David Strike wrote"

<[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [SCUBA-SE] Solo Diving


> > 3. I'm not real comfortable with any certification agency that has spent
40
> > years preaching that buddy diving is the only way, setting themselves up
> > as qualified to certify those who have been sucessfully diving solo for
> > years.

> As an evolving activity diving has seen many changes in the way that it is
> taught.  As businesses with an eye on bottom line profits it is reasonable
> to assume that *any* training agency will keep abreast of consumer demand.
> That's not to suggest that it's not researched properly or that the
courses
> have been introduced with the sole intention of making money!

Or that it has been researched properly or, for that matter, that it's even
possible to research and teach properly.  Not being real comfortable is not
the same as knowing there's something wrong.  As for making money, I think
it's also reasonable to assume that that is exactly why an agency offers
something like this.  Making money is a valid motivation so long as it does
not over ride concern with safety.  Given the reservations people like you,
me and others have with the concept of solo diving for the general
population of divers, I think a lot of questions remain.  I haven't seen
anything new that would suggest that solo diving is any safer today than it
was yesterday.  At the very least, this looks like a fertile field for
litigation lawyers.

> (Having said that, I can still recall the strong opposition by mainstream
> training agencies to the use of nitrox when IAND - before they added the
> 'T'! - came on the scene.  Since when, of course, virtually all agencies
now
> offer nitrox training courses as a result of public demand!)

It was quite amusing to watch the transition.  I find this a bit different.
In my mind, use of a different gas can be studied effectively and understood
sufficiently to make it safe enough for mass use.  Because of it's highly
individual nature, I'm not at all sure that solo diving can be addressed as
well.  Time will tell, but personally, I'm likely to remain less than
comfortable for some time.  More than this, however, I'm likely to get down
right antagonistic if/when an agency, the agencies or any of our respective
governments decide that a solo card is necessary before Viv, I and others
who, under the right conditions are comfortable alone, can do what we've
been doing for years.

> As it stands - and is taught - the buddy system itself is not without
flaws.
> It often emphasises reliance on a buddy rather than stating that - as I
was
> taught - "A diver's first priority is themself!"

A problem that has often been mentioned.  I find this more likely to be a
fault in the way the system is being taught or, more likely, the way the
student, some of whom are now instructors, perceived what they were being
taught.  This is something that those in the business of teaching,
instuctors and agencies individually or together, can and probably should
address.

> Indeed, many buddy pairs
> are so imperfectly matched that - should things go awry - there exists a
> greater potential for dual fatality than if each of them was diving solo!
> In that regard, it seems to me, preparation for solo diving is an
excelllent
> introduction to diving with a buddy!  :-)

You seem to have addressed two issues here.  One I don't entirely agree
with, the other I readily do.  I'm not of the opinion that "many" buddy
pairs are so mismatched.  This has been a popular opinion applied to a large
portion of the diving community only since one or more agencies began laying
the groundwork for a solo certification.  If it is true, then the agencies,
all of them, have been teaching and through their DMs been requiring their
divers to be less safe for a lot of years.  While there are certainly some
very bad buddy teams, I think this is more likely a result of a diver who is
beyond his/her abilities than to the buddy system itself.  A rank beginner
who has been trained to share air, is an asset for a diver who is out of
air.  Anyone who has not been trained to share air probably should not have
been issued a certification card in the first place.  The same goes for
other basic skills, all of which might have a place in a problem situation.

I readily agree that preparation for solo diving can and probably would have
a very positive impact on one's ability to be a good buddy but am a bit
confused about the nature of solo training.  Where the agencies and I may
soon part opinions is whether there is such a thing as solo training.  What
solo diving skills can you think of that, in your opinion, should not have
been taught at least by the AOW level?

There are a lot of issues to this, but perhaps the most important factor
leading to my reservations is that I'm simply not convinced that anyone but
YOU can decide that YOU are qualified to do a particular dive, any
particular dive, safely while solo.

> Only last year that same agency offered free cross-overs to Instructors
from
> any other agency.  All that was required was to mail a photo-copy of your
> Instructor ticket to their HQ's!  Given the ease of scanning and changing
> documents, how easy would it be for somebody to forge a photocopy?  And
then
> begin teaching?

Back when this first came up, I did not understand the problem with
accepting one agency's certification to teach for crossover to other
agencies.  I've forgotten all the reasons I was given why this was a poor
idea but not the fact that I was educated that it was.  I don't know how
easy it would be.   I can only hope it would be quite difficult, that
acceptance of an individual's ability to cross over would, at a minimum,
include verification of their status with their original agency.  OK, so I'm
an optimist.  If this is not the case, then those who would criticize me
when I criticize the agencies might reconsider.

Lee