Tough Buddy Separation Problem

[scubadada]

I would have followed the specific "lost buddy procedure" that you and your buddy discussed and agreed to prior to the start of the dive. Can you tell us what that was?

I'm also wondering why this is a "tough" problem. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

Agreed, a specific plan ahead of time would prevent this from being urgent or emergent.

Good diving, Craig

 

[Blackwood]

Every scenario is situational, and my outcome of thought process will depend on the scenario.

I'd have to give some thought to what the worst case scenario is. If he suddenly went for the surface, chances are he'll make it there long before I will, and hopefully in such a condition that those topside could assist him if need be.

I think a worst case scenario may be disorientation or incapacitation on his part resulting in his getting lost or stuck on or slightly in the wreck. I'd likely commence a methodical search pattern within my personal limits of exposure back towards where we came from, staying very conservative in terms of my own gas usage (as was said, two victims does not a rescue make). If I didn't find him by the time I got back to our 'entry point,' I'd surface.

 

[NudeDiver]

You descend the anchor line and pause together at the impressive rudder and screws. After giving each other the ok sign, you then descend to the deck down a narrow chasm in single file. When you reach the deck you look back at your buddy but he is gone.

Omitting all bits of light signals and touch contact and what-not, the question here is this: What protocol do you follow? You are wearing a computer and planned to follow its profile for a "no-deco" dive. Again omitting all debate about computers, that was your plan.

The PADI training I received indicate that you should look for the buddy for 1 minute, and then go to the surface. There were no exceptions, caveats, seperate rules, or anything else for a guy who has doubles but is low on air, using a computer or not, or anything else.

[*]Search for one minute around the outside of the wreck, look under the wreck without going under it, and then ascend?

yes.

If you fail to find him, do you follow your computer slavishly for the ascent?

yes.

Or do you cut things a little short?

No.

Creating two victims instead of one is rarely a reasonable solution to a problem.

 

[Dive Junky]

Having dove this wreck numerous times there are not many places your buddy could be. He must have followed you off the starboard screw off to the left following the line that leads around the superstructure to the rear hold. Along this line buddy contact can be difficult but if your buddy was low on air he should have given you a yank on the line.

He can not pass you here, there is only one line and you must use it because the current is very strong on a good day.The only place to penetrate is on the river bottom at least 20 feet below you where he should never have been so forget that one.

The only two things that could have happened here are 1) He ran low on air, turned around and never told you which as I said before would have been easy to do with a yank on the line or 2) he was swept off the wreck which is very likely given the strong current.

With that in mind the only thing you could do is kling to the wreck and drop as low as you can and see if he is trying to pull his way along the bottom to get back to the wreck. Don't leave this wreck for your own safety. If he did get pulled off the wreck and you do see him and you are very worried he is low on air which is likely you could let go and help him. It would mean a free ascent with good visibility in a strong current but many divers drift this location so the risk would be minimum.

 

[Dive Junky]

So what did you do?

 

[scubadada]

Nude Diver (though I know you wear a drysuit),

Reasonably inflexible of you, considering there may be a prearranged loss of buddy response between dive buddies. Wow, I'm PADI trained too, but am willing to customize my actions for the circumstances.

Good diving, Craig

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

I'm also wondering why this is a "tough" problem. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

It's now very straightforward to me as well. But to my amazement, that other thread shows that there is a wide range of opinions on whether to do safety stops, whether to search for one minute or longer at depth, and so forth.

Perhaps the question ought to have been worded "What search plan should you and your buddies agree on before the dive? Do you agree to search in the holds? Do you agree to search under the wreck? Do you agree to ascend following normal protocol or faster? Do you wait at the line after searching, and if so for how long?" and so on...

What I was getting at here was to contrast the debate over whether to take a required safety stop with whether to penetrate a wreck. So far, I would say that people treat the "required" safety stop with a great deal less respect than the injunction to avoid overhead environments and wreck penetration.

Urban legend has it that on another recreational (as in no penetration, single tank) wreck dive in this area there was a lost buddy problem as part of a larger group. The most experienced diver took charge and instituted a search of the wreck's exterior and vicinity, then proceeded to lay line into the wreck with his finger spool, where he found the lost and disoriented diver in a siltout.

It is not known whether the rescued diver expressed his gratitude by buying this man beer for life or whether he went top drawer and opted to buy Single Malt Scotch for life. So it is possible to save someone's life by venturing into places where they shouldn't have gone.

I was wondering whether anyone would opt for a search of the holds. So far, nobody has thought it would be a good idea

 

[Blackwood]

I was wondering whether anyone would opt for a search of the holds. So far, nobody has thought it would be a good idea

I said I'd search "within my personal limits of exposure." Depending on the situation, minor penetration may be within those limits. However, I wouldn't do any extensive solo penetration, especially when hoping to find a panicked diver.

 

[Dive Junky]

It's now very straightforward to me as well. But to my amazement, that other thread shows that there is a wide range of opinions on whether to do safety stops, whether to search for one minute or longer at depth, and so forth.

Perhaps the question ought to have been worded "What search plan should you and your buddies agree on before the dive? Do you agree to search in the holds? Do you agree to search under the wreck? Do you agree to ascend following normal protocol or faster? Do you wait at the line after searching, and if so for how long?" and so on...

What I was getting at here was to contrast the debate over whether to take a required safety stop with whether to penetrate a wreck. So far, I would say that people treat the "required" safety stop with a great deal less respect than the injunction to avoid overhead environments and wreck penetration.

Urban legend has it that on another recreational (as in no penetration, single tank) wreck dive in this area there was a lost buddy problem as part of a larger group. The most experienced diver took charge and instituted a search of the wreck's exterior and vicinity, then proceeded to lay line into the wreck with his finger spool, where he found the lost and disoriented diver in a siltout.

It is not known whether the rescued diver expressed his gratitude by buying this man beer for life or whether he went top drawer and opted to buy Single Malt Scotch for life. So it is possible to save someone's life by venturing into places where they shouldn't have gone.

I was wondering whether anyone would opt for a search of the holds. So far, nobody has thought it would be a good idea

Every dive has its own challenges and should be prepared for accordingly. Know your dive location and plan for it.

Since I know the location you were refering to, a search of the holds would have been meaningless. You know as well as I do your buddy most likely would never have passed you. In a scenario where it was unclear where your buddy was and it is possible they did enter the wreck, if you have no training and no gear to enter properly you should not go in.

The holds of this wreck you are refering to I would not consider a true penetration however.

As far as safety stops are concerned, that is your call. How much diving have you been doing? How long have you been down? How long has your buddy been missing? How much of a risk is the person worth to you? Just remember most of the time you will lose your buddy they are fine. 99.9% of the time it is a false alarm, so don't ever put yourself at risk for something that is most likely not an emergency.

 

[scubadada]

One issue I noticed during lost buddy searches is maintaining your depth is crucial, especially during wall dives and lower vis. I would go up slightly to see over any obstacles, observe any bubbles etc. but then drop back down to my original depth before moving out. Your buddy should also be looking for you and you don't want to end up above him.

Righty-O, we agree, this was a wreck search.

Good diving, Craig