Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
> ::grin:: I'm one of the exceptions too - I'll always dive with a buddy. > Note, hopwever, that I won't COUNT on a buddy in case of a problem. > Sure, there are circumstances where a buddy can be a liability. There > are circumstances where a second regulator is a liability as well. > Perhaps, then, we should leave off a second regulator (after all, if > we're not diving with a buddy, then we don't need to share air, right?) > Yes, that's a silly statement, but it's intended to make some people > think a moment. It's not just a simple matter of whether or not a buddy or a second regulator *can* be a liability - it's a question of tradeoffs. Just about every component of a dive - from equipment to logistical protocols to procedures to personnel - has costs and benefits in terms of safety, operational efficiency, etc. The art is intelligently weighing the costs and benefits of each component in the system to determine whether the net result of incorporating that component is beneficial (net asset) or costly (net liability). The only way to become proficient at this art (which is basically the ability to optimize all the parameters of a dive by accurately predicting the cost/benefit values of each component) is by combining intelligence and experience. For most of the diving I do - especially the diving that most folks would classify as "technical" - having extra people in the water yeilds a net liabilty. But this takes into account many different factors, including my own psychology. For another person doing exactly the same task in exactly the same conditions with exactly the same equipment, having a buddy may yeild a net asset. Of course, when you start playing with other factors (i.e. diving in caves instead of reefs, doing 90 minute bottom times instead of 30 minute bottom times, maximizing distance travelled rather than maximizing agility, following a preset well-defined course rather than making up the course as you go along. etc.) the variance in cost/benefit values of each component can be huge. If I'm not mistaken, "Hogarthian" philosophy is similar - optimizing components based on cost/benefit ratios. Aloha, Rich Richard Pyle deepreef@bi*.bi*.ha*.or* ******************************************************************* "WHATEVER happens to you when you willingly go underwater is COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY your own responsibility! If you cannot accept this responsibility, stay out of the water!" *******************************************************************
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]