDrySuitDave, but think of PoorMo, and all the controlled chemical substances that may have passed through his bloodstream in the decades he has been banging on them drums with the band?

If God is truly watching over him, maybe he does not need a buddy or another Guardian Angel, but then again, maybe he will. You just never know when the Reaper is going to show up with his bill.

I generally argue against solo diving. In my past 29 years (since January 1975) of open circuit, I have never needed a buddy either. But statistically speaking, that just might mean that the one single time I will need one near is drawing ever closer.

As Mark Twain is known to have written, The Lord Helps Those Who Help Themselves.

A buddy is a good helper. Especially if all of God's Guardian Angels are already busy doing other stuff.

My vote is NO. NO SOLO.

 

[Genesis]

Have 'ya thought that one through Indigo?

Two divers means twice as many critical pieces of hardware in the water at once that can break and endanger someone.

Now yes, it also means that you have someone to "loan" you another one - if they do it correctly. If they don't, then your failure kills or injures not only you, but ALSO your buddy.

One of the more ugly (and common, if DAN is to be believed) scenarios is a physiological problem underwater from which you have no chance of survival. In that case you have one definitely dead diver - a buddy only increases the odds of a second diver buying the farm in an attempt at a futile rescue.

Finally, remember that "critical things" includes diver brains. Indeed, it is at least as likely that you will suffer a diver brain failure as anything else underwater.

If you think through all of this and come to the conclusion that you want a buddy, and a buddy wants you, that's cool. Just do think it through first.

 

[IndigoBlue]

Have 'ya thought that one through Indigo?

Two divers means twice as many critical pieces of hardware in the water at once that can break and endanger someone.

Now yes, it also means that you have someone to "loan" you another one - if they do it correctly. If they don't, then your failure kills or injures not only you, but ALSO your buddy.

One of the more ugly (and common, if DAN is to be believed) scenarios is a physiological problem underwater from which you have no chance of survival. In that case you have one definitely dead diver - a buddy only increases the odds of a second diver buying the farm in an attempt at a futile rescue.

Finally, remember that "critical things" includes diver brains. Indeed, it is at least as likely that you will suffer a diver brain failure as anything else underwater.

If you think through all of this and come to the conclusion that you want a buddy, and a buddy wants you, that's cool. Just do think it through first.

Mr Genesis, indeed, truer words have never been spoken, that some folks as buddies are more dangerous than diving alone.

But that only makes solo THE LESSER OF TWO WEEVILS!

[Have you seen Master & Commander yet? Great movie. Great acting. And some fine scuba shots as well !!!]

 

[pipedope]

As you need a buddy that understands rebreathers.
Preferable is also diving a RB and best is diving one of the same make, model and with the same major modifications.

The rebreather might be trying to kill you and your buddy might help it, thinking he was helping you.

 

[flw]

I dive solo regularly, sometimes because there is no-one else around, sometimes I just want the solitude of being underwater, the peace and serenity is hard to obtain when there's someone else around.
I didn't ever make it an aim to do so, it just kind of happened one day, and I found I prefered it - there are a couple of people I really enjoy diving with. Much of the time these days, particularly deep we tend to dive as independants in pairs, stay roughly in the same area with similar plans, but basically stay solo. I think the deepest I've been truly solo is the Jacona in 75m. Yes I know there are risks associated with it, but then there are with anything, I happen to consider the benefit worth it.
I use a rb, and good buddies are hard to find, my unit is mildly modified - I'd rather be on my own than with someone who doesn't understand my unit. Very often I'll want to spend longer on the wreck than an oc diver, it's just easier on my own