Aspiring Solo Diver

[DevonDiver]

... you did cheat slightly: I said what has happened to *you*: you did not experience hypothermia, yourself. I am curious to know if you imagine that *you* could have this as a danger, diving in conditions like Monterey or Casino Park, for yourself?

I've had hypothermia, of varying degrees, several times in my life. I'd count that as transferable experience - which has allowed me to avoid that situation whilst diving. Those experiences did, however, teach me the potential dangers posed by hypothermia when underwater - not least, the difficulty you encounter in recognizing the onset of serious symptoms.

I've not dived in Monterey or Casino Park, but the incident I quoted occurred in 'relatively' ambient temperate waters - about 12 celcius. The root cause was a 'borrowed' wetsuit - slightly too large - that allowed too much water flow inside the suit, coupled with insufficient experience to recognize and react to the immediate/initial symptoms. The location (Brixham Bay) is a very popular shore-based dive site - frequented for many OW courses, with many non-diving onlookers, in shallow water (<10m) and not directly subject to currents or rough water. In all other respects, it perfectly fits the definition of 'a safe area' for solo... and yet Murphy still choose to appear there.

I actually did a rescue at the same site - an experienced (rescue qualified) diver got 'over-turned' by surf when leaving the water.. and panicked. It sound inconceivable - but the individual was sat on the bottom in 30cm depth, getting hit in the face with small waves - inspiring water spray and rapidly reached a state of significant emotional and respiratory distress. There were hundreds of onlookers (busy beach, in summer). After a few minutes of observation, I concluded the diver was in serious distress and at risk (research: dangers of inhaling water spray) and went to assist. In knee-deep water, I reached down and unclipped the diver's BCD quick-releases - thus freeing them of being 'trapped'. After recovering, the diver was mortified that they needed rescue/assistance, which is understandable. I was more mortified that nobody else on the beach had recognized the diver in distress or acted to assist them.

The reason I quoted these incidents is because it illustrates a simple over-sight that had not yet been identified in this thread (by those quoting 'safe' conditions). In particular, it is illustrative of a particular 'type' of diving incident that causes a rapid decline in diver response capability - thus, if not swiftly recognized and responded to, negates or degrades the opportunity for self-rescue. Contaminated air, only (and rapidly) symptomatic at depth, might be another example of that. As would the use of certain medications, that may cause side-effects at depth - I did have a very bad experience with decongestant containing pseudo-ephedrine when I was a novice diver, doing a cold-water deep dive. Panic, under any circumstance, renders a similar situation.

As an instructor/guide, I've performed hundreds of 'assists' to divers of varying experience levels - normally because the diver concerned has entered some stage of panic and been unable to rectify the situation for themselves. In many cases, those assists were all that stood between 'embarrassment' and catastrophy. A 200+ diver who entered from a boat without LPI properly connected and not wearing fins, who insta-panicked when he wasn't positively buoyant at the surface (threw a life-buoy... another mortified and embarrassed diver), the 450+ CMAS 3* diver who 'forgot' to check their SPG and ran out of air (another red-faced diver), the 1000+ BSAC 'Advanced Diver' who nearly lost his weightbelt and got into severe distress on the bottom trying to retrieve/re-attach it (consuming a phenomenal amount of air in the short space of time before he was assisted), the Divemaster (300+) who got chased by a Triggerfish and sucked his air down to near-zilch in a panicked 4 minutes... the list goes on.

 

[NAM001]

AVOIDENCE IS NOT MITIGATION??????? I had to look up the term in the dictionary. In short mitigation is reducing the effect of. This statement is true so long as the belief is that you can not mitigate what has not happened. I see mitigation as a 2 step problem. Minimizing the chance of risk turning into reality. And damage control once the risk turns into reality. Avoidance is a mitigation factor as it reduces the effect of the hazard. so long as you can look at the problem as 2 separate issues. One has implied that one cannot mitigate until injured.... so keeping the hand out of the fire does not minimize the effect of burn. The other says if you don&#8217;t go near the fire you don&#8217;t get burned. It is a matter if risk management. In short if you want to reduce the effect of burn related incidents. #1 you reduce the # of incidents. At the end of day you will have less burn incidents. Granted I am looking at the incident through statistical eyes rather than a per incident view. Even so is sitting next to a camp fire, if one maintains distance they minimize the effects of the burn. 1st degree vs. 3rd degree.

Our whole dive training program is based on mitigating mishaps through avoidance. 60' 100' 130'. 30'/sec. They mitigate through avoidance as a means to isolate divers from levels of mishap through a defined system of training and labeling to define that training. ow, aow, deep tech ect. they have always taught to avoid rather than to recover from. recovery is a last resort and a sign of something going wrong that shouldn&#8217;t have. Personal opinion,.,&#8230; recovery is a technical issue and preventive is a basic and technical issue. falls in line with an ounce of prevention..... Doing so, I admit, does not eliminate the problem. it does however simplify or reduce the probability of multi problem scenarios mentioned in others posts. There is also a line where on the shallow side you have annoyances and inconveniences and below you have varying severity of life threatening problems. Given that,,, you cannot look a 30' ooa situation the same as that at 150'. So yes to mitigate (reduce the effects of) a low or out of air situation I would limit myself to shallower depths, (avoid deep diving) That all comes with pre planning the dive. A well accepted practice &#8230; Avoid the occurrence of, and minimizing the effects of a given problem to maximize the chance of a safe return to the surface. As ones environment reduces the available options for recovery one has to respond with equipment changes different skill sets ect to improve one&#8217;s odds of safe return.
Lastly.. someone asked to have anyone recall incidents they have experienced. When ever this has been asked in the past few has first hand but so many know someone who knows someone who has.

As far as I know my local school has never had a problem with a missing child, before or after the minivan parade of personal delivery of their kids to the school became a daily event. I have asked parents about this and get a couple of responses.

1. It may not have happened here but in the paper a child in (someplace) was kidnapped.

(MY FAVORITE)

1. Are you crazy&#8230; look around you see all this traffic, it&#8217;s a wonder kids don&#8217;t get run over daily. And why are we wasting fuel on all these empty busses that just block the roads when I am trying to get my kid to school.

PERHAPS SOME THINGS SHOULD BE LEFT WELL ENOUGH ALONE.

 

[DevonDiver]

AVOIDENCE IS NOT MITIGATION??????? I had to look up the term in the dictionary. In short mitigation is reducing the effect of. This statement is true so long as the belief is that you can not mitigate what has not happened. I see mitigation as a 2 step problem. Minimizing the chance of risk turning into reality.

I think I explained clearly that avoidance wasn't mitigation because it relied entirely on a supposition that you could avoid an incident. I further explained that the issue of probability (Murphy) meant that any reliance on avoidance alone was flawed, because sooner-or-later an incident will arise. If avoidance was the only step taken, with no training/experience/competence developed in resolution, then the diver is still at risk.

To further abuse your analogy:

Avoidance: Don't sit near the fire.
Resolution: If you feel yourself getting too hot, move away from the fire.

Our whole dive training program is based on mitigating mishaps through avoidance.

A dive training program which also stresses the necessity for reliance on the buddy system.

If we're talking about solo diving, then we need to reference the principles of specific solo diving courses - which don't reflect the mindset of wider recreational training programs.

ow, aow, deep tech ect. they have always taught to avoid rather than to recover from. recovery is a last resort and a sign of something going wrong that shouldn&#8217;t have.

Avoiding risk (an absolute) is different to minimizing risk. I've never heard a single reference, at recreational or technical diving levels, that specified a particular risk could be "avoided" (i.e. cease to be a probable occurrence).

A diver minimizes risk of going OOA by checking their SPG. However, they still learn to air-share and CESA don't they?

..... Doing so, I admit, does not eliminate the problem. it does however simplify or reduce the probability of multi problem scenarios mentioned in others posts.

As I said.... there are some divers prepared to 'accept' a risk, and others who 'mitigate' risks. To me, that's a critical differential that highlights a responsible solo diving mindset.

Solo diving, by its nature, reduces tolerance for failure. The 'probability curve' gets steeper. This, in turn, demands a more robust approach to diving - avoidance and resolution for mitigation.

So yes to mitigate (reduce the effects of) a low or out of air situation I would limit myself to shallower depths, (avoid deep diving)

As I said... a pre-occupation with depth is not risk avoidance, nor any guarantee of survival... unless you were born with gills.

That all comes with pre planning the dive. A well accepted practice &#8230;

Again, pre-planning is critical.... BUT... has to be accepted that an emergency is, by essence, a deviation from the pre-planning.

Just because you want (plan for) something to go perfectly, doesn't mean that it will.

Avoid the occurrence of, and minimizing the effects of a given problem to maximize the chance of a safe return to the surface. As ones environment reduces the available options for recovery one has to respond with equipment changes different skill sets ect to improve one&#8217;s odds of safe return.

What I saw in earlier posts was a total fixation on avoidance, to the detriment of preparing resolutions (via procedures, skills and equipment)... and, most importantly, a definite trend to ignore psychological factors that have an ultimate impact on the divers' chance of surviving an emergency.

Analogy abuse V.20: Sit to near the fire, get burnt, panic... run into the fire.

 

[davidbaraff]

Devon: you said:
"What I saw in earlier posts was a total fixation on avoidance, to the detriment of preparing resolutions (via procedures, skills and equipment)... "

I must disagree with the adjective "total". To be specific, I made these two statements (I'm paraphrasing myself):

1. I avoid the need to come up from a 60' dive or deeper dive sans buddy in an OOA situation by saying I simply won't go below 40' as a solo.

That's avoidance, clearly, and I think a rather foolproof one in this case. (Sea monsters dragging me down to the depths don't count here.)

2. But I also said I'm carrying a spare air, that I've practiced with, so that if I do have to come up from 40' solo, I can do it nice and slowly.

I would think that 2 falls under the category of not avoidance, but planning to deal with a situation? I.e. if I have to use the Spare Air, then it's because of Murphy. Isn't having some redundant equipment and practicing to use it mitigation, and not avoidance?

----------------------------------------

I also think that saying that diver's who are simply prepared to "take the risks" have the wrong mindset is also incorrect, or at least, is arguing on a fairly slipper slope. Clearly, I am at greater risk of a diving injury if I go diving, then if I don't go diving --- regardless of how many people I dive with!! So are you: if you don't dive, I can guarantee you won't get hurt diving.

Going diving then means assuming some risk you think is acceptable, whether with a buddy or not. There is an obvious rejoinder to this of course, and it is: "Yes, as a buddy dive you are exposing yourself to risks that *everyone* agrees are acceptable --- but as a solo dive only *you* think the risk is acceptable. I don't think the risk is acceptable to you because ________ (fill in the blank), and it is your inexperience that prevents you from seeing the risk as unacceptable."

To be clear, I am simply saying that arguing that just because you've assumed to accept a certain risk you've made a bad decision is an obvious fallacy. The argument should be that it's because you're accepting a level of risk that is far different (higher) than what one thinks it is. Not simply that you're willing to accept an increased level of risk. (Yes, I firmly believe that the risk of solo diving is higher for anyone than buddy diving, assuming a competent buddy. How much higher, statistically, for the absolute pros? Who knows? 10% higher? 1%? 50%? I doubt we'll ever know. Is it 500% higher for someone like myself? I don't know that either, for sure. What's my risk from flying to my dive site? Who knows...)

 

[RonFrank]

I do most of my solo diving with other divers. If you dive but your family does not you end up paired with newbies more often than not, especially when the operator realizes you are a safe and experienced buddy. I do not view most new divers as capable buddies. I am happy to buddy up with the less experienced but do not believe they could do much in an emergency. I almost prefer to dive solo but then you share a first time experience with the newbie, their first shark encounter, or first night dive and you get the pleasure of reliving your past experiences while sharing the experience with someone new. That is fun.

I am not a solo diver by choice but do end up doing a good bit of solo diving. My past two trips to CA I am glad I shared my dives with my buddy Tom as CA diving can be advanced. Diving solo is great right up to the time it isn't!

 

[NAM001]

devon
i take by your responce that you are heavily associated with a group that denounces solo all together... if that is the case you are welcone to do so. I guess I just dont get it.

 

[DevonDiver]

devon
i take by your responce that you are heavily associated with a group that denounces solo all together... if that is the case you are welcone to do so. I guess I just dont get it.

Far from it. As mentioned on this, and other threads, I am an active solo diver and have been for many years - including deep/tech and complex wreck penetrations solo. I'm just trying to share/explain what my experience leads me to believe is an effective approach to solo diving, the mindset associated with that and the full extent of risk planning and effective mitigation that should be considered.

I'm pretty happy that multiple agencies do now offer, what seem to be, very robust solo courses - I feel that effective specialist training in this (IMHO) specialist activity is vital. As is consideration of the relatively high dive/experience prerequisites needed to engage in that training. With regards to solo training courses, I feel that the most important element is assessed exposure to simulated emergencies, task loading and problem solving.... as these provide opportunity to receive critical feedback from a mentor/instructor who is familiar with the demands and risks. That is especially true where such feedback includes the option to hear "you sir/ma'am are NOT ready for solo diving...."

What I don't agree with is the notion that solo diving should be attempted by inexperienced divers or approached via a mindset of "it's ok if I stay shallow in calm water", when such statements disregard the necessity for proper training and evaluation.... and a certain ignorance of the nature of the risks that may be encountered (not least - self-imposed psychological ones).

 

[waterpirate]

OH for the love of it all!!

In the time and bandwidth this thread has consumed, the OP could have read and understood all the responses in spades, taken a course and been solo diveing allready. Nuff said yet?

 

[davidbaraff]

Waterpirate: nobody is making you read this.

The point (to me) is discussion, and making me think of things I hadn't thought of. To that end, this thread is succeeding admirably.

For example, Devon's last post just suggested something I hadn't thought of, but seems pretty damned obvious now:
1. A real danger is a solo diver thinking they are ready for a situation which is going to start them down the panic path, and believing they can deal with it. (I agree with that.)
2. So duuuh --- since people are offering courses where in fact they *do* make you undergo exactly this stress, under (I hope) suitably controlled conditions, and then evaluate how you did... (and you yourself can feel how you did)

... that's the perfect opportuntity to stop wondering how you'd do in a hypothetical situation and actually find out.

Sounds like a damned fine idea to me.

 

[NAM001]

I agree 100%.

My assurtion was :because you dont push the cert to the extent of the certification it is an indication you are avoinding things you cant handle. In that i do not dive solo at night, or deep, or in currents, or in an overhead environment. Avoiding diving situations that have the increased potential to develope to a potential life threatening situation is not so much an act of avoiding situations you cant handle as much as it isa step to insure the dive goes as planned. dont tempt fate if it is not necessary.

What I don't agree with is the notion that solo diving should be attempted by inexperienced divers or approached via a mindset of "it's ok if I stay shallow in calm water", when such statements disregard the necessity for proper training and evaluation.... and a certain ignorance of the nature of the risks that may be encountered (not least - self-imposed psychological ones).