Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
There is just no way i am buying any of this solo diving stuff, i know that this has been covered too many times and alot of you don't want to hear it, and i don't have the time to follow and responses (rich and i have spent hours talking about it already in person, it could take weeks here) :-) my comment is that it's ridiculous to think or say that it's better to be in the water without a buddy. yes the buddy can be a liability... but only if he or she isn't trained well enough to <<be>> a buddy... and alot of people (imhe) don't want to take the time or efforts to reach this level of proficency... if you can't deal with being in the water with a buddy and all the concerns that go along with this system then you are not ready for diving this environment. period. it's almost as bad as not having a tender/captain on the boat... you guys are gonna get intro trouble, you're gonna get bent or killed. for what!!! dennis pierce On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Richard Pyle wrote: > > ::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!" > ******************************************************************* > > -- > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@terra.net'. > Send subscription/archive requests to `techdiver-request@terra.net'. >
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]