The Buddy System Reexamined

[MikeFerrara]

But when you look at the situation today where you have a combination of better equipment, more affordable redundant systems and an all time low standard for potential buddies, solo diving begins to make a lot of sense for the divers on the upper end of the bell curve who do not want to be saddled with a buddy with minimal skills.

I'm not sure what's better about the equipment now. Certainly a bc and gauges are useful additions but an old double hose reg is about as reliable as anything and the single hose reg hasn't changed in any meaningful way since the beginning. We still regulate gas flow the same way. Exposure protection is better but I'm not sure that matters here.

I also don't see where redundant eauipment is any more affordable either.

Equipment improvements are often cited as the reason that training has become easier and shorter but I think it's total bs. People have heard it so often from their very first day in scuba class that they just swallow it without thought or arguement.

Solo diving makes sense for those who have a need or desire for it. Sump divers almost always dive solo and often don't have a choice. Hunters and photagraphers prefer it and loners insist on it. All well and good but I don't think it has any more to do with modern equipment than novice buddies. Those groups have always dived solo. The whole arguement really only relates to resorts and parks where they have all kinds of rules. In the rest of the world you can dive as you see fit. cases like those in this article seem to be aimed at changing policies on the kiddie boats at resorts but those are the places where divers need the most baby sitting. You're sometimes lucky if they let you dive without a DM let alone without a buddy.

Case in point...the article was printed in dive training. Who's the audience? Similar articles have run in rodales. In fact they ran a regular solo diving campaign prior to SDI introducing their solo diver course. Again, who's the audience? These stupid articles are targeting the very divers who can barely dive and the oporators who cater to them. Every one else who wants to dive alone has been doing it since the beginning without asking any one's permission or approval.

 

[lamont]

okay, i just read this again and setting aside the buddy vs. solo debate entirely, some of the suggestions on gas management i think are just horrible:

Once in the water, perhaps the most important consideration for solo diving is air management. Some suggest that solo divers take the time to meticulously calculate air requirements and probable air usage. Except for mission oriented technical dives, however, divers rarely are willing to do this.

not an excuse. develop the will to calculate your air requirements.

IMO if you can't execuate a basic gas plan you shouldn't be solo diving.

A simpler and more practical planning guideline is to use the "rule of thirds." This simple rule says that you should plan to use only one-third of your air supply for the trip out, then another third for the trip back. The final third is a reserve for unforeseen circumstances, which, when diving without a buddy, can be a particularly vital consideration.

Another air management guideline is to calculate your returning air pressure in consideration of your depth. To do this, round off your actual depth to the next greater increment of ten, then add a zero to that figure. The result is the air pressure at which you should begin your ascent. For example, assume you are making a dive to 57 feet (17m). Round that up to 60 (18m) and add a zero. You should then begin your ascent when you reach an air pressure of 600 psi.

those are all rules of thumb. you should calculate actual gas management rules based on your depth, your tank, your consumption and your runtime. if you practice this it gets easy. it should be mandatory if you're solo diving.

What if you screw up your air management plan and run out of air? No one, of course, will be around to give you an octopus or alternate inflation regulator (although a solo diver should still carry such a device if, for no other reason, a first-stage malfunction occurs). The only out-of-air contingency that will work for a solo diver is a completely redundant air supply, such as a Spare Air' or pony bottle. When a solo diver is making deeper dives, larger capacity pony bottles or dual tanks with independent valves or separate regulators are essential.

if you screw up and run out of air, someone is telling you that you shouldn't be solo diving.

the issue with redundancy is good, but it should be a contigency plan to deal with first stage failures, free flows, etc.

Von Maier, one of the few people who has written extensively about the subject, advocates two other commonsense rules for solo diving. The first is that you should never solo dive deeper than twice the depth to which you can free dive. This tends to impose a reasonable and personalized depth limit.

maybe if you added "without redudant gas" i'd agree. but if you've got redundant gas, this limitation seems to be compensating for the fact that you are planning on running out of gas.

As few people do much free diving anymore, some might not see this as a usable guideline. Instead, you might limit a solo dive to a depth no greater than that from which you have performed a controlled emergency swimming ascent. That way you have the self confidence of knowing that even without air you can make it to the surface because you have done it before.

again, if you can't pull the dive off without resorting to a CESA, you should not be solo diving.

you also really shouldn't be doing test-runs of CESAs from 60+ fsw.

 

[Scuba]

ArticDiver,

I am not above admitting I’m wrong or apologizing when warranted, so I’ve gone back and carefully re-read your post and my comments. Let me first restate that no personal insult was intended, that is not why I participate on this board. Subject matter discussion is the reason. Upon re-reading said comments I must admit that my comment “This is perhaps diving using a third approach - none” was in fact unfounded and unwarranted, for this, please accept my sincere apology. I should have re-read the comments more carefully the first time. Do me a favor though, next time, LOL, hopefully there won’t be one, but just in case, be more specific in pointing out the aggrievence.

We still disagree on the definitions of these dive methods, implied buddy and expressed solo, I would hope you take a look at the earlier discussions on this matter, but aside from that, I agree with your other good comments.

I would like to touch upon your definition of solo:

To me Solo Diving is anytime I am diving far enough from other divers they can not realistically assist me in an emergency.

In regards to defining the solo diving methodology and differentiating it from the buddy one, this fails to account for the possibility this situation may arise out of a malfunctioning buddy dive with the planning and intent to remains as such. When such is the case, it is not valid to dismiss the fact this originated as, and is derived from, the buddy dive method, and more importantly - remains a malfunctioning buddy dive in which corrective action is required, when the plan is to complete the dive as buddy’s. That one is alone, or solo if you wish, during this time can not be disputed. That this situation, buddy system failure and recovery procedures, will never occur on or during a planned solo dive, is also indisputable.

There are some fundamental differences here. If you have a dive planned as a buddy team for its duration, and an unplanned seperation occurs you are solo, yet still beholden to the buddy dive plans. This is not a planned solo dive. Imaging the reverse of the example given, it would not make for a buddy dive. Would like to hear arguments refuting it.

The following comments are not addressed to you specifically, they address the topic your post raised, which is also relevant to the discussion about re-examining the buddy, solo, and other diving systems which may not fall withing the confines of either one of these systems.

All diving falls into a planned dive, or not, category. There are obviously no limits to dive planning, and there can be many prudent and legitimate dive plans which do not totally conform to the buddy or solo approach. However, since dive planning is subjective, and encompasses everything from an extremely detailed mission plan to a plan to dive without a plan, in and of itself, planning doesn’t tell us anything and therefore it is totally meaningless in conveying any specific characteristics.

If we are going to use terms such as buddy and solo diving, we need to identify and define specific attributes which these categories contain at a fundamental level. I have previously mentioned a few. The use of these specific constituent elements also serve to communicate basic responsibilities that others can be expected to be aware of and adhere to, (ideally) assists in dive analysis, and can enhance safety. Otherwise, when one considers all the implications, if the term buddy/team simply means two or more, and solo, one, there is not much point in using or promoting either one. In addition, when there is no basic understanding of minimum requirements, beyond the understanding there will be one or more participants, every dive plan must start from scratch in its entirety without any preconceived notions. Not a bad practice in and of itself, but not very efficient either. In the event of an accident, assigning accountability would be extremely difficult to impossible unless a detailed plan is put in writing, and dive analysis would be more difficult than it is now. Analysis is very important in determining what is safe and not.

When someone mentions buddy diving it should mean a dive with certain specific elements in it, the same for solo diving. Nothing necessarily wrong with a dive that deviates from these specific elements, as has been mentioned, but - such a dive should not be called what it is not. Labeling dives which omit basic elements inherent in widely accepted buddy/team, and the less well understood solo method, as such, would only serve to mislead others, complicate matters, and likely increase risk and confusion..

I wasn’t joking when I said we need a different definition for this type of diving. Maybe something along the lines of: Self Reliant Modified Free Planned Dive or Free Planning, Modified Buddy, Solo. Freediving is already taken

Of course, if we can’t even agree on the most basic common definition of these dive methodologies, this is all totally meaningless.

Good standards provide guidelines that simplify and increase safety. Bad standards are like a bad diver. No standards complicate things. With standards come responsibilities, which inescapably lead to accountability. Given that it appears many or most in leadership roles in this industry want no part of the latter, it is up to divers to do something for themselves. We need to discuss, be willing to compromise and accept general uniform definitions. Apply them in sensible ways within useful parameters noting its limitations. The widespread promotion and explanation of such will help our sport mature in a safer way.

To promote an undefined buddy diving system, or solo, or other, is not even worthy of discussion. Not to mention totally irresponsible. The reality is this industry overwhelmingly promotes a barely defined buddy diving system, practically without any limits, except for don’t solo. At least in regards to tourist rec diving, the one’s most in need of protection, as has been mentioned. That this same industry may become more amenable to adopting the same approach in regards to solo, is, well, not going to shock anyone able to see beyond high sounding terms into actual existing practices. Am I being overly critical in this regards about the dive industry? Perhaps. But I think some key policies are equivocal by nature from which contradictory practices result. The promotion of the buddy system being one. The opposition to solo being another.

 

[MikeFerrara]

okay, i just read this again and setting aside the buddy vs. solo debate entirely, some of the suggestions on gas management i think are just horrible:



not an excuse. develop the will to calculate your air requirements.

IMO if you can't execuate a basic gas plan you shouldn't be solo diving.



those are all rules of thumb. you should calculate actual gas management rules based on your depth, your tank, your consumption and your runtime. if you practice this it gets easy. it should be mandatory if you're solo diving.



if you screw up and run out of air, someone is telling you that you shouldn't be solo diving.

the issue with redundancy is good, but it should be a contigency plan to deal with first stage failures, free flows, etc.



maybe if you added "without redudant gas" i'd agree. but if you've got redundant gas, this limitation seems to be compensating for the fact that you are planning on running out of gas.



again, if you can't pull the dive off without resorting to a CESA, you should not be solo diving.

you also really shouldn't be doing test-runs of CESAs from 60+ fsw.

Good points. Where do the authors of articles like this come from? I know divers who have done cave surveys solo at depths of 250 ft and/or total penetrations of thousands of feet. I doubt they could free dive or ESA out of it. LOL And of course my favorite...redundant air sources are not for when you screw up and run out of gas. They're for equipment failures or other problems that delay your return to the surface. The author further illustrates his cluelessness by demonstrating his lack of understanding of gass management in general.

While "Dive training" is better than some of the rags in print they too could use a few knowledgeable divers on their wwritting staff because they come up with some real bloopers. Of course rodales is worse with just about everything they print being a blooper or a bleeper.

The first law of solo diving should be "Don't read that crap and if you do, know that's it's only entertainment to make you laugh.

 

[Nemrod]

I don't think being in the water with other divers loosely diving together or in the same area is not the same as solo. Solo, to me, my opinion, is being in the water totally alone save for the fish and sharks.
I will leave all that gas managment stuff to you guys. I don't cave dive solo, in fact I no longer cave dive at all so the rule of thirds is sufficient for me as are numerous other tried and true rules. I know I am out of gas when my engine quits and I know I am out of air when none comes out of my regulator despite frantic attempts to coax more out. lol N

 

[ArcticDiver]

ArticDiver,

I am not above admitting I’m wrong or apologizing when warranted, so I’ve gone back and carefully re-read your post and my comments. Let me first restate that no personal insult was intended, that is not why I participate on this board. Subject matter discussion is the reason. Upon re-reading said comments I must admit that my comment “This is perhaps diving using a third approach - none” was in fact unfounded and unwarranted, for this, please accept my sincere apology. I should have re-read the comments more carefully the first time. Do me a favor though, next time, LOL, hopefully there won’t be one, but just in case, be more specific in pointing out the aggrievence....

...We still disagree on the definitions of these dive methods, implied buddy and expressed solo, I would hope you take a look at the earlier discussions on this matter, but aside from that, I agree with your other good comments....


...All diving falls into a planned dive, or not, category. There are obviously no limits to dive planning, and there can be many prudent and legitimate dive plans which do not totally conform to the buddy or solo approach. However, since dive planning is subjective, and encompasses everything from an extremely detailed mission plan to a plan to dive without a plan, in and of itself, planning doesn’t tell us anything and therefore it is totally meaningless in conveying any specific characteristics....
.

Thanks. Like you I occasionally demonstrate my humanity by making a mistake. When that happens there is nothing left but to admit it and move on.

To move on to the rest of your post. I guess I'm not quite as enamoured by extensive and detailed definitions as you seem to be. Nothing wrong with either approach, in my opinion. Just a difference in style.

My definition of Buddy Diving would go something like this: When two, or more divers who are competent to perform a specified dive plan and execute the specified dive while maintaining full ability throughout the dive to assist each other in an unforseen circumstance including an emergency.

My definition of Solo Diving would likewise go something like this: When a diver either plans and executes a dive without any other diver, or when a diver operates in such a manner that other divers in the same party would not be able to render timely assistance.

Please don't parse these two definitions too critically. I understand that they are not detailed enough to be legislation. I'm just trying to get them in the ballpark for understanding.

Implicit in both definitions is the idea that all parties to the specified dive are competent for that dive and have entered into what ever planning and agreements that are appropriate.

Underlying all diving, in my opinion, is the absolutely inviolate rule not to dive with an unsafe diver, including yourself if impaired. This rule is not commonly taught. So, I had to learn it the hard way. Since one incident that put me in hazard I haven't broken the rule and do not intend to ever again.

Take care and always remember: Diving is supposed to be fun. Have lots of it.

 

[PaulChristenson]

I like the term self-reliant diver rather than solo diver...because sometimes buddies turn into same ocean buddies... :-(

I carry redundant air supply for just such a situation, never needed it yet

Paul in VT