Buddy obligations

[diver 85]

We call them DMT (Divemaster in Training). At least, I think that's what he meant.

I'm with Bob. When you agree to be buddies, both sides have an obligation. You attempted to fulfill yours and were deliberately thwarted. At that point, I'd wave goodbye to the "buddy" and go to the group. I would also refuse to dive with that person again.

I am an almost fanatic believer in team diving . . . but you need at least two people to have a team.

I take the road of solo-------that way you only have to worry 'bout 1 idiot......

 

[Doc]

The very attentive DM noticed what happened and ...The original buddy was not allowed to go in for the second dive ....

That there is the most interesting thing I've read in this thread.

There has to be iPhone video of that exchange, please tell me that somebody recorded it.

How'd that play out? Tell us more.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

This is all bull, there are no buddy obligations in real life. Everyone dives solo but close to each other. Some people are just too stubborn to admit it.

Might be true in your world, but definitely not in mine. When I want to dive solo, I don't go diving with another person. In fact, when I dive solo the objective is to NOT be close to another diver.

When I make the decision to dive with another person, I also make a commitment to that person. That commitment includes a mental "contract", if you will, to be part of a shared experience. And it is an obligation ... because that's what we agree to make it ... that includes a mutual understanding of the dive plan, enough self-discipline to stick to that plan, a commitment to awareness of surroundings, communication during the dive, and a completely shared experience from the time we leave the surface until the time we emerge back onto it.

It you can't or are unwilling to meet those conditions, I want to know before we agree to do a dive together ... at which point I'll tell you that you'd be happier finding a different dive buddy and decline to participate in your dive.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[wspalding]

Might be true in your world, but definitely not in mine. When I want to dive solo, I don't go diving with another person. In fact, when I dive solo the objective is to NOT be close to another diver.

When I make the decision to dive with another person, I also make a commitment to that person. That commitment includes a mental "contract", if you will, to be part of a shared experience. And it is an obligation ... because that's what we agree to make it ... that includes a mutual understanding of the dive plan, enough self-discipline to stick to that plan, a commitment to awareness of surroundings, communication during the dive, and a completely shared experience from the time we leave the surface until the time we emerge back onto it.

It you can't or are unwilling to meet those conditions, I want to know before we agree to do a dive together ... at which point I'll tell you that you'd be happier finding a different dive buddy and decline to participate in your dive.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

To some degree, you are both right, in my opinion. I think that agreeing to buddy up with another diver means that you have committed to maintaining an enough awareness of the other person that you "can" provide assistance in the event of something untoward occurring during the dive. I quoted "can" for the reason that, because of the obvious limitations to communication, you can be physically pretty close to your buddy but still unaware there is a problem. Hopefully buddies are making some kind of visual contact consistently during the dive, but we all know it is easy to get engrossed in our own interests during the dive and that buddy contact can be a little sporadic. While technically I always dive with a buddy, since I am sightseeing and he is usually hunting, there are definitely times when we are both going solo, but we know that before we splash so it isn't an issue on the bottom.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

but you need at least two people to have a team.

Huh, and here I was thinking the voices in my head qualifed.

 

[Crush]

You did the right thing - good for you. Chasing after her would have caused you to consume air at a very high rate and could potentially have contributed to panic which you of course want to avoid.

FWIW I found myself in a very similar situation a few years back. I was buddied with two other guys and we were in kelp. They kept insisting on racing through the water. I kept up with them, but my air consumption was getting too high so I began to let myself drop behind, hoping they'd notice. They just raced on. Not knowing the hand signal for "slow down" I caught up, indicated we were buddied, then kept diving as they raced on again. I kept up for a while, then slowed down and (as they kept on) I dropped back. They lost me. I let them lose me. I continued on solo. I didn't know what else to do.

 

[mrdre]

Might be true in your world, but definitely not in mine. When I want to dive solo, I don't go diving with another person. In fact, when I dive solo the objective is to NOT be close to another diver.

When I make the decision to dive with another person, I also make a commitment to that person. That commitment includes a mental "contract", if you will, to be part of a shared experience. And it is an obligation ... because that's what we agree to make it ... that includes a mutual understanding of the dive plan, enough self-discipline to stick to that plan, a commitment to awareness of surroundings, communication during the dive, and a completely shared experience from the time we leave the surface until the time we emerge back onto it.

It you can't or are unwilling to meet those conditions, I want to know before we agree to do a dive together ... at which point I'll tell you that you'd be happier finding a different dive buddy and decline to participate in your dive.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I think he meant no LEGAL obligation (at least in the US). I'm trying to find the court case I've read about year ago or so where the diver had some air problem and the buddy refused to share air and swam away. The diver drowned, the family sued the buddy for wrongful death, for refusing to share air and they lost the case. The judge ruled basically that there is no "buddy obligation", everybody takes care of his/her own life. The buddy panicked and swam to the surface, according to the court he didn't have to save the diver and put his own life under the grater risk by sharing air and dealing with troubled diver.

 

[Wingy]

So far all the answers you have received reflect an American point of view within American legal standards. You live in Australia. There is a difference.

I suggest you go the Forum titled Scuba-related Court cases and do a search using the name "Watson." You will find a host of threads discussing the legal obligations buddy's have for each other under Australian laws.

As a quick summary, a man named Gabe Watson went diving on his honeymoon with his new wife, Tina. On their first dive of the trip, she had a problem, and he was unable to rescue her. There were accusations based on false reports that he murdered her, but later expert analysis of the true facts indicated that his attempt to save her was simply incompetent. Under the laws of most of the world, that would have been the end of it--he had no legal obligation to perform a competent rescue.

But this happened in Australia. I am not a lawyer, and I am trying to remember what I understood about the particular unusual law under which he was prosecuted, so I cannot explain in solid detail. In short, he ended up pleading guilty to manslaughter and spending a year in jail. Understand that there was no intent involved--his guilty plea was based on an admission of being an incompetent buddy, and the judge's sentencing statement made that clear.

So, I don't understand that law, but I suspect that your legal obligations as a buddy where you live are different from ours in the United States.

Depends what state the OP lives in in Australia. QLD has different OSH laws than say Western Australia. Depends on under what circumstances the dive took place. Obviously the OP was on a charter boat not with a bunch of friends - in which case worksafe or safework depending on the state would not carry out any investigation. AFAIK the only recent case in Western Australia that WorkSafe are looking into is that of a pearl diver. We don't have that litigation culture that you do in the states. Using the Watson case as a bar to measure diving in Aus is drawing a very long bow. Id suggest the OP contact the dive centre he went out with and ask them these questions directly.