Twenty years ago, even talking
about diving alone was heresy.
Today, it’s common practice. Liveaboard
boats are filled with solo
divers, and many land-based dive
operations allow divers to venture
off on their own. Furthermore,
divers in groups frequently get
separated from one another, with
those who lag behind losing sight
of the group.
Buddy diving is less commonplace
because many divers believe
they can’t depend upon a buddy
for rescue. Rather than buddybreathe,
they believe they’re better
off heading to the surface alone.
Perhaps, but the ultimate
cause of death in 80 percent of
diving fatalities is drowning. And
three Australian researchers have
found that divers who are alone
are, obviously, much less likely to
be rescued than those who have
buddies nearby.
This is the second of a twopart
article summarizing the work
of researchers Drs. Carl Edmonds,
Douglas Walker, and Brian Scott,
who reviewed 100 drowning
deaths and forty-eight accidents of
divers who survived.
In the first part, we commented
on the role of water
conditions, air supply, buoyancy
compensators, and weights. In
this issue, we look at what happens
when a buddy is present —
and when no buddy is present.
The work of Drs. Edmonds,
Walker, and Scott originally
appeared in the Journal of the
South Pacific Underwater Medicine
Society.
*********************
For a diver in trouble and
drowning, rescue depends on
rapid action by either the victim
or the buddy. Once a diver is
unable to carry out safety actions
by himself, he becomes dependent
upon other divers. A solo
diver doesn’t have that help.
Fatalities
In eighty of 100 fatal cases,
the victim was not with another
diver. In twenty-one fatalities, the
dive was deliberately solo. In
another fifty cases, the victim had
separated voluntarily from his
buddy or the group. (In thirty-one
of these cases, the victim aborted
the dive — usually due to air
shortage — and attempted to
return to the surface alone.) And
in another nine, the deceased
divers were swimming behind and
invisible to others at the time of
the incident. This de facto solo
diving made early rescue and
resuscitation improbable.
In only eight of 100 deaths
was there continued contact with
the buddy or group during and
following the incident.
The victims disregarded the
buddy system, and group diving
conferred little value because the
leader often had insufficient
contact with individual divers to
be classified as a buddy. The
responsibility of other divers was
unclear, especially toward the last
of the followers.
In 31 percent of the cases, no
attempt was made to rescue the
victim. In the next 24 percent, an
attempt failed, often because no
one knew where the victim was. In
17 percent of the cases, rescuers
found the victim and attempted a
rescue, with some initial response
by the victim.
In a quarter of the cases there
was no search for the victim until
after the planned dive had been
completed and it was realized that
the victim had not returned.
Resuscitation
In only 20 percent of the
cases was the diver rescued within
five minutes of the incident. In
another 12 percent, the diver was
recovered within 5-15 minutes,
theoretically giving a slight chance of recovery for these
divers had the rescue facilities
been ideal and had fortune
smiled brightly.
However, in ninety-one of 100
cases, resuscitation was not
feasible; the victims were obviously
dead or showed no response
to the rescuer. There was an initial
response to resuscitation in 7
percent and ineffectual resuscitation
was applied to 2 percent.
Near-Drowning Incidents
Most people who survived did
so because they were rescued by
their companion, who was of
considerable value when he
reached the victim.
For surviving divers, the
buddy was immediately available
in 71 percent of the cases. He
assisted in 58 percent, and in 52
percent of the cases controlled
the diver’s ascent.
The buddy inflated the
survivor’s BC in 25 percent of
the cases, ditched the weight
belt in 25 percent, supplied an
independent air source in 15
percent, and attempted buddybreathing
in 4 percent.
On the surface, some form of
artificial respiration or CPR was
required in 29 percent of the
cases. Oxygen was used in 52
percent of cases, which suggests a
sophisticated and organized
diving activity.
Drowning Prevention
Drowning prevention required
prefixed plans and action
when an incident occurs.
Before the Dive
Medical and physical fitness
decreases the likelihood of
physical impairment or loss of
consciousness or difficulty in
handling unexpected conditions.
Adequate experience in the
dive conditions increases the
likelihood of a successful dive.
Use extreme caution with tidal
currents, rough water, poor
visibility, enclosed areas, and
excessive depths.
To ensure neutral buoyancy,
avoiding being overweighted so as
not to be too dependent on the
buoyancy compensator.
Insufficient air may convert a
problematical situation into a
dangerous one. It also forces the
diver to experience surface
situations that are conducive to
anxiety, fatigue, and saltwater
aspiration.
Use traditional buddy diving
practice: two divers swimming
together. Solo diving, even for
part of the dive, is more likely to
result in an unsatisfactory outcome
if there are diving problems.
Divers who are committed
to the traditional buddy-diving
practices are likely to survive the
more serious of the drowning
syndromes.
If a problem develops,
become positively buoyant. Drop
weights and inflate the BC.
Buoyancy compensators cause
problems in some emergencies
and will sometimes fail to provide
the buoyancy required. Failure to
remove the weight belt during a
diving incident continues to be
the major omission and must
reflect on training standards.
Inform your buddy before
ascent. A good buddy will automatically
accompany an injured
or vulnerable diver.
Rescue, first aid, and evacuation
need to be planned before
the dive.
What Does It All Mean?
This study raises several
interesting questions about how
both land-based and live-aboard
dive operations handle the buddy
system. A solo diver on a trip may
not only question the value of an
assigned dive buddy with little
dive experience; he may resent
the additional responsibility that
has been assigned him as well.
This in turn raises the issue of
mixing novice divers and experienced
divers on the same boat as
well as how to predetermine a
diver’s skill level, all of which are
complex issues.
Proponents of solo diving
could argue that most drownings
occur on the surface, where there
may be additional support
available, and that the statistical
incidents of double drowning
(when one diver attempts to help
another and neither survives)
should have been reflected in this
study as well.
While denying or repudiating
buddy diving has become fashionable
and innovative, implying
diving expertise, the data shown
here definitely indicate that, in a
drowning situation, the value of a
buddy is hard to deny. The truth
is that most of us are solo divers in
the strictest sense of the term,
lagging far enough behind or
engaging in an activity like
photography where we’re in sight
of our buddy only intermittently
at best. In light of this research,
however, we may want to reconsider
our solo diving habits in
situations of low visibility, high
currents, deep dives, or other
extreme conditions.
— Ben Davison