DevonDiver
N/A
I don't think it matters whether the tank valve is touched, providing that divers confirm functionality and air supply through their regulator afterwards.
What I teach is; both divers take turns to breathe from their regulator for a minimum of 4 full breaths. Simultaneously, the buddy takes 4 full breaths from the AAS. This places sufficient demand on the regulator to confirm function. At the same time, the diver should monitor their SPG to ensure that the needle doesn't fluctuate as both divers breath from the regulator.
I also teach divers to fully open their valve when preparing their equipment for diving. There's really no practical benefit from the 1/4 turn back procedure that is often used. If the valve is either fully open, or fully closed, it is a lot more foolproof and harder to misinterpret.
I also teach divers to never leave their equipment pressurized and shut down (air in the hoses and valve closed). Again, spending a second to purge the system if you are shutting down the valve (because the dive is not immediate) will prevent human error from ever leading to entering the water with the air off.
I do understand that some divers are 'touchy' about having their valves manipulated by someone else. In a tiny, tiny proportion of cases, this may be because of a past human error by an inexperienced buddy. In the vast majority of cases, I think this mentality is nothing more ego and posturing... or a repetition of an 'urban myth' ("I know someone, who knew someone, that had their valves closed off by their buddy during the check").
The question has to be asked; "Why would a diver place their trust in a buddy underwater, if they didn't even trust that buddy to touch their tank valves?".
If they felt that their buddy was that incompetent and untrustworthy, why are they diving with them in the first place? I wouldn't!
Nonetheless, if a diver doesn't wish to have their valves checked, than that is their perogative. Simply skip that aspect of the check, but ensure that the breathing 'demand' test is still done. There's no excuse to miss that.
Bear in mind that you are doing a buddy check for purely selfish reasons. Where your buddy is resistant to do the check, remind them that you want to confirm functionality of their regulator because it is your lifeline in the event of an OOA emergency. You are well within your rights to take every proper precaution to preserve your own safety by adhering to the proper procedures.
As an aside; I don't like non-diving 'boat staff' to touch my valves as I am about to enter the water. This happens a lot in some countries - where a member of boat staff acts as a 'dispatcher' as divers enter the water. Firstly, that person isn't my buddy. Secondly, they might not even be a trained diver. Thirdly, the 'valve check' is often done without consent or confirmation from the diver themself. Lastly, and most importantly, - I've already done my personal and buddy checks... so I don't want any interference after that stage.
I think some divers confuse their dislike of this scenario with the very different scenario of a buddy confirming their valves during a methodical, mutual and confirmed safety check.
Undoubtably, many 'experienced divers' can be terrible role models. Complacency is a factor that easily creeps into a divers' mindset as they gain experience. Of course, that assumes that their 'experience development' is entirely postitive. When those 'experienced divers' finally do gain some 'negative experience' on a dive, you might find that they re-discover the value of doing things more methodically and not under-estimating the occurance of personal human error.
Most complacent 'experienced divers' tend to have a very intermediate number of dives. From my experience, they tend to fall into a category of around 25-150 dives, with certifications from rescue diver to instructor. They've dived enough to gain (over) confidence, but not done enough diving for the statistical inevitability of a malfunction or human error to occur.
Divers invariably start out as being very safety aware and (if well taught) meticulous in their application of proper procedures and drills. Over time, they don't experience any catastrophes and start to feel that those proper procedures and drills are a waste of time. This isn't due to any analysis of the procedures and drills themselves - but rather because they allow themselves to question the need for those drills. This is very faulty logic. The procedures and drills are an 'insurance policy' against a statistical chance. Sooner or later, those divers experience an event that causes them to re-evaluate the benefits of those 'time-wasting' procedures and drills. They become more safety aware again.
If you encounter a diver that neglects the procedures and drills that they were taught, it is always interesting to ask them "why?".
A failure to acknowledge, or believe, that you could make a mistake is a recipe for eventual disaster. The correct procedures and drills do exist (and are taught) to mitigate the risks of human error or gear malfunction. If a diver chooses to allow complacency to lead them into a mindset where they choose not to mitigate those risks, then they are possibly not a diver with sufficient responsibility to be a reliable buddy in the first place.
In respect of dive safety, our cumulative experience counts for very little if it is only positive experience. Because diving is inherently a safe activity, it is very easy for a developing diver to start assuming that it is a risk-free activity. There is a definite difference between being 'safe' and being 'risk free'. Safety protocols exist to keep us safe, because the activity we love doing isn't actually risk free.
Last edited:
... 
