Thinking to solo dive ???

[Cacia]

I ask solo students what do they expect will occur on the dive and what do they expect could occur on the dive. I ask them to come up with three worst case scenarios and what they can do to mitigate the risks by what if-ing them. Then I ask them what do they not know going into this dive It is here we usually have silence becasue they often do not think fully about the human equation

Nicely put. It seems so simple but it is amazing the degree people do not do this and often it seems to me that it is because they have adopted a pre-determined check-list to the exclusion of this "processing". That is what I find dangerous, not the buddy check itself, but the filling of all dive prep with set lists and procedures and no time set aside for reflection of the specific and unique risk management of a given dive.

I also wish that after all the risks of being alone if you have a neart attack or becoming entangled are laid out, that there was a more frank and honest acknowledgment by divers of all the increased danger that being in a group or with another person can create. (90% of the time I have been in over my head it was because of someone else.) Examples range from staying longer, diving a different direction, going deeper than I might otherwise choose. Even "sticking to the plan" when I might otherwise abort, or change my plan, has put me at more risk. Now, if I am in charge and the other person is doing a trust me dive, then I am left dealing with their weaknesses or miscalculations.

I can see how team diving could be effective and successful, but for some it would be like "okay, lets all drive this car together"---it means starting over because it would be so different.

I like the solo with solo approach because I feel it mitigates the major risks (they can help IF they see you), but you are still reliant on only yourself and do not ever really count on the another diver. The best of both worlds, in some ways.

Legally, I like it a LOT better and in fact make it a point to verbalize when diving with friends that we are all doing a solo. It is important to me that anybody on our little private boat acknowledges that...

if you are solo, who is that extra 1/3 for ?

I use it the rule of thirds on every dive. I'd say it is my fudge factor in case I get stuck or forget to watch my gauge closely enough, make a mistake need to deco a few extra minutes, etc. An extra 33.3333333 has always been handy if I am taking the added risk of no air to share. How technical is THAT?
It is my contingency factor.

 

[Comp.Air.Junkie]

I think people who dives with "instantbuddies" should read as much as they can on solo diving, and be equipped as solo-diver also. In reality, half of all divers are really already solo divers, with the style and the environment they dive in. All that training is worthless, if you can't reach your buddy or surface in one breath of air.

I agree. I find myself being stuck with "same ocean" "instabuddies" since my dive buddy (wife) is becoming more timid about diving. I'm starting to look more towards being a buddy for them but also keeping myself from being a stat. by carry a redundant source.

 

[GDI]

I agree with what most people said, except about carrying a redundant air supply. If you are solo diving in less than 35-40 feet, ANY person who is really competant to solo dive does not really need a redundant air supply.

I solo dive 95% of the time, but I will admit that when I'm doing a scary dive that I have not done 20 or 30 times before, I will usually rather have a competant buddy along. It is probably more of a psychological crutch than anything.

So you believe IYHO that there is a depth barrier that determines when a diver should wear or not wear a redundant air source supply and that a competant diver does not need a redundant air source supply 40 feet or less?

Yet you feel that in a "scary dive" you will have a competant buddy as a psychological crutch.

While I can appreciate the "scary dive" need for a buddy statement your first statement of a shallow depth and competant diver philosophy suggests to me that you are not a competant solo diver with the right mind set for conducting solo dives in a safe correct manner. IMHO

I'm a big supporter of redundancy, but in 30 feet it is not required in my mind. Is there some reason to believe that he ran out of air at depth, was entangled or had equipment failure that might have been mitigated by a pony? We lost an experienced diver in Florida a few months ago solo diving in 110 feet, I also wonder if redundancy might have been a factor in that accident.

FWIW, I MAKE my 11 yr old wear his pony, even in 12 feet of water when diving with me. I want him to learn one configuration in case something happens on a "real" dive. However, I'm not wearing one in open water in 30 feet.

Many so called experience divers meet their fate for a number of reasons. Other then those caused by physical issues (ie Heart Attack) a lot of fatalities are a result of a lacking in consistency. Accident Analysis of experienced cave divers has shown this to be a contributing factor in diver incidences and fatalities.

You are a supporter of redundancy as you say but yet you fail to set and illustrate good examples by having your 11 year old wear one and you not, because you are less then 30 feet. Yes you can say at this point diving with your son you are not solo diving and that would be valid. You appear to have a dive as I say and not as I do attitude when setting of an examples, as an instructor this is not good. Ok granted 30 feet is not all that far down but an attitude is very deep.

Where does a diver think the risk starts and stops? this is where the diver accepts or rejects the risk makes or doesn't make the dive. just because you are shallow does not mean you are less likely to have problems. EVERY dive ANY diver makes is a overhead dive. at 30 feet or 300 feet.Until you can breath natural pure air you have not ended the dive. This philosophy is governed by the fact that every dive is a decompression dive. the deeper the dive yes more risks as the limits and varibles change with depth. An 11 year old diver or a 88 year old diver it does not matter, things can happen. they can happen to an instructor just the same as to a student. The water environment does not care about your age, your experience or knowledge and skill level. It does not care about your gender or physical stature.

When solo diving or any diving for that matter a diver has to understand it is about accepting the risk.

dumpsterDiver, I have used your statements as I have read them and I mean no offence by doing so but I do not believe you to be a competant solo diver

 

[Cacia]

I do not believe you to be a competant solo diver

I think he IS, by the sheer fact that he is still alive and dives solo a lot, for many years. Obviously, he is dialed in. The best predictor of the future is the past...

Where does a diver think the risk starts and stops?

of course it is a continuum and your job is to calculate the odds in a way that will be probable in your favor.

 

[GDI]

I like the solo with solo approach because I feel it mitigates the major risks (they can help IF they see you), but you are still reliant on only yourself and do not ever really count on the another diver. The best of both worlds, in some ways.

Legally, I like it a LOT better and in fact make it a point to verbalize when diving with friends that we are all doing a solo. It is important to me that anybody on our little private boat acknowledges that...

Thank you but it is not just "they can help if they see you" it is actually they can help you if and when you signal you want their help.

If you are within a team don't put a buddy at risk because you have a problem.( example entanglement) The buddy can often do best by observing first and letting you attempt to resolve the concern solo like. If they see you can't then they and you recognize this or they signal you to STOP or HOLD because they see otherwise then you just freeze, move nothing but your lungs (that is breath with control) and let them fix it.

 

[Cacia]

oh, good point.

most of my same ocean buddies would not know that though....

 

[GDI]

I think he IS, by the sheer fact that he is still alive and dives solo a lot, for many years. Obviously, he is dialed in. The best predictor of the future is the past...

of course it is a continuum and your job is to calculate the odds in a way that will be probable in your favor.

Good points

The past can be a indicator to future performance but it cannot be a indicator to future probability. In fact it can lead to complacency or a settling into a comfort zone. Commercial Pilots must do refresher training for this very reason to keep current skill and knowledge sets.

Solo diving is all about accepting risk for that matter all diving is about accepting risk. or if you want "calculating the odds in a way that will be probable in your favor" for an acceptable outcome. I can agree to that.

Now before I go any further I apologize to dumpsterDiver because I would be hypocritical if I did not state that I have made in the past solo dives with little to no redundancy. Hell, I have cleaned pools with nothing but a Al80 and technically that would be a solo dive by my definition. But it is my past that tells me today what I now take as minimum equipment and preparation. These minimums forms the basis of a consistent configuration and planning. More complex planned dives get build ups to re-introduce muscle memory and to accomondate for equipment adjustments.

 

[Cacia]

In fact it can lead to complacency or a settling into a comfort zone.

yes, Gonzales discusses that concept in Deep Survival. I'm not sure if he called it "Bending the Map" ..but I guess it is a concept in survival school?

 

[Darnold9999]

Thank you but it is not just "they can help if they see you" it is actually they can help you if and when you signal you want their help.

If you are within a team don't put a buddy at risk because you have a problem.( example entanglement) The buddy can often do best by observing first and letting you attempt to resolve the concern solo like. If they see you can't then they and you recognize this or they signal you to STOP or HOLD because they see otherwise then you just freeze, move nothing but your lungs (that is breath with control) and let them fix it.

Really good point, however there is a point at which I am going to go in and help even without a signal. That is the point at which I believe they are about to lose it. A fine line and better to be a little early than a little late but there is a point at which many people have lost the capacity to ask for help.

STOP and HOLD is not given enough attention. I do recall one incident where an insta buddy had both fin buckles come off - gave the signal to stop then hold - pointed to the fins then to me then back to the fins then hold again. Thought he got it got an OK back - started to fix the fin and ended up with a windmilling buddy - arms flailing, kicking - just all over the place. Ended up cutting my dry suit glove and calling the dive. The whole dive was a gong show right from the beginning - this was just the last straw.

 

[GDI]

dumpsterDiver, I have used your statements as I have read them and I mean no offence by doing so but I do not believe you to be a competant solo diver

I was asked to clarify this and I feel it important. We have a good thread here and alot can be learned from this discussion.

dumpsterDiver my competent statement comes from seeing that you are a instructor and as such I hold you to a higher standard of diving. I do not see anywhere in your profile what you can and cannot teach. Your comments suggest to me that you are not qualified as a Solo Diving Instructor. Is this correct?

Many readers are out there and may think you are. Because you are an instructor I have based my definition on this subject to any unknown certification you may hold. I feel as instructors we need be careful of what we say and what we demonstrate.

Competenence: 1. the ability or state of being competent;
2. the legal capacity to deal with a matter;
3. adequately or capable, effective to make legally qualifing judgements or assesments