The Buddy System Reexamined

[Scuba]

Many good points being made here.

Needless to say, there are two fundamental methods to approach all diving, solo and team. In general, both methods have advantages and disadvantages. The existence of each approach in a single dive and variables make a precise definition extremely difficult. Nevertheless, I do think it should be noted, that - solo, is an approach to diving as is the team or buddy approach. It can be said they do not fall into the category of a dive discipline, as cave, wreck, deco, can be considered. One is free to use either approach in the exercise of any dive discipline or any dive. Whether one of the two approaches is more suitable or safer than the other for any one dive or discipline is a different subject.

I do disagree with what I consider to be the "old generally accepted definition" of solo diving. One, which probably emanated from the proponents of the buddy system. If we are going to attempt to define dive methods and disciplines, we must look for fundamental structural differences unique to each. One of the first threads here was an attempt to explain fundamental differences between solo and buddy diving. Do a search.

To touch on it, solo, meaning alone, well, means just that. No need to split hairs over this. However, solo and buddy/team diving, each with their inherent and different courses regarding planning and intent as determinants, will exemplify different properties and actions in regards to being alone. Finding oneself alone, unplanned, even when there is a possible expectation of occurrence in a buddy or team dive, exemplify and dictate actions that will not exist in a dive using the solo approach. The cause of being alone will be the result of accident, error, or willful abrogation of duty, notwithstanding a possible planned separation point which must be negotiated alone. In addition, required actions such as search, abort, or re-unite at rendevouz spot, only exist and have relevance in the team approach.

It is possible to do a dive using both approaches with specific planned delineating points.

.So, for example, I am with a group on a dive boat and we are scattered all over a reef. They are too far away to even signal let alone come to my aid. Therefore, I am actually diving solo. Or, like last week, I am diving with others in severely limited visibility and strong currents. The agreement was if we became separated we just continued on. We did and we did. That also is solo diving.

This is perhaps diving using a third approach - none. A violation of both the solo and team approach. There is no preparation or adhesion to either. “The agreement was if we became separated we just continued on.” This is just a false sense and complete violation of buddy or team diving where one is supposed to effectively work as, and to, remain a team. Solo diving entails no effort or contemplation whatsoever of such, thus, this is also a violation of solo. I do agree that if one is to dive in this manner, one best be fully solo capable. Nothing personal here, but you do bring up a good point of a practice that takes place everyday to a much greater extent then many would like to admit.

One of the shortcomings of the current recreational buddy training system, in my opinion, is that the buddy dependence which is taught from the beginning, perhaps rightfully so to simplify training, often does not progress at the recreational level, into exposing divers to a comprehensive understanding of self reliance and the additional efforts required to assist another diver.

 

[MikeFerrara]

This article (or others just like it) has been posted and discussed many times on this board.

There are many reasons one might decide to dive alone the most valid probably being that you just want to. On the other hand trying to make the arguement that it's safer under most diving situations is just plain stupid!

Rediculouse articles like this rely on references to the buddy system when it's done poorly. The answer to that is to do it well. If someone wants to dive alone they should but why use or write stupid articles like this trying to rationalize it to others...or are they trying to rationalize it to themselves?

A lone diver needs to be prepared as far as equipment, skill and attitude. A proper buddy team is two or more prepared and skilled divers working together. Other combinations are just screwups and not worth bringing into the discussion.

Common sense would suggest that you can't pair with a diver whom you've never seen in the water and assume you have a good buddy. Those who do take part in such folly are not examples of what's wrong with the buddy system but rather an example of how divers who lack common sense misapply the buddy system.

Pilots do fly alone. Most also appreciate some help when things get busy...that's why they invented the co-pilot.

The best reason to dive alone is because you want to.

 

[captain]

The best reason to dive alone is because you want to.

I agree completely. This solo / buddy which is safer thing has been beaten to death.

 

[TekDiveGirl]

There are many reasons one might decide to dive alone the most valid probably being that you just want to. On the other hand trying to make the arguement that it's safer under most diving situations is just plain stupid!

Rediculouse articles like this rely on references to the buddy system when it's done poorly. The answer to that is to do it well. If someone wants to dive alone they should but why use or write stupid articles like this trying to rationalize it to others...or are they trying to rationalize it to themselves?

The best reason to dive alone is because you want to.

I think you hit the nail right on the head with these points.

I agree rationalization is a big reason - to others who don't get it - as well as to themselves - some people need that extra hand-holding to do things that go against the grain.

People should do it because they want to -- not due to the illusion that it is "safer."

That said - I did two solo dives this weekend -- and they were the best dives I have done since moving back to San Diego.

Kimber

 

[derwoodwithasherwood]

If someone wants to dive alone they should but why use or write stupid articles like this trying to rationalize it to others...

Rationalization, or reaction? The "buddy team only" adherents cry loud and long that any buddy is better than no buddy and that, by extension, a diver is safer if there is another diver in the water at the same time. The author draws a distinction between true mutual support and a "false buddy system":

In many situations, divers are lulled into a false sense of security by believing they are safe just because they are in the water with someone else. The reality, however, is that just because someone is diving with you does not mean you have a buddy. Unless the divers are attentive, willing and able to help each other, they are actually solo. They just happen to be in the water together. They are no more prepared to help each other than if they had no buddy at all. They are participants in a "false buddy system."

I think that the author is correct that such a situation does not provide the potential safety benefits of a true buddy system and that if someone is going to dive under those specific circumstances, that the person should be as self-reliant as anyone planning a solo dive.

Put another way, I don't think the author is saying buddy diving is more dangerous than solo diving, but rather, that false buddy diving is more dangerous than solo diving.

 

[Scuba]

Many of the issues addressed in the article are quite rational. That it fails as an unbiased comprehensive analysis of the issues is a different matter. Quite possibly not the intention. This bias is just as evident in most articles written by buddy method proponents.

If one accepts the solo method as legitimate, choosing to exercise it requires no justification, apologies or excuses. Discussing solo is what this forum is about. I do think we should "explain" things when necessary, in this often misunderstood, black sheep of the family perceived diving method.

Consider the following:

A competent solo diver IS most probably safer diving solo than with an incompetent diver.

A competent solo diver IS most probably safer diving solo than diving with the typical, unknown quality diver on most charters.

It is valid, and soundly rational, to make such statements.

The fact others may choose not to follow this course may also be a sound rationalization depending on explanation.

Stating examples such as these merely point out scenerios where solo is most probably safer than buddy diving, a very difficult proposition for some to accept. The fact it is quite conceivable that the majority of buddy divers fall into the lacking category, possibly solo divers as well, only serve to give these issues more relevance. An open discussion of all issues is generally a healthy attitude.

The fact many supporters of the buddy diving method would advice diving only with a competent buddy in the examples given above, also make for a rational statement of fact - and just as biased, by neglecting to note the also safer qualified solo option, even if it's considered less so.

I agree addressing other dive options provide a more balanced, comprehensive explanation. Yet, not doing so does not detract from the validity of the points made, in either case. I agree with derwoodwithasherwood's interpretations of the premise of the article.

Using "because I want to" as the justifying reason for one's decision, can easily be construed as the best - or the worst, rationalization, depending on perspective.

 

[Nemrod]

"If one accepts the solo method as legitimate, choosing to exercise it requires no justification, apologies or excuses. Discussing solo is what this forum is about. I do think we should "explain" things when necessary, in this often misunderstood, black sheep of the family perceived diving method."

Amen to that Scuba, no hurtful sentiments intended but I am not sure that the solo forum is the place to justify buddy diving or to re-examine it, I don't care. I dive with a buddy or my wife when it suits me and when it don't, I don't and I don't care what Padi thinks. Nemrod, Vintage SubAqua Club

 

[MikeFerrara]

Rationalization, or reaction? The "buddy team only" adherents cry loud and long that any buddy is better than no buddy and that, by extension, a diver is safer if there is another diver in the water at the same time.

Who says this? I've taught for two different agencies and have taken classes with a bunch more and I've never heard any one who's anybody or any agency say such a rediculouse thing. A bad buddy can kill you...no real revelation there.

I think that the author is correct that such a situation does not provide the potential safety benefits of a true buddy system and that if someone is going to dive under those specific circumstances, that the person should be as self-reliant as anyone planning a solo dive.

Put another way, I don't think the author is saying buddy diving is more dangerous than solo diving, but rather, that false buddy diving is more dangerous than solo diving.

I agree that bad buddies are bad. However the solution to a bad buddy is a good one. Solo diving is a different animal and while a side benefit may be that it gets you away from a bad buddy, the comparing or the buddy system done poorly to solo diving done well is like comparing a rotten orange to a good apple...which is better? Which is better if you don't like apples. Maybe the logical answer is to just go find a better orange if that's what you want.

One problem with the whole arguement is that when we look at disfunctional buddy teams we often see 2 poor buddies. Of course they blame the other one but...you can't even begin a dive (that matters) with a poor budy without making some team diving mistakes yourself because team functions start prior to the dive. So...which is the good buddy and which is the bad? Often the same lack of skills and awareness make them even worse solo divers.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Consider the following:

A competent solo diver IS most probably safer diving solo than with an incompetent diver.

A competent solo diver IS most probably safer diving solo than diving with the typical, unknown quality diver on most charters.

It is valid, and soundly rational, to make such statements.

It may be rational to make the statement but the comparison is, IMO, meaningless.
My point is that one shouldn't dive with an incompetant buddy EVER. Also, one should dive with a buddy who's an unknown quantity unless it's a simple get aquainted dive designed specifically to find out and work out the kinks in preperation for diving together.

The two valid choices should be to dive as part of a functioning team or alone because the others are clearly dumb things to do.

Yet we keep seeing articles that hint that the existance of bad buddies or their own lack of good judgement in failing to avoid diving with them is somehow proof of a system flaw. Golf isn't bad because so many golfers suck. LOL

And why the unrelenting tendancy for some of these writters to try to convince some one that solo is ok because it's safer than anything? Staying home and watching tv is safer but that isn't what you're in the mood for when you go diving. Being with a good team is probably safer than being alone (and stupid articles won't ever change that) but if that isn't what your in the mood for then it doesn't really matter does it? You do what your in the mood to do and you do it the safest way you can.

 

[ArcticDiver]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcticDiver
.So, for example, I am with a group on a dive boat and we are scattered all over a reef. They are too far away to even signal let alone come to my aid. Therefore, I am actually diving solo. Or, like last week, I am diving with others in severely limited visibility and strong currents. The agreement was if we became separated we just continued on. We did and we did. That also is solo diving.

This is perhaps diving using a third approach - none. A violation of both the solo and team approach. There is no preparation or adhesion to either. “The agreement was if we became separated we just continued on.” This is just a false sense and complete violation of buddy or team diving where one is supposed to effectively work as, and to, remain a team. Solo diving entails no effort or contemplation whatsoever of such, thus, this is also a violation of solo. I do agree that if one is to dive in this manner, one best be fully solo capable. Nothing personal here, but you do bring up a good point of a practice that takes place everyday to a much greater extent then many would like to admit.

Hope you are never on anyone's jury! Your assuming that we were dummies is not only insulting it is not justified by the post. If you had any questions about the circumstances you could have asked before making such irrational comments.

In fact:
We were all three experienced cold water divers. We each expected that environmental conditions would separate us and planned for that. However, if we lucked out and were able to stay together it would enhance looking for critters. If not then we'd go our own way, as planned.

So, unlike what you posted, this was not a matter of dive safety. It was a matter of dive fun. It was safe for us to separate to solo. But, since humans are social animals it would have been more fun to be able to share in real time our discoveries.

Had you asked I would have also told you that this was Live Boat Diving. In case you aren't familiar with that as practiced in that area; it is where the dive boat drifts along on the surface in the immediate vicinity of the diver's bubbles. So, in this case all a diver had to do was surface to have the dive boat immediately available for a pickup.