Mr Chattertons Self Reliance Article...

[dumpsterDiver]

Deep tech dives like the Doria or even some of the dives I myself have done in Lake Erie were done with the understanding that I was on my own even though I was diving with someone. He was not going to give up his gas and neither was I. If that had not been understood, as John said, we had no business doing that dive.
.

Why do you dive with a buddy if you know that neither of you will provide life sustaining help if needed?

 

[TSandM]

I'm just shaking my head . . .

You should never do a dive that you don't expect to have the skills and the equipment and the gas and the planning to execute safely. Nobody should ever do a dive where they EXPECT to need someone else's assistance to survive it.

Everybody should practice skills regularly. Simple, expected skills like mask clearing or replacement, or oral inflation, or regulator exchange or recovery, should be second nature. Sharing gas and ascending should be second nature and that ascent should be absolutely controlled. Shooting a bag should be second nature, even if it has to be done while sharing gas or dealing with a leaking mask or anxious buddy.

That said, there are circumstances where a diver either really cannot manage the problem himself (a freeflow on a single tank, for example) or where it would be far easier to allow someone else to help (diagnosing a leak from behind the doubles diver's head). THAT's why we have buddies. I can get my wetnotes out of my pocket, no matter how cold my hands are, but putting them back is far easier for someone else to do. Does that make me a dependent diver? I don't think so. I would never be annoyed with or think less of someone for wanting me to help them make sure their stuff got back in their pocket and got cleaned up, especially in 44 degree water.

It is highly unlikely that a diver in double tanks is going to end up entirely out of gas. If it was because of bad planning, it should have been caught in the pre-dive sessions. If it was because of a minor failure that was mishandled, then the diver was diving beyond his capacity. But there are things other than running out of gas that might spur sharing air -- my husband began to think one night that the gas he was breathing had something wrong with it, because it tasted and smelled funny. (As best we were later able to determine, it appears he swam through something weird in the water, because the gas was tested and was fine.) When he came to me at 85 feet and asked for gas, should I have pushed him away and told him to deal with it?

You could say each of us should have been equipped with a redundant gas source. That's the same ocean buddy approach. We choose to dive in a community where each diver works very hard on polishing his own skills and his own capacity, but certain unlikely problems are mutually agreed to be handled with team resources. That does, of COURSE, mean that the team has to be reliable, practiced, and present. It is probably not a useful strategy for people who dive with random buddies. I don't often dive with random buddies, and I virtually never tech or cave dive with random buddies. When I do MY "high risk" dives, I do them with people I can count on, and I hope those people realize they can also count on me.

I like that approach better. It's worked for over a thousand dives now.

 

[AfterDark]

Chatterton’s perspective is IMO the evolution of a lot of divers. Having been diving four decades I understand where he’s coming from. The buddy system was pounded into us in diving classes, we practiced buddy breathing swimming horizontal and vertical, doffing and donning gear, swapping gear between buddies and many other skills. We could die without our buddy!
There have been four times in these past 42 years where I either needed my buddy or he/she needed me. Two experiences were good and two were negative. None ended in injury or death.
At some point I made the decision to treat every dive as a solo dive. Like Chatterton planning on not having a buddy’s help if I get into trouble. Unlike Chatterton I would share air and give whatever help I could to my buddy or anyone on the same dive. I think if one dives long enough that is evolution from a belief and trust in the buddy system to an understanding that we all share similar limitations and to expect someone to be able to do something you were unable to do yourself might be asking and expecting too much. Know your limits and don’t dive too far beyond them!

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Why do you dive with a buddy if you know that neither of you will provide life sustaining help if needed?

Because we were going in the same direction on the same wreck. It doesn't mean we were buddies in the same sense as it would have been on a simple shallow reef dive. This is where people are not getting it. Andy explained it quite well. Maybe it's not sinking in due to the indoctrination and nannying that Andy is talking about. Even with advanced recreational dives the emphasis is on buddy skills and practices where despite the depth you still have a DIRECT ascent to the surface option.

Again, these are not the type of dives John said were involved. Some also seem to have missed where he said that if it were a training situation and he was the instructor that he would render whatever assistance was necessary. And though it wasn't stated I'm betting that after the incident he would inform the student that on an actual dive it is quite likely that would not have happened.

When my GF and are in the water together it is understood that I will do anything to help her. I'd give up my own gas for her. But we are not doing dives where to do so would pretty much insure I will die. In fact I would not be doing those types of dives with her. Unless she had the same level of training and experience and mindset that I do regarding mortality and diving. As far as diving goes I know she does not. And has no plans to persue that route. On the latter subject we agree with each other wholeheartedly. And know what to expect for and from the other.

When I teach an AOW class the emphasis as I've already stated is heavy on buddy skills to the point of I will fail a student in a heartbeat or stop the class until we get an issue worked out if they show a lack of (talking to) or disregard for(fail) proper procedures. The skills in the advanced class I offer are about the same as my Intro to Tech class. With the exception of the use of doubles and a few other gear mods. Where it also differs is in the idea of buddy skills and self reliance. The skills are still there. But there is more emphasis on independence and not RELYING on the ability of the buddy to change the outcome of a problem.

When we did Steve Lewis's (Doppler) disaster scenario there were eight what I would consider experienced and accomplished divers in the water in close proximity. Various scenarios were run through. Switching the reg on a hung bottle to simluate a failure, entanglement, etc. But the focus was on how to get yourself out of the situations. Not how to get your buddies attention to do it for you. It's nice if a buddy can help. But on tech dives of the nature John was writing about that option fast goes away.

The WKPP/DIR approach works for those types of dives and does so because that is what they train for and plan for. The people who dive the Doria and other deep wrecks, solo cave divers, solo wreck divers, etc. don't use that approach. I have said before that any dive I will do with a buddy I will do solo. I will not do every dive I will do solo with a buddy. There are times when it simply is more effective and less risky to do the dive alone and not have to be in any way responsible for someone else. But it is stated up front that the situation is such.

I guess you have to have gone through tech training with someone who understands this to appreciate the difference. And to have dived with those who follow these ideas. It's all comraderie and smiles and laughing on the surface. We'd stick out a hand to keep a guy from falling on the boat and if we happened to get an injury from that it would not be held against the guy. But under the water it is a different story.

An accident there should have been foreseen. An equipment failure planned for as well as a way to deal with. By the diver himself or herself. If it wasn't they should not have been doing that dive. And this is where the Intro to Tech and subsequent tech classes differ from recreational training. In recreational training you might see 2 or 3 pages in the manual about all the fun and excitement you will enjoy. In tech classes it will soon be noted that here is how you might die before anything if the class is rooted in reality.

As to the danger of new divers reading and misinterpreting the article and getting hurt. I suppose that is possible. Grown men have been known to look at a red hot weld and ask "is that hot?" as they actually touch it! Some call it curiosity. Realists see it for what it is. Stupidity. And a sense that someone will somehow protect them if it truly is dangerous. That they do not have to be responsible for themselves.

I truly believe that this is also a factor in some diver deaths where a buddy was present but untrained in rescue skills. They were operating on the false belief that someone else would protect them and the other diver. Because they were led to believe that in their early training when the instructor said "oh, you don't need to worry about that yet" or "the DM will handle that" or "you're too new to handle rescue skills" that used to be taught in every OW class until it was realized there was a more profitable way to pass those skills on later.

And this is where the "everybody can dive" mentality comes back to bite people. We often talk about the physical conditions that indicate a person is unsuited for this activity. We rarely or never talk about the mental and psychological conditions that should also be a clear indication that a person should not be in the water. "I can't swim but I think I should still be able to dive", "I don't need to learn all that stuff you teach, just give me the bare minmums I need to survive cause my plane leaves next week", and other such indications that the judgment of the person is seriously compromised. Yet some will take these people and give them a c card and lament the poor skills, reef bouncing, zoom off and leave an insta buddy attitude they have. When it could have been avoided by simply telling them they are not suited for this.

New divers have to understand that there are aspects of this that will kill you at every level. But it's taboo to say that. Must not negatively affect the bottom line. And this is why people might try it. Because they have been lied to and led to believe that it can't happen -death,injury- to them. That it's so rare that while we acknowledge it can happen we minimize and avoid a serious detailed discussion. If we confronted the fact head on and were open about it from the beginning of the Open Water Class I believe some would still be alive.

 

[PfcAJ]

I've always been in a position to help my buddy with whatever he or she could need on every single "tech dive" I've ever been on. This includes many long range deep cave dives.

Doing these types of dives with the mindset that you can't help (or be helped) is ridiculous. Bring the right skills and the right equipment and your list of available options is quite long.

"Every man for himself" diving is baloney and should be avoided.

 

[rongoodman]

Again, these are not the type of dives John said were involved. Some also seem to have missed where he said that if it were a training situation and he was the instructor that he would render whatever assistance was necessary. And though it wasn't stated I'm betting that after the incident he would inform the student that on an actual dive it is quite likely that would not have happened.

If it would be possible to render aid to a student, why should it be a problem to provide the same aid to a teammate?

 

[Rhone Man]

If it would be possible to render aid to a student, why should it be a problem to provide the same aid to a teammate?

I am reminded of the words written on a slate in a deep dark hole in South Africa: Dave's not coming back.

I don't think anyone in the world criticises Don Shirley for not descending to 900 feet to attempt a rescue. After that it is just a matter of degrees.

 

[cephasiii]

The OP wrote [/B]

But you will die just as dead in 5 feet of water if you can't get to another gas source when yours goes out as you will 400 feet below the surface.

I agree with your comment, but disagree with the premise of your argument (of which I am assuming is your premise). Dive planning for a 5 foot dive (or "shallow" rec dive") is completely different than for a "400" foot dive. SAC rates, END, PO2, TTS, CNS, Gas consumption, Bailouts/lost gas among others MUST be factored in and a plan derived for each. The deeper you go the more gas you have to bring (most of the time/for the sake of argument) or better account for. Yes you can die at 5 feet if you run out of gas, but you can also stand up in the pool or shallow water or just ascend to the surface since you are already there. At 400 ft and 20min into your dive you have consumed a lot of your gas (and owe a substational amount of DECO time in which you can not just ascent to the surface) and most likely have enough gas and to get yourself to the surface in a "worse case scenario". Besides the simple gas management, human dynamics come into play and I would argue are even more dangerous. When people are scared/frightened/near death they only care about their survival. I agree with John's comment about him not giving his gas, but assisting instead. All I care about is getting that regulator and getting my next breath. I don't care about anything else. That is selfish, and no amount of training will ever guarantee that you will not "freakout" and calmly ask for gas so you can surface safely. The only way you will know how you will act in that situation is to be in it, and God forbid any of us ever get into that situation. Its not selfish diving, its survival. Better you than me. Better one than two. John has more experience diving than most in this World. He has experienced things none of us have or probably ever will. He has seen people die in the water and he has rescued those in need as well (I am assuming again). He is speaking from experience and we should be thankful that he teaching divers how to dive safely and how to think through the dive and anticipate problems and develop solutions solely. Take his words for what they are. Don't angry at him for sharing at viewpoint which is different than yours.
My 2cents... Now flame away!

 

[DevonDiver]

If it would be possible to render aid to a student, why should it be a problem to provide the same aid to a teammate?

1. Because tech classes are kept under much more controlled circumstances... they aren't 'pinnacle' or exploratory dives.

2. Because not every tech diver is an experienced tech instructor.

Technical instructors have died because of students/trainees. It takes a lot of balls to make a statement like John did. It's an easy sentiment to throw around... but to honestly make that decision, after some personal soul-searching...and in full awareness of what can go wrong... that's a rare thing.

I've always been in a position to help my buddy with whatever he or she could need on every single "tech dive" I've ever been on. This includes many long range deep cave dives.

Doing these types of dives with the mindset that you can't help (or be helped) is ridiculous. Bring the right skills and the right equipment and your list of available options is quite long.

"Every man for himself" diving is baloney and should be avoided.

I think people are confusing the message. I don't think John is saying "don't ask for, or offer, help". Rather, it is a baseline of not "expecting" help... as a mindset from which to gauge your competency in relation to what you would attempt. That can be extrapolated, as Jim suggests, into the bottom-line of whether you'd do a given dive solo. If you would, with reasonable confidence of success, then you could do that dive in a team. If not, then some element of a 'trust me dive' must exist... where the proximity of fellow divers forms some type of psychological crutch for the diver's confidence.

Tech divers should take every reasonable precaution against death. Those reasonable precautions might include team diving protocols; supported by proper equipment and planning, along with lots and lots of appropriate practice. Those are precautions. They are not the bottom-line of survival.

 

[danvolker]

I think perspective is important when considering John's article. There is a big difference between recreational and technical diving. There are also levels of extremity in technical diving; tech diving is now a common-place activity, but much of what now occurs is quite 'sterile' and far from pushing boundaries or considerable as 'exploratory'.

John is applying his perspective; gained from the most extreme levels of technical diving. These are dives where people have died. When those people died, lessons were learned. One of the lessons (as I interpret it) is that some circumstances can push the concept of 'rescue' beyond the level where it should be an assumed success. The parameters of an incident are simply too challenging for any reasonable diver to expect meaningful assistance from others.

The newer generation of technical divers might struggle to appreciate that scenario. Recreational divers certainly will.

I think there has been a paradigm shift in technical diver mindset over the past 10 years. Regardless of how we educate the issue of self-reliance, newer generations of divers have been suckled upon the notion of being 'nannied' from the second they first donned a scuba kit. We've all participated, or read, debates about the degradation of basic scuba training. We've all read or considered how qualified divers have become more 'sheep-like', following a "responsible" divemaster like a herd.

Self-reliance is a rare thing nowadays. Technical courses attempt to disabuse divers of this reliance. 'Tech Mindset' is a standardized component of most tec course syllabus. That said, I don't feel (or see) such education as being totally successful in re-aligning diver attitudes. The shift from rec-to-tec attitudes isn't happening completely. Shaking off an instinctive tendency for reliance - developed and encouraged by 'nanny dive-pros', over a person's complete diving history - takes more than a few training days, classroom hours or clearly defined prose in a tech diving course manual.

Many technical divers today are 'reliant'. Tech diving is accessible to the community now and is a common aspiration for an increasing proportion divers. Most, if not nearly all, of those divers retain some expectation that somebody will always come to their rescue. When I see divers rushing through the technical program, collecting cards like a child grabbing candy in a sweet shop, I can't help but wonder how they could stomach such fast progression. The only answer, as I see it, is that they aren't progressing their diving in the assumption that their own skills/ability will be their sole source of survival. They must be happy to delegate some responsibility to another...to a mentor or instructor, who they presume will safe-guard them...otherwise how could they honestly feel 100% confident and self-assured to rapidly leap into higher qualifications and more challenging/risk-laden dives?

'Team Diving' is a nice concept. So is communism. Both philosophies share an identical trait... they rely upon a idealized notion of human character and capability. Neither accounts for the reality of human character... human frailties. Team diving does not...cannot... guarantee safety. It provides a theoretical basis upon which safety can be reasonably assured, but that theoretical basis needs to be tempered with an understanding of human weaknesses. Some rescues require bravery. Not everyone is brave. Some rescues require the risk of self-sacrifice. Not everyone can risk that sacrifice. Some rescues require flawless performance. Few, if any, should assume they can perform flawlessly in an emergency.

What I see in John's article is an acceptance of reality. John's experience has shown him that reality. That is why his views differ from those with less experience.

The WKPP proved conclusively that when you PICK your team mates, and train with them, that team based diving can accomplish dives far more challenging than anything that could be accomplished solo.
This has been true both in deep cave, and in deep ocean.

The only thing the chaterton article offers is the reality for same ocean buddies....that when you really know nothing of your buddy, then you can't expect anything good from them.

As to experience, his, is many years of experience doing "Every man for himself diving". In a society where intelligent people have found they could accomplish more in a team, and are used to the ideas of society, Chaterton exhibits a form of self interest that is antagonistic to our basic ideas of morality. To suggest Tech Diving is somehow "different" from recreational diving in the way in which you handle problems on a dive, is proof of a poor knowledge of the fundamentals of technical diving. This is one reason GUE is teaching Fundies. Both WKPP and GUE have always stressed the importance of each diver gaining the highest level of all skills, long before the diver entering the more dangerous world of Cave dives or deep ocean dives.

The WKPP solution, was to CREATE self rescue skills far beyond anything taught or mentored by chaterton or his friends, test them constantly and refine them, AND to add this to the skills of each member of a buddy team.

George Irvine came up with a series of rules--many have heard of the Rule #1 which you don't dare violate in a Cave dive, or in a deep technical dive--it is the most basic of all WKPP or DIR rules--it is do not dive with unsafe divers--the language used was don't dive with strokes, but this was a "team language", made for them, not the universe of diving, and each member of the team knew exactly what the language of each rule meant.

Diving today involves constant Rule Number one violations by many divers. Many of the tech programs in high volume dive shops, create a steady source of Rule number one violations--where they put unsafe tech divers together, for money( course fees), and hope that nothing bad happens. Chaterton's philosophy is one way to get around this. I would say a better way, is to consider finding and training with the ideal buddy(s), your most important gear choice.

I would say that DIR or GUE, is the exact opposite side of the coin, and is the better way to plan your diving future. I would also ask that if you were diving with your highly trained wife or girlfirend, son or daughter---would you dive with them in the team based style you know DIR describes, or, would you dive with them in the chaterton and Renaker "Every Man for himself" style of diving?

If you would do the DIR approach for those you love, then I suggest you just don't care about friends or people unrelated to you, that would buddy with you. You don't care at all. If you would do "Every man for himself" with those in your family--then I feel very sorry for you and your family.