Article: Self Reliance and Tech Diving

[PeterNBiddle]

Chattertonism seems to be based on the notion that that we are each of us exclusively responsible for our own survival under the water, which is an ethically consistent philosophy. EG It doesn't ask that we simultaneously be totally responsible for our own health underwater while also suggesting we can look to others for survival.

Chattertonism is kind of like libertarianism. It's morally consistent and is probably demonstrably capable of an equivalent dive survival rate and yet for some of us it's also wrong.

As it turns out, it's not a philosophy I adhere to. I've shown a consistent willingness to increase the overall risk to my own life in order to help other people and that philosophy is with me under the water just as it is above.

This is first time since I joined that I've seen the DIR/GUE philosophy so seriously challenged as being impure or somehow morally or ethically flawed. Some of you are reacting to this better than others. I think this is a good oppty for DIR/GUE folks to think about their philosophy and how they talk about it. Maybe there is more than one defensible and morally consistent definition of "right".

Even as a mere whelp of a diver, I don't need any of you keeping me ignorant in order to protect me from taking on Chattertonism as my new dive philosophy. Suggesting otherwise is infantalizing and offensive. I ask - in fact I demand - to be allowed to make up my own mind.

 

[DaleC]

What happened to the American notion of the rugged individual?

The first rule of protecting your tribe/team is to follow the gas plan. If that allows each diver to carry reserves for both then good - if it doesn't, then one should have enough respect for his fellow diver to manage ones own assets.

As a diver I can operate successfully using two different models; depending on whom I'm with and what I'm diving.

For some, I am a buddy in the traditional sense. My plan is to be available throughout the dive and to offer assets I've calculated for both of us. I carry twice the reserve gas.

For others I/we act as autonomous units sharing a dive within proximity. I would offer help if requested but the dependency aspect is absent. In those cases I make sure we both carry our own reserve gas and I don't plan to donate.

As for taking care of the tribe: Ask Jim M of the WKPP how he feels about his fellow team mates making sure he was not breathing off the wrong mix. According to your philosophy: Their failure = his life.
Personally, I believe at that level, we are all ultimately responsible for our own actions.

 

[danvolker]

Chattertonism seems to be based on the notion that that we are each of us exclusively responsible for our own survival under the water, which is an ethically consistent philosophy. EG It doesn't ask that we simultaneously be totally responsible for our own health underwater while also suggesting we can look to others for survival.

Chattertonism is kind of like libertarianism. It's morally consistent and is probably demonstrably capable of an equivalent dive survival rate and yet for some of us it's also wrong.

In fact, in the 90's there were many deaths by those following the Every Man for himself concept of diving....Just Read chattertons stories for some of these.....And these were for dives far less challenging than WKPP dives --the WKPP dives in deep cave or deep ocean, had exceptional safety records.

This is not buddy diving versus solo diving. It is the nature of a willingness to help if needed, versus a nature in which there is no willingness to help another in need.

There have been MANY solo diving discussions on Scubaboard in the past, and there was never anything close to this level of separation between ideologies.

And again, GUE or DIR, you plan to have all the gas you need for yourself, and for your buddy. There is no running out of gas considered as a contingency.....a massive gear failure or massive impact, something that is highly unlikely--but possible, is what the extra gas is for. This is something most DIR or GUE divers will never experience. In my tech diving since 93( the year when I began going deeper than 150 ft) , I have never been on a tech dive where a buddy ran OOA, or low on air. Hold it, scratch that...In about 1995 I was on the Hydro as was George, Bill, several other tech guys, and so was an underwater videographer of some note named Art Waters....Art ran OOA on the deck of the Hydro, and George had to stuff the long hose in his face. Art did not realize how narced he was, even insisted he was not narced after the dive, but his video was largely tilted and poorly shot--compared to his normal work which was generally very good. Art was not a tech diver, but he got on a boat dropping tech divers on the HydroAtlantic... Art was narced to the point that he stayed down too long on his 100 cu ft tank, and was not watching his pressure guage. Lucky for him George was watching him.
This would be the only time I can recall the need for an air share on a tech dive.

Still, a big part of DIR is the willingness and ability to help a buddy, or another diver, if they are in need.
We avoid horrifically bad or dangerous divers, and don't dive with them--potentially not even being on the same boat depending on the severity, to avoid being in a situation where a known death potential that refuses to listen to reason, or plan properly, would be extremely likely to put us in rescue mode on a tech dive. We don't dive with unsafe divers..this is a Rule....

 

[PeterNBiddle]

In fact, in the 90's there were many deaths by those following the Every Man for himself concept of diving....Just Read chattertons stories for some of these.....And these were for dives far less challenging than WKPP dives --the WKPP dives in deep cave or deep ocean, had exceptional safety records.

My guess is that this just isn't a fair comparison. It's apples to oranges really - an organized initiative shooting extremely challenging caves vs divers who can't even be described as a group, far less having their own schools. But you can't tell me that there are no diving fatalities for anyone who declared themselves as a GUE/DIR, can you?

We have no real stats to base arguments on. But it's moot because even if I could prove to you that there's a .7% higher chance of dying following GUE than Chattertonism, you'd still dive GUE. Right?

There have been MANY solo diving discussions on Scubaboard in the past, and there was never anything close to this level of separation between ideologies.

It's certainly more interesting than the BP/W and split fin spam.

 

[TSandM]

I think what comes out here is just that there are two very, very different philosophies or approaches to doing technical diving. One sees the dive as an individual event, to be planned and survived as an individual. Those folks sometimes do the dives solo, but even when they aren't solo, they are simply in proximity to one another, and not really "buddies" in the sense that recreational divers view the buddy relationship. The other group views the dive as a thing that's planned and executed as a team.

It affects gear configuration, gas volume planning, pre-dive activities, and dive execution. In fact, I'd be willing to say that probably very little of the way the two dives are done is the same.

You're either a team person or you aren't. The people who get upset about the team approach don't understand what it is, and I admit I don't understand Mr. Chatterton's approach. I do understand planned solo diving, and although I don't do it and wouldn't recommend it, I understand the people who do it, and they take on the risks (hopefully in an educated way). What I don't get is the implication from the original piece that one could dive not solo, but as a part of a buddy pair, and refuse to help. I wouldn't embark on a dive like that, not because I think I could EVER be out of gas on a technical dive, but because I know there are malfunctions and mistakes that might put me in a place where breathing someone else's gas for a little while to sort the issue out would remove the frantic time constant from the equation.

Sherwood Shiles died with plenty of gas. He couldn't find the reg that went to it. Of course, procedures have been changed since that accident -- but there is a beautiful example of someone who, had he not panicked, would easily have survived his problem with a little help from a buddy.

But there is really no point in belaboring this any further. The two points of view are SO very different, and so completely unable to comprehend one another, that we are talking past each other.

 

[Quero]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

Commentary is moving away from an exploration of ideas and towards personal attacks again, and no new insights are being offered. Therefore, I'm closing this thread definitively and cleaning it up for posterity. There are still a couple of other threads open to discussion--one from which this one sprang and one which was inspired by this one--if you feel that you have not yet had ample time to speak your mind.

---