On Your Own: The Buddy System Rebutted By Bob Halstead

[NAUI Wowie]

On Your Own: The Buddy System Rebutted By Bob Halstead

PART 1

Buddies are not essential for a safe dive. On the contrary, buddies often increase the risk of a dive, either directly through unpredictable or unreliable actions, or indirectly, through an unfounded belief that security is enhanced by numbers alone, regardless of the training or state of mind of the buddy. In most instances, a competent solo diver would be much safer than the average buddy dive.

Most textbooks do not define the buddy system - an interesting point in itself. I define it as the situation that occurs when two divers of similar interests and equal experience and ability share a dive, continuously monitoring each other throughout entry, the dive, and the exit, and remaining within such distance that they could render immediate assistance to each other if required.

Obviously, this definition represents the ideal, and upon honest examination it’s clear that it has little to do with the reality as practiced by most divers. The truth is that on most dives, the buddy system fails. I’ve been an active diving instructor for 20 years, and a professional sport diver for 13 years; I’ve made over 5,000 dives and have personally supervised - without serious incident - over 90,000 dives. During this time I’ve seen buddies that were incompatible either through interest of ability; buddies that spent their dives looking for each other; divers dependant on their buddies; divers who claimed to be buddies on the boat, but who ignored each other in the water; buddies who failed to communicate; buddies who fought in the midst of a dive; and divers who failed to recognize distress in a buddy, let alone attempt to assist.

This last situation brings up a vital point. The buddy system implies that divers will be able to recognize a problem with their buddy and do something about it. Most are never put to the test, but experience indicates that if they were, many would fail. An analysis of diving fatalities in Australia and New Zealand over the past ten years found that 45% of the fatalities involved buddies who were separated by the fatal problem or who were separated after the problem commenced. Another 14% stayed with the buddy, but the buddy died anyway. Just being together is not enough.

From these observations, I’ve concluded that the buddy system is mostly mythical. It is unreasonable, unworkable, unfathomable, and unnatural. Rarely - very rarely - I see a couple who buddy dive as the ideal. In my view, most diving today is, in fact, solo diving, even if the divers claim to be buddy diving. Unfortunately, because it is taboo, most divers have had no specific training to qualify them for such solo diving.

How did we get ourselves into this mess? I am told that the "never dive alone" rule originated with the YMCA "never swim alone" program that was popular when dive instructor agencies were just getting going in the late 1950s. Why has the rule stayed with diving? Undoubtedly because people are nervous about being out of their natural breathing element and at the mercy of the monsters of the deep. Fear 2 is the motivation for the buddy system. Divers do not want to be eaten. There is nothing strange in this fear; what is strange is the response to it: get a buddy. There is an old joke that the buddy system reduces the chance of getting eaten by 50%. Regrettably, the divers that repeat this joke are often serious. Instead of finding out about real behavior of marine creatures, or developing fail-safe scuba gear and a back-up breathing system, the diving community has opted for the comfort of having a buddy. Many divers choose a buddy simply because they are alarmed at being alone, and not because there is a possibility of the buddy actually assisting in an emergency.

Unfortunately, few people defending the buddy system seem to address the critical point of whether it does, in fact, make diving safer as intended. Since the introduction of the buddy system 30 years ago, a large body of divers has developed who have made careers out of sport diving. These people must now look to their experience to decide whether or not the buddy system has worked, or whether it should be modified or even abandon.


Analysing Dive Risk

All diving involves risk. As soon as you step near a full scuba cylinder you are at risk. And every step that you take getting on and into the water increases your risk. In fact, there is an escalating scale of risk as dives become more complex. In general, the risk of a certain dive is a function of the technical requirements of the dive and the environmental conditions. It has nothing to do with the diver.

In theory, we should be able to grade every dive for its risk factor. However, this is difficult in practice. Though many cave dive have been graded, ocean dives are another matter. Ocean conditions, being variable, may make a dive low-risk one day and high-risk the next. Nevertheless, an accurate assessment of the risk factor for any dive must be made before the dive is attempted. This is why experience is so valuable. and why risk assessment is a critical duty of dive masters and instructors.

The actual danger posed by any particular dive depends on three factors: first, the dive itself - the risk factor; second, the diver attempting the dive - the skills available to overcome the risk; and third, the buddy - the wild card - who may make the dive less or more dangerous.

Safe diving occurs when the diver’s skills, experience, and knowledge match or exceed the skill, experience, and knowledge requirements of the dive. For instance, diving shallower than 30 feet in calm. clear, warm water devoid of marine life qualifies as low-risk. Yet such dive could be dangerous if the diver does not understand the consequences of breath-holding on ascent. Similarly, a dive to 200 feet in dark, cold water with a strong current is undoubtedly a high-risk dive, but one that can be made safely if the diver has the appropriate abilities and back-up. Professional divers make these kinds of dives all the time.

Of course, judging the danger of a dive is more a matter of probabilities than absolutes. A dangerous dive is one where it is likely that an injury will occur, a safe dive where it is unlikely - but not impossible - that an injury will occur. The point is that a high-risk dive - one that is deeper, longer, colder, rougher, involves 3 penetration of a wreck or a cave, encounters a current, involves dangerous marine animals, or is difficult to enter or exit from - need not be dangerous if the diver can identify the risk factors and overcome them with disciplined diver education and training.

We must also realize that there is no such thing as a completely safe dive. Nobody knows all the physiological risks associated with diving. In addition, many marine phenomena - as well as many buddies - are unpredictable. A safe diver is one who is able to assess the risk factors accurately and has a sober knowledge that his or her ability is sufficient to overcome these risks.

The crucial question in the debate between buddy diving and solo diving is how does the buddy affect the safety of the dive? Does he or she effectively add to the natural risk of the dive or reduce the risk of the dive? This obviously depends on the buddy. In many instances it would be safer to dive alone. For instance, many instructors would agree that it would be safer for them to be alone than with a student on a training dive.

The one remaining piece of the puzzle is to determine how being alone, per se, affects the risk of a dive. That is, does the buddy play an essential role in the dive? Is it possible to make a dive without a buddy and survive? Clearly, while we cannot survive a dive for more than a few minutes without a functioning regulator and a tank of air, we can certainly survive without a buddy.

Then what role does the buddy actually play? Theoretically, the buddy acts as a kind of safety factor. He is not essential, but has the purpose of preventing problems by recognizing them in the dive partner and stopping their development or effecting a rescue. Therefore, being alone does not affect the natural risk of the dive, but it does deprive the diver of a possible safety factor.

However, it is equally true that, although an ideal buddy might provide a safety factor, a less-than-ideal buddy might actually constitute an additional risk factor.

agreed, as long as you carry a large pony tank, two computers, marine rescue gps, epirb, two lights, two cutting tools, redundant lift, split fins for more power, and a tourniquet you can operate by yourself then you should be fine. Although a trimix fill would be an added safety buffer.

 

[NAM001]

I'm in agreement, however basic SCUBA certification was started as, and is still required to be, NDL buddy diving. How it is taught is another matter.

In my initial SCUBA training, and later in my OW certification, I was trained to be self reliant as part of the safety and rescue procedures. Initially because there was one set of gear and my "instructor" was only in the water for buddy breathing on the doublehose. The OW class was off the NorCal coast and conditions can get very challenging quickly, and buddy separation is not unknown for experienced divers, let alone novices, and one may find themself finishing the dive alone.

I don't know what it is about this thread, but I'm finding myself defending buddy diving, which I rarely do, and agreeing with DIR folk. Is this Bizzaro World or something?



Bob

Solo Diver

Could it be that before,,,,, the buddy was for the catastrophy when it happened and now it is the mythical crutch or insurance policy for personal short comings in skills? Perhaps it was statistically an option before and now it is a necessity to have in all aspects?

I like the idea of being self reliant and sharing a dive with another self reliant diver. I like a buddy that is needed to enjoy the dive with and not one needed to get back to the surface.

 

[NAUI Wowie]

On Your Own: The Buddy System Rebutted By Bob Halstead

PART 1

Buddies are not essential for a safe dive. On the contrary, buddies often increase the risk of a dive, either directly through unpredictable or unreliable actions, or indirectly, through an unfounded belief that security is enhanced by numbers alone, regardless of the training or state of mind of the buddy. In most instances, a competent solo diver would be much safer than the average buddy dive.

Most textbooks do not define the buddy system - an interesting point in itself. I define it as the situation that occurs when two divers of similar interests and equal experience and ability share a dive, continuously monitoring each other throughout entry, the dive, and the exit, and remaining within such distance that they could render immediate assistance to each other if required.

Obviously, this definition represents the ideal, and upon honest examination it’s clear that it has little to do with the reality as practiced by most divers. The truth is that on most dives, the buddy system fails. I’ve been an active diving instructor for 20 years, and a professional sport diver for 13 years; I’ve made over 5,000 dives and have personally supervised - without serious incident - over 90,000 dives. During this time I’ve seen buddies that were incompatible either through interest of ability; buddies that spent their dives looking for each other; divers dependant on their buddies; divers who claimed to be buddies on the boat, but who ignored each other in the water; buddies who failed to communicate; buddies who fought in the midst of a dive; and divers who failed to recognize distress in a buddy, let alone attempt to assist.

This last situation brings up a vital point. The buddy system implies that divers will be able to recognize a problem with their buddy and do something about it. Most are never put to the test, but experience indicates that if they were, many would fail. An analysis of diving fatalities in Australia and New Zealand over the past ten years found that 45% of the fatalities involved buddies who were separated by the fatal problem or who were separated after the problem commenced. Another 14% stayed with the buddy, but the buddy died anyway. Just being together is not enough.

From these observations, I’ve concluded that the buddy system is mostly mythical. It is unreasonable, unworkable, unfathomable, and unnatural. Rarely - very rarely - I see a couple who buddy dive as the ideal. In my view, most diving today is, in fact, solo diving, even if the divers claim to be buddy diving. Unfortunately, because it is taboo, most divers have had no specific training to qualify them for such solo diving.

How did we get ourselves into this mess? I am told that the "never dive alone" rule originated with the YMCA "never swim alone" program that was popular when dive instructor agencies were just getting going in the late 1950s. Why has the rule stayed with diving? Undoubtedly because people are nervous about being out of their natural breathing element and at the mercy of the monsters of the deep. Fear 2 is the motivation for the buddy system. Divers do not want to be eaten. There is nothing strange in this fear; what is strange is the response to it: get a buddy. There is an old joke that the buddy system reduces the chance of getting eaten by 50%. Regrettably, the divers that repeat this joke are often serious. Instead of finding out about real behavior of marine creatures, or developing fail-safe scuba gear and a back-up breathing system, the diving community has opted for the comfort of having a buddy. Many divers choose a buddy simply because they are alarmed at being alone, and not because there is a possibility of the buddy actually assisting in an emergency.

Unfortunately, few people defending the buddy system seem to address the critical point of whether it does, in fact, make diving safer as intended. Since the introduction of the buddy system 30 years ago, a large body of divers has developed who have made careers out of sport diving. These people must now look to their experience to decide whether or not the buddy system has worked, or whether it should be modified or even abandon.


Analysing Dive Risk

All diving involves risk. As soon as you step near a full scuba cylinder you are at risk. And every step that you take getting on and into the water increases your risk. In fact, there is an escalating scale of risk as dives become more complex. In general, the risk of a certain dive is a function of the technical requirements of the dive and the environmental conditions. It has nothing to do with the diver.

In theory, we should be able to grade every dive for its risk factor. However, this is difficult in practice. Though many cave dive have been graded, ocean dives are another matter. Ocean conditions, being variable, may make a dive low-risk one day and high-risk the next. Nevertheless, an accurate assessment of the risk factor for any dive must be made before the dive is attempted. This is why experience is so valuable. and why risk assessment is a critical duty of dive masters and instructors.

The actual danger posed by any particular dive depends on three factors: first, the dive itself - the risk factor; second, the diver attempting the dive - the skills available to overcome the risk; and third, the buddy - the wild card - who may make the dive less or more dangerous.

Safe diving occurs when the diver’s skills, experience, and knowledge match or exceed the skill, experience, and knowledge requirements of the dive. For instance, diving shallower than 30 feet in calm. clear, warm water devoid of marine life qualifies as low-risk. Yet such dive could be dangerous if the diver does not understand the consequences of breath-holding on ascent. Similarly, a dive to 200 feet in dark, cold water with a strong current is undoubtedly a high-risk dive, but one that can be made safely if the diver has the appropriate abilities and back-up. Professional divers make these kinds of dives all the time.

Of course, judging the danger of a dive is more a matter of probabilities than absolutes. A dangerous dive is one where it is likely that an injury will occur, a safe dive where it is unlikely - but not impossible - that an injury will occur. The point is that a high-risk dive - one that is deeper, longer, colder, rougher, involves 3 penetration of a wreck or a cave, encounters a current, involves dangerous marine animals, or is difficult to enter or exit from - need not be dangerous if the diver can identify the risk factors and overcome them with disciplined diver education and training.

We must also realize that there is no such thing as a completely safe dive. Nobody knows all the physiological risks associated with diving. In addition, many marine phenomena - as well as many buddies - are unpredictable. A safe diver is one who is able to assess the risk factors accurately and has a sober knowledge that his or her ability is sufficient to overcome these risks.

The crucial question in the debate between buddy diving and solo diving is how does the buddy affect the safety of the dive? Does he or she effectively add to the natural risk of the dive or reduce the risk of the dive? This obviously depends on the buddy. In many instances it would be safer to dive alone. For instance, many instructors would agree that it would be safer for them to be alone than with a student on a training dive.

The one remaining piece of the puzzle is to determine how being alone, per se, affects the risk of a dive. That is, does the buddy play an essential role in the dive? Is it possible to make a dive without a buddy and survive? Clearly, while we cannot survive a dive for more than a few minutes without a functioning regulator and a tank of air, we can certainly survive without a buddy.

Then what role does the buddy actually play? Theoretically, the buddy acts as a kind of safety factor. He is not essential, but has the purpose of preventing problems by recognizing them in the dive partner and stopping their development or effecting a rescue. Therefore, being alone does not affect the natural risk of the dive, but it does deprive the diver of a possible safety factor.

However, it is equally true that, although an ideal buddy might provide a safety factor, a less-than-ideal buddy might actually constitute an additional risk factor.

Ok so who here on this forum thinks that if the buddy system were eliminated , i.e. all divers at all tropical and cold locations now had to dive by themselves....who here thinks there would NOT be an explosion of dead bodies across all our seas?

Because im here to tell you if everyone was told they had to dive without buddies a LOT of scuba divers would die every week world wide.

 

[NAM001]

While I am now a solo diver, with my self-reliant certification so I can do dives by myself with the permission of the local dive spot operators (and others in the future who might want that to permit it in their venue), I think some of the down-sides are under-stated and some of the upsides are exaggerated. I also believe that if you think a solo diver is fully qualified/competent to dive on their own, you shouldn't feel the need to try and make arbitrary limits on the dives they should do by themselves. If you tell me I should only be able to safely dive to twice my free-dive depth while solo, you're telling me that below that you think a buddy is needed for safety. If you believe a buddy is needed for safety below that depth, what is your rationale for why I can safely dive above that depth?

When diving solo I am lacking a redundant brain, a redundant set of eyes/hands/etc. I can put in redundancies for everything but the other person. My slung pony bottle won't help me if I have a medical issue, where as a buddy could. I accept that is an increased risk as a solo diver and I have accepted that risk. If I go deep and get narc'd and do something stupid while solo diving, there is no buddy to help me out and convince me to go up and clear my head. I accept that risk when I choose to dive deep solo. So, it's not all "better" or "safer" diving solo. We choose to accept the increased risks associated with having no one else to help you when we dive solo.

Two of the primary reasons I enjoy diving solo are that I can make the dive about whatever I want it to be without feeling bad for "making" another diver do what I want (gear checks, practice boring skills, launch a DSMB 20 times in a day, spend 10 minutes on that 5 foot section of reef taking macro pictures, whatever it is I want to do), and I only have to look out for myself (and not any of the bad, or good, buddies that I might have instead). Even bad buddies, in my experience, tend to be obvious that you have one early into a dive. A responsible diver can deal with that, up to and including thumbing the dive if they feel that's necessary (I've done it because I wasn't comfortable with the abilities of another diver already this year, not including the insta-buddy I had to rescue - though I didn't personally do everything right in either scenario in hind-sight, i did learn and the latest issue was much less serious as a result I believe).

So yeah, I agree that the buddy system is inadequate and that solo diving can be done safely. However, neither is without risk and both can be done with relative safety if you choose to do so responsibly.

I think a very key factor here is that you have to know your limits. That aspect is not taught in OW. If you dont know your limits/limitations and you have a problem you have none to fall back on except a buddy. That is an area where I agree that experience teaches you so much about diving.

 

[Bob DBF]

Could it be that before,,,,, the buddy was for the catastrophy when it happened and now it is the mythical crutch or insurance policy for personal short comings in skills? Perhaps it was statistically an option before and now it is a necessity to have in all aspects?

Initially the buddy system was taken from the YMCA swimming program, because SCUBA back then was closer to swimming than what is done now. Now that it has been instituted as a part of training for decades, and will take major changes in the industry, and insurance, to change. And considering the job being done in SCUBA training, what's chances that can produce mass numbers of OW Solo divers?

I like the idea of being self reliant and sharing a dive with another self reliant diver. I like a buddy that is needed to enjoy the dive with and not one needed to get back to the surface.

I'm with you there, but over 57 years of diving and I haven't had to take off my shoes to count the number of trusted buddies I've had. Granted I enjoy, and have done a lot of Solo, so it wasen't like I was looking hard to find buddys. I have buddy dove with a lot more divers, but...


I think every diver should be self reliant, but I don't think the industry, as a whole, would be able to produce that kind of diver out of OW.




Bob

You don't hand a set of Dolphins to a sailor because he was assigned to the boat.

 

[MichaelMc]

I don't think that solo divers are saying all divers should be diving solo. Just that for some, solo is as safe as how many others dive. Zero buddy help in case of a medical issue, but likely lower panic incident risk.

As light as it is, the buddy training in OW class adds an assistance and safety net for the new diver. The new OW diver will have no experience, so an extra brain, hands, and air around at issue or issue avoidance time could be handy.

Just adding dives to the new OW diver may not change that. 500 dives of 'follow that person over there and come up when they say' will not train someone to be self reliant. Some people should not dive. Some should not dive solo. They are either not suited to it or have not taken the effort to learn.

A spare brain is a big lack in solo diving. Yet if diving solo or being self-reliant is a goal, the many dives suggested before going solo should provide a diver the chance to develop good underwater problem avoidance and solving ability. And the underwater experience likely necessary for that to develop.

Two (or a trained team of three) such brains is better than one, but one trained for self reliance may do just fine. Not relative to being connected to a fully stocked dive support vessel above them, but relative to many OW/AOW dive pairs. Or relative to being paired with many OW/AOW divers.

And I also enjoy diving with good buddies.

You don't hand a set of Dolphins to a sailor because he was assigned to the boat.

Yes.

 

[Bob DBF]

I think a very key factor here is that you have to know your limits. That aspect is not taught in OW.

Depends on who is teaching, and what agency they are with. If the agency allows the instructor to add mandatory requirements to the training, good judgement can be a requirement. It was a requirement for certification in the OW class I was in, along with a few requirements just for me, but that's another story. The instructor did not want any of his students dying out on the NorCal coast, as far as I know, none did.



Bob

 

[NAM001]

Initially the buddy system was taken from the YMCA swimming program, because SCUBA back then was closer to swimming than what is done now. Now that it ha ps been instituted as a part of training for decades, and will take major changes in the industry, and insurance, to change. And considering the job being done in SCUBA training, what's chances that can produce mass numbers of OW Solo divers?



I'm with you there, but over 57 years of diving and I haven't had to take off my shoes to count the number of trusted buddies I've had. Granted I enjoy, and have done a lot of Solo, so it wasen't like I was looking hard to find buddys. I have buddy dove with a lot more divers, but...


I think every diver should be self reliant, but I don't think the industry, as a whole, would be able to produce that kind of diver out of OW.




Bob

You don't hand a set of Dolphins to a sailor because he was assigned to the boat.

I agree BOB and there lies the real meat of the matter, May I add that it is not just the industry and its politics but the caliber of students and their expectations as well.

 

[Bob DBF]

A spare brain is a big lack in solo diving.

I just listen to the voices in my head. It's worked for me.


Bob

 

[NAM001]

Depends on who is teaching, and what agency they are with. If the agency allows the instructor to add mandatory requirements to the training, good judgement can be a requirement. It was a requirement for certification in the OW class I was in, along with a few requirements just for me, but that's another story. The instructor did not want any of his students dying out on the NorCal coast, as far as I know, none did.



Bod

Very true I doubt that instructors deliberately short their students. I do believe that they tend to teach the local needs. So in FLA and coastal areas they teach open water ocean skills. When you do your training in the mid west for instance you read about currents and that is the end. You read about deep water but that is the end. Globally the min requirements are met in all areas. Like you would agree watching run silent run deep does not earn the dolphins. You and I started in a different era. I understand that unfortunately the new generations do not especially when it comes to limits and mastering skills vice what is happening so much now. There is only one thing that does not change and that is the dangers. I think the redefinition of mitigation has created a lot of false security. Like you said that is a different story for another time.