Mr Chattertons Self Reliance Article...

[BlackPatch]

Pete, good post, and good point about the similarities between climbing and diving. I appreciate where you are coming from. I was also a climber in my younger days, spent quite a bit of time at altitude in North America, and I primarily climbed with one person. We were friends, and climbing buddies, and we looked out for each other. But, we said to each other many times, if it came to a choice between probable joint demise and possible individual survival, we would each move on alone and leave the other behind. Never had to make the choice, or even come close. But, I remember a couple of descents well, one where my buddy lagged behind, and I kept going, and another where I lagged behind, and he kept going. That was the way it should have been.

I was struck by the coincidence of your background, and your comments, because when I read Chatteron's blog, I was immediately reminded of Reinhold and Gunter Messner. I remember reading one of Reinhold's accounts of the fatal climb, in which he described how Gunter was trailing him on the crossing descent, how Gunter gradually fell further and further behind, and finally was just no longer there when Reinhold looked back. Reinhold survived because he kept going. It was a situation where each man had to have a determination to survive individually, and there was little that Reinhold could do for his brother. (Yes, there were all sorts of post-event accusations, condemnations, court actions, etc., but those are not germaine to the point.)

You make a couple of statements that I think are worth the time of every diver to consider: I believe these are reasonable considerations for any diver, at any depth. I did not see the 'Every man for himself' (aka, screw the other guy) attitude in Chatterton's comments that some others did. What I read was, 'Plan BEFORE THE DIVE to be able to take care of yourself, so I don't have to. I will do the same, and both of us have a better chance of coming back alive.' OK, maybe I am the one who missed something. But, what I read was an attitude that divers pursuing deep, technical dives must have a mindset of being able to get themselves safely to the surface without depending on another diver. If another diver can help, great. Just don't depend on that. There is NOTHING wrong with that, and I would say that recreational divers should have the same mindset. How many times have people on SB railed against 'trust me' dives? So, the vigor of the reaction to Chatterton's comments is a little surprising.

Colliam

Thanks for that.
Your actions as a climber are exactly how my climbing partner and I operated. There was never a question of not caring about the other person at all. It was accepted that we operated that way. If we could safely assist then we did, if not we were on our own.
I never felt this was detrimental to our friendship or partnership on the climb. I found it actually instilled greater care and increased levels of prior planning on the route it led to greater levels of communication and appreciation of route choices.

My point of posting up what I originally did was this:

Diving is a solitary sport enjoyed in the company of others. My instructors words and my very good friends.

Because of this, I personally believe that, when we enter the water we should be able to deal with situation's that may arise individually, i.e we should have the skill set and the mental stamina to allow us to do that. Regardless of Rec or Tech. We should not have to RELY on someone else to save our lives. That doe's not mean that I will not render aid to a Climber or a Diver IF IT IS SAFE TO DO SO.

The buddy system allows a margin of error, at least in theory, to cover eventualities that are beyond the control of single diver.

In RECREATIONAL diving too many people BELIEVE the BUDDY / Instructor / DCS / DM exists for their absolute safety and therefore forget even the most basic things such as Gas Management. Of course I will help you, if I can, I would move heaven and Earth to bring you home if I could. But not at the expense of my own life... I have a woman I love deeply and want to marry and grow old with...getting killed because of poor planning or blatant disregard of rules and utter belief that I exist just to get you home is not on my Radar. Take that how you want.

The Buddy system, FOR ME, really relies on a mutual respect, appreciation of limits and sticking to a pre organised plan.
As with Climbing staying within those agreed limits, an appreciation of comfort levels and making sure that the plan is not deviated from will bring you home more times than RELYING on another Human Being to save your life in any situation, regardless if you are in a group of 20 on the Matterhorn or Diving as a Buddy pair on a 100' wall dive in the Bahama's.

An example of pushing it a bit too far from Climbing and how, even though I had a good friend belaying me, could not help or save me:

In 1999 I was just pushing into E2 Range of Traditional Gritstone Leading (This means the rope is between your legs and you take it up, placing gear such as Cams to make yourself safe in the event of a fall)
The route was Hangmans Wall at Deer Gallows in North Yorkshire. England.
We had been climbing other routes and on inspection of that part of the Crag I found the above mentioned route and just had to try it.
I had ZERO idea of grade but it looked do-able. Horizontal breaks on a Vertical wall about 85' in height.
I geared up and set off. First Cam went in easy, nice and solid, back on to the breaks and I ascend smoothly but notice zero gear placement options.
I continue and the breaks get worse, sloping towards me, meaning I have to rely on friction and some funky footwork for ascent. last Break, 5' from the top no gear for 70'. Slack rope. No use in having it tight as I would "Deck Out" due to no gear. I realised I would probably be paralysed at the least from such a fall on to the boulders below.
Utterly ****ting bricks now, I force myself to Calm and look for a gear placement, I get one but on testing it, it comes away. I force it back in and clip in the rope, knowing right away that if I fall I am really in the @#it. Maaking the move to the top I stretch out on bad breaks and horrible smears for my feet and slap for the edge. I feel my weight push out from the wall and my fingers find purchase on the top. Pretty relieved (to say the least) I scamper to the top.

My Belayer had zero options of helping me, wouldn't have been safe for him to do so. Only I could get myself out of the situation I put myself in.

We left the crag elated but aware that a potentially fatal accident had been averted by a finger width.
I drank some beer that night I tell you.

 

[HowardE]

Dan, I don't disagree at all. The issue I have is how well you can ever truly know your buddy. What I'm talking about (and I think John is too) is that in-extremis moment... when bravery and willingness to self-sacrifice either shines through, or it doesn't....

Exactly.

---

Let me say this here...

I AM John's dive buddy, and we DO dive as a team. If I came up to John and I was really in trouble, would he let me die? No..

John's words are written to make people think. To make people think about their training vs reality. Training and scenarios are one thing, but real life and death is another. John has actually been in those situations, and is still here to share with us his wisdom from that.

---

I don't know who was saying this, but we most certainly plan our dives with enough gas, and we consider buddy gas as well. For more technical dives, there may even be support divers. Planing to fail is not planning.

---

I think several people (especially an outspoken member who need no introduction especially in certain parts of Florida) are hanging up on parsing words, instead of the underlying message. The message is... Be prepared to save yourself. Be self sufficient to be a better diver, which in turn makes you a better buddy. Knowing how to save yourself, and be self sufficient is about being responsible for yourself. The concept that, "If I make a big mistake, no big deal, since my buddy will have my back" is part of what he's talking about. Why should I take responsibility for my actions... Let someone else be responsible?

You can hang up on this "every man for himself" thing, but that's simply just not reality. John hasn't just let anyone perish. John is not a selfish man. He's quite generous actually, and has shared more than a breath of air with several (shall I say) dumbasses who have set themselves up for failure. I believe this may the the topic of his next blog... (which is at Shadow Diver | reflections from the underwater world)

In reality... John has saved more lives whilst diving than probably everyone here combined... So in the words of the enlightened Sgt. Hulka, "Lighten up Francis"

 

[danvolker]

I'm pretty sure no dive agency advocates you not having enough gas for you and your buddy safely- that would lead to lawsuits. This comes from divers with experience (or those who aren't and dumb) being comfortable with what they do, even confident trying to extend their time on the bottom for their own fun. As said above, it's just not safe diving. Some people probably get an adrenaline rush from the distinct closeness to the risks of death but let them do that quietly.

Agreed. And so it appears Chatterton would be an advocate for this group of divers that feels good about extending their bottom times to the point at which no air share could be considered. I dont personally think this group should be considered skilled technical divers, or that the way they dive, should be championed, or made to look as anything but foolish. I would also not want the general public, or recreational diving public, to think that Technical Diving is anything like the "Every Man For Himself" world that Chatterton would paint it....Technical Diving should not be seen this way--and yet, there are already posts in this thread by scubaboard members STATING that Technical Diving is a nothing like recreational diving... In fact, the skills we learn in recreational diving, are the skills expanded on, and improved, that ultimately allow us to become good technical divers....Good buddy skills and good dive planning skills, are part of this.

 

[boulderjohn]

Howard, are you saying that when as an instructor he writes an article for divers to read, he writes with emphasis the opposite of what he actually means, just to get people to think?

I asked a question in the other thread, but it was not answered. I will try again. In the incident I described, when the diver realized he was about to have a CNS toxicity seizure and asked to share air, would John share air and save him, as happened in the actual incident, or would he refuse and let the man die?

 

[rjack321]

I am not quite sure why none of the DIR's or GUE's are jumping in on this.

Because the fight off your same ocean OOA "buddy" arguments are stupid and passe'

I don't care how these macho idiots dive or promote themselves on the internets.

 

[nimoh]

I think there is a lot more overlap in the two schools of thought in this thread than readily apparent.

the "self-reliant" school is to be primarily self-reliant. You should be able to solve your own problems, and never plan on needing help, but if you do need help for something catastrophic, the people you are diving with are not going to swim away from you and let you die (self-reliant approach, with a team oriented backup).

the "team diving" school of thought is to plan on diving as a team but still be self-reliant. GUE divers use double tanks with a cross-over. If your reg free-flows, you don't immediately go to your buddy for gas, but rather switch to your backup reg and close the valve on the other (seems pretty self-reliant to me). Everyone carries an SMB, but only one diver needs to shoot it up (team approach with a self-reliant backup).

The critical problem here is the initial statements along the lines of "don't ask for help, because I won't give it", but it seems that this was more of an exaggeration to make a point on being more self-reliant.

I follow the team approach to diving, it makes sense to me. I am enjoying this thread though, mostly it confirms to me that I am taking the right approach to diving (for me).

 

[GShockey]

As Bob said, this is a well travelled road, complete with ruts... So rather than criticize or critique anyone else, and rather than say what others are or are not, let me just add a few points from the GUE perspective; one that is pretty much diametrically opposed to that presented in several posts above.

To say that GUE divers are big on planning would be like saying the Pope is a little bit Catholic: We plan every dive and the amount of planning is contingent on the degree of complexity of the dive. The important part here is that the mindset for all diving is exactly the same. We dive with similar trained buddies who also posses the minimum skill and experience to dive whatever dive we are planning to do. And we get these skills and experience by recognizing they are important prerequisites for accomplishing our goals and thus we make a commitment to train and keep those skills current. With this behind us we regularly do dives for exploration or research that would appear on the outside to be quite risky, yet what appears to be outright risk has been mediated by planning and skill level. Nobody stands around thumping their chest at the end of these dives because that too would be very much not in keeping with the team based approach to our diving. I recently watched some pretty amazing feats of athleticism during the last Superbowl and as much as who ever scored or raised their hands in celebration, not one single player accomplished anything on their own. Turn the fastest running back loose without blockers and watch what happens.

We recognize that we can accomplish so much more working together as a team and mitigating risks that the accomplishment is not individual: it is a shared recognition of "we accomplished our goal". I am saddened by the notion that technical diving is sometimes considered an "every person for themselves" activity. It doesn't need to be and as we have proven time and time again, we can accomplish for more working as a team than any individual ever will working by themselves unless it is as one mentioned a one off "stunt". No diving needs to be done this way, let alone technical diving. You can't ever make anything like this completely risk free but it is not rocket science to remove much of the risk. We train our divers to learn to do this right out of the gate and in a relatively short period of time, they are able to do what many would consider complex gas calculations and dive planning but which is really just a series of building blocks, built up one after the other on a solid foundation. You don't need to be a math wizard to do this. It is very basic and straight forward. And to bring in parts from other threads, yes, we have proven time and again that brand new divers can understand and appreciate these simple calculations.

Many of us regularly do dives significantly in excess of the 225' and every single time we do this, we carry enough gas for two divers to get back to the surface. It is not magic, it is planning. Everything I carry with me short of my necklace is for my team mates, and every single thing they carry is for me. Putting the team before the individual is nothing new and having recently refreshed my knowledge of philosophers, I think a quick review of Plato and Socrates would help understand this.

GUE divers regularly do things that would appear risky but we do it from within a system that is designed to insulate us from risk. This idea is not new and anyone who has experience in the military, the police, firefighters or paramedics understands how this works.

As Bob mentioned about ruts in the road, I have no desire to change the minds of those who have already convinced themselves they have it all figured out. But since new divers who have not "figured it out" yet are also reading these posts I think it is important that some balance be brought to the argument. There is another way to do this and this way does not require an "every man for himself" approach.

Best,

Guy Shockey
GUE Technical Instructor

 

[nakatomi]

There is another way to do this and this way does not require an "every man for himself" approach.

Just to make sure I understand the consequences in the context of the thread. Does this mean, by your training standards, that the other team members will risk their lives in order so bail out another team member. At every stage of the dive? Till the very end?

If that's not the case then you would have to agree, that it will still "be every man for himself" in the end.

Oliver

 

[261311]

Just to make sure I understand the consequences in the context of the thread. Does this mean, by your training standards, that the other team members will risk their lives in order so bail out another team member. At every stage of the dive? Till the very end?

If that's not the case then you would have to agree, that it will still "be every man for himself" in the end.

Oliver

Seems we read and understood GShockey's post in two very different manners. To my understanding it seems counter-intuitive for a GUE diver to go beyond their skill or ability to deal with any situation they're given to be able to assist a buddy without endangering their lives or those of their buddies assuming it's not a personal medical emergency based on history (to which leads back to never putting yourself in a situation and knowing your limits). Their dives are planned with conservative safety measures and planned so that things don't go wrong, not how to react when they do (this is just another part of training). If you're talking about a diver becoming that royally screwed underwater, it may not be one who follows GUE honestly from what I can tell.

 

[nimoh]

Just to make sure I understand the consequences in the context of the thread. Does this mean, by your training standards, that the other team members will risk their lives in order so bail out another team member. At every stage of the dive? Till the very end?

If that's not the case then you would have to agree, that it will still "be every man for himself" in the end.

Oliver

reductio ad absurdum