Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Jsuw, In a message dated 98-06-02 01:14:23 EDT, you write: << I've wondered about this too. It seems that many "experienced" divers scoff at having a buddy. While I don't want a "velcro buddy", I do like the idea of having one. I like being able to share the dive with someone. Self- sufficiency or any lack there of is not the issue. .. . . . . . . >> ------------------------------------------------------ This is a tough issue. The degree of risk of a dive is a highly variable thing dependent on factors from experience to conditions to the nature of support. There are times when a partner can present problems that increase the stress of a dive or actually worsen the consequences of a problem, there are times when a partner can not carry enough resources to cover your butt anyway in the event of equipment failures, there are times when the quality of rescue (from surface support) is compromised by having to divide attention and resources between more than one diver in trouble, especially is separated by currents. Sometimes a dive should not be done due to such factors but ultimately it will boil down to a judgement call and we all want to be allowed to exercise our own judgement rather than being penalized by the inadequacies of the lowest common denominator. Setting up an effective partnership is not always as simple as it seems. Consider how the "common failure mode" applies to dive partners just as it can to redundant equipment. If two items of equipment are equally good then they are also equally bad so that a failure due to environmental factors that are common to both will likely result in the failure of both. In this case there is no real redundancy of capability that adds up to an effective contingency - only copies of unsuitable equipment for the situation. Two equal divers exposed to the same conditions face the same situation in that if there is a failure on one's part it is likely that the other will be equally incapacitated. Bad air fills, ignorance of safe practices (continuous line), unexpected changes in environmental factors . . . . For this reason it is often smart to separate partners in time and space so that they are not subject to the same potential failures, and, therefore, not in a position to help each other. This tactic is employed by some rescue and search and recovery divers where one will remain on the surface while the other makes the penetration avoiding the case of jeopardizing your back up at the same time as the primary. The same kind of tactic could be applied to two moderately experienced divers whereby one might remain at the entrance of a relatively safe and open overhead observing his partner while he takes a look around inside within sight. This is not necessarily recommended but is often much safer than both entering such an overhead because it avoids exposure of your back up and preserves options. If you become entangled your partner can either come help or go for help - he represent access to a much greater selection of options by being able to summons help from the surface and he is not stressed by endangerment himself when he must think your way out of the situation. I know these divers should have a line but this is only an example off the top of my head to illustrate the point. The same scenario could be applied to diving into a kelp bed and if the divers are suitably self sufficient by virtue of back up gas then the necessity of a partner immediately off your shoulder with emergency gas is reduced. Look at the number and regularity of double drownings in the diving literature - two equal divers getting zapped together because one was no better off than the other when disaster struck. Self sufficiency IS the issue. If you are not self sufficient you will be useless to your partner when you suddenly have to take care of two divers instead of one. This leads to the issue of dependency which is probably the driving force behind the distaste some experienced divers have for the buddy system as practiced. I have heard the question "what makes a good dive partner" and the answer, in my humble opinion, is "a good experienced solo diver" - because he is an effective planner and because taking care of himself is so second nature that he can better afford to devote a lot of attention to you when you need it ! ! ! This is not the only good dive partner, but probably the best you could ask for. This solo diver is not necessarily more safe alone than with a good partner but he is often AS safe if you ignore the prospect of heart attacks and unknown medical conditions which will probably kill you, partner or not. Ideally there is no viable argument against the buddy system in some form but implementing an effective system is not always the simple matter is seems to be. The WKPP team is an organized team situation that benefits greatly from a degree of management not evident in the chaotic world of typical sport diving and this lack of management can actually make matters worse rather than better where entering into a partnership is concerned. Training in dive planning is pathetically minimal in all except cave courses and this is the primary thing you must learn by broad experience - how to equip for and plan a dive. This is a huge problem in ocean and wreck tech diving where many practitioners have never taken the cave course that instills the seeds of discipline. Take a look at the "Wings" posts - this guy, bless his lucky little heart, had "apparently" been diving over 400 foot bottoms with these weight problems for some time before it finally bit him on the ass. Very often, when diving beyond the relatively benign environment of the reef, if you want your partnership with another diver to represent an effective contingency it is going to take more than just going down together. This "more" is, like all things worth having, difficult to acquire, and dropping into the depths thinking that just having someone else there is enough can be worse than having only yourself to depend on, which usually invokes enough sobering contemplation to insure a better degree of preparedness. This post certainly does not attempt to address all the issues or settle any uncertainties, rather, only to provide some food for thought when it comes to implementing an effective partnership. Risk free diving does not exist and risk is not necessarily reduced by dependency on or the presence of another diver. It is reduced by experience, discipline, training, and education. Chuck Boone -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
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]