Buddy diving

A Navy buddy diver team checking their gauges together

Buddy diving is the use of the buddy system by scuba divers and is a set of safety procedures that are intended to improve divers' chances of avoiding or surviving accidents in or under water by diving in a group of two or sometimes three divers. When using the buddy system, members of the group dive together and co-operate with each other, so that they can help or rescue each other in the event of an emergency.[1] This is most effective if the divers are both competent in all the relevant skills and are sufficiently aware of the situation to be able to respond in time, which is a matter of both attitude and competence.[2]

In recreational diving, a pair of divers is usually the best combination in buddy diving; with threesomes, one of the divers can easily lose the attention of the other two. Groups with more than three divers are not using the buddy system. The system is likely to be effective in mitigating out-of-air emergencies, non-diving medical emergencies and entrapment in ropes or nets. When used with the buddy check it can help avoid the omission, misuse and failure of diving equipment.

The buddy system is the situation which occurs when two divers of similar interest and equal experience and ability share a dive, continuously monitoring each other throughout the entry, the dive and the exit, and remaining within such distance that they could render immediate assistance to each other if required.[1]
— Bob Halstead, Line dancing and the buddy system

In technical diving activities such as cave diving, threesomes are considered an acceptable practice.[3] This is usually referred to as team diving to distinguish it from buddy diving in pairs.

When professional divers dive as buddy pairs their responsibility to each other is specified as part of the standard operating procedures, code of practice or governing legislation.

Purpose

Buddy diving is intended to enhance the safety of scuba diving by having two or three competent divers acting as safety divers for each other during a dive in conditions that are within the capabilities, and using equipment that is familiar to all members of the team. In principle each diver is capable of rendering assistance to the other in any reasonably foreseeable contingency, and is willing to do so within the scope of acceptable personal risk.

History

The sport of scuba diving had its roots among the multitude of small enthusiastic snorkelling and spearfishing clubs in the decades just before and after the Second World War.[4] After the invention of the "aqualung" by Cousteau and Gagnan, the first commercially underwater breathing apparatus became available for sale for sporting purposes in the late 1940s. As the new sport of scuba diving rapidly expanded through the 1950s, several sporting organisations – notably the YMCA – began programmes to train swimming enthusiasts in this new aquatic pastime and began to codify what were believed to be the proper practises needed for this expanding amateur sport.[5] The buddy system had been thought to be a useful corollary to the "never swim alone" edicts of the YMCA swimming and lifesaving programmes. Cousteau himself independently implemented a buddy system from the earliest days of exploratory diving after a number of harrowing diving incidents.[6] The buddy system did indeed have some very useful aspects: the cross checking of equipment before dives, the facilitating of assistance for possible entanglement problems or equipment failures, and the enhancement of the social nature of diving. The YMCA continued as a major force in the development of diver certification during the first 50 years of this new sport. When these programmes were adopted by the emerging scuba certification agencies such as NAUI, PADI and BS-AC the practise of buddy diving solidified into one of the two main mantras of the sport: "never hold your breath" and "never dive alone".[7]

The official terminology of recreational diving defines only the two extremes: Buddy/team diving, and solo diving. In reality, many, or most dives are somewhere between these extremes, in a continuum with some informal descriptors, and many behaviours which are seen as deviations from the buddy diving standard.

Requirements

For the buddy system to function effectively, each buddy must be sufficiently competent to provide the required service. There are several conditions which must exist for the buddy system to succeed optimally:

Most recreational divers never advance to a high level of competency as might be indicated by certification and experience, and furthermore, many divers do not dive sufficiently frequently to maintain their skills.[8] Nevertheless, they are routinely expected to provide assistance to their dive buddies in the event of an emergency, and are also routinely allocated to dive with complete strangers who may be using unfamiliar equipment. It is standard practice for many, if not most diving charter organisations to allocate buddy pairs among divers they have never assessed for competence on the basis of their certification and claimed experience. The optimal conditions are seldom fulfilled on open-water recreational dives.[2]

Procedures

Pairing of buddies

There are differences of opinion in how best to form up buddy teams among a group of divers. One school of thought is that buddies should always be closely matched in skills, experience and interests so that one diver will not hold back his or her buddy in achieving what would personally be a totally enjoyable dive. This becomes particularly true when a diver is on an especially expensive or unique diving trip or holiday. This is a suitable arrangement for purely recreational dives. The problem with this approach is that it also pairs up inexperience – which can be dangerous if a diving emergency arises (fortunately, this is not statistically very often). The alternative is to buddy-up a more experienced diver with a less experienced buddy to counter this "experience gap". This also helps to advance diving skills by having one buddy essentially act as a "tutor". The British Sub Aqua Club strongly encourages and practices this approach, which is appropriate in a club environment where non-instructing members assist in post-certification training.[9] The problems with this system, are that they may limit the more experienced diver's opportunity to do the diving he would have wished, and that the less experienced diver is not an ideal buddy to the more experienced diver, who must take an unbalanced share of responsibility, and this constitutes an informal training scenario. Compatibility problems are magnified when divers who do not know one another are paired off as buddies by the dive operator.[10] Numerous harrowing stories abound about diving with "the tail-end-Charlie" or the "buddy from hell" out of such practices.[11] The "perfect buddy" is a long term friend or acquaintance, a partner who matches one's own high level of diving skills, who has the same interests, the same stamina and fitness, and who enjoys the companionship in sharing enjoyable diving.[12] Although the principal reason for instituting the buddy system is the mitigation of the risks in diving, the sharing of diving experiences and the enjoyment of being paired together with a friend, family member, or keen fellow enthusiast while on a dive ranks very highly in the reasons many divers enjoy the recreation of scuba diving.

Equipment Usage and Diving Tasks within the Buddy team

The buddy system is expected to provide a level of redundancy within the pair of divers, as a safety backup in case of any equipment failure. Within the overall buddy pair almost all equipment can be seen as part of a combined "redundant system": two tanks, two depth gauges/ dive computers, two lights, two knives or line-cutters, – even two brains. During the dive the measurement instruments (gauges, dive computers, compass etc.) are available to cross check one another, a second set of life support equipment (i.e. gas supply) is there as a backup in case of a failure in one of the divers' systems. Sometimes a single special-purpose but non-critical piece of equipment is shared by the buddy team, like a single deployable surface marker buoy on which to ascend and mark the team’s position or a single underwater metal detector. The one key thing however, that a buddy team always shares together is a dive plan - and the responsibilities of executing it.[13] A key principle drummed into scuba divers is “plan the dive and dive the plan”. Before a dive a buddy team agree on a plan, which aside from the basic parameters of the dive itself – e.g. depth, course, time, who leads and who follows, - also includes the objectives of the dive: is it general sightseeing, is it the way the divers intend to view a wreck, is it photography, is it hunting a type of game. In technical diving these objectives often become much more complex and very specific – penetration of a particular part of a cave to a particular point. Many diving objectives require allocation of specific roles and responsibilities. For example, in lobster hunting on the west coast of America, buddy teams often split into the assigned roles of hunter and game-catcher, and stower and catchbag-carrier, and the overall dive success is highly dependent on the teamwork of the buddies carrying out their assigned roles.[14]

Provision of emergency breathing gas

One of the most important aspects of the buddy function is the provision of breathing gas in case of an out of air (OOA) emergency. This can happen in the event of a regulator failure or using up most of the breathing gas while inattentive, distracted or dealing with an urgent problem.

In the early years of scuba, each diver carried a single second-stage regulator, and in the case of an out of air emergency the buddy pair would make an emergency ascent to the surface while the two divers took turns buddy breathing from the mouthpiece of remaining functional scuba set.[15] Though this system worked effectively enough in a swimming pool or in open water practice sessions, and sometimes worked for skilled and disciplined divers in actual emergencies, in some cases the stress and physical difficulties of the situation caused this system to fail. To simplify the procedure for air sharing, the recreational diving industry moved to a configuration that provided each diver an additional second-stage regulator, as a backup to the primary; the backup is known variously as the "octopus stage", "backup", "secondary" or "safe second" (obsolescent). The term octopus came about because with several regulator and other hoses hanging from the first stage, the unit started to look a bit like an octopus.[16] Two general systems have evolved for carrying and deploying the backup demand valve – one more prevalent in recreational diving and the other commonly found in technical diving (although some crossover exists). In both systems, each diver carries two demand valves. They may be attached to the first-stage regulator of a single tank or to two first stage regulators of twin cylinders. The primary regularor is used for normal breathing during the dive and the secondary regulator ("octopus") is a backup for oneself or for the out-of-air buddy.

Two basic procedures are in common use: Donating the primary and donating the octopus.

Donating the primary

The Long Hose - Note looping about divers neck

A system recommended by some organisations, mostly those involved in technical diving (GUE,[17] CMAS-ISA, other tech and cave diving groups) is to equip the regulator that is normally used throughout the dive (the "primary") with a long hose, typically 2 metres (7 ft) long. This is the regulator that is donated to a diver who is out of air. The "secondary" or "backup" regulator is then reserved for the donor diver and is on a short hose, suspended just under the chin by a "necklace" which can be broken free in an emergency. The principal advantage is that the diver who is in trouble will receive a regulator that is known to be working, and providing breathing gas that is appropriate for the current depth, and quite possibly more quickly than if the clipped off octopus were to be donated. Donation of the long hose is particularly beneficial for cave and wreck penetration diving where the divers sharing air may be obliged to pass through small openings, as the length of the hose allows them to swim in single file where necessary. The length of the hose also allows the divers to swim side-by-side or one above the other in all possible arrangements. Another advantage is that the secondary regulator is stowed in a position where it is out of the way, protected from strong water flow, contamination and snags and where the diver will notice if it leaks, but accessible to the diver without requiring the use of hands, as it is possible to pick up the mouthpiece by dipping the chin.[18][19] This arrangement is slightly more cumbersome to use and requires greater skill to wear, deploy and recover.The benefits may not outweigh the disadvantages for open water divers in relatively low hazard conditions.[20][21]

Donating the octopus

The Recreational Octopus - note color and placement in "Golden Triangle"

The octopus is usually clearly marked, the convention is a yellow hose and yellow second stage though a luminescent green is sometimes favoured. Many dive equipment manufacturers provide secondary regulators marked exactly to this standard and "tune" them specifically to the role of octopus. The octopus second stage is usually stowed in an easily located, accessible position and is easily detachable from the device that holds it. Most recreational agencies recommend or specify[22][23] that this position be in the "Golden Triangle" drawn between a divers chin and nipples.[24] The octopus hose is usually made long enough (1.2 metres (4 ft)) so that the divers are not inconveniently crowded against one another when the octopus regulator is in use. The procedure to provide the octopus is that the donor diver hands over the octopus[25] – but if he/she does not notice the buddy’s distress, the out of air diver has been taught to take the stowed octopus. An advantage with this method is that donor handover is consistent in both octopus handover and for handover of any independent bailout device such as a removable pony bottle. As part of the pre-dive checks, the procedure of handing-over or accessing the octopus in out-of-air emergency and the octopus location should be reviewed by the team. In recreational diving, if good gas management practice has been followed, either buddy should have sufficient air to allow them both to make a safe ascent to the surface, even if the emergency occurs at the end of the dive. This may not be the case where an unplanned decompression obligation exists.[26]

Standardisation of configurations as a safety advantage

It is helpful if divers wear their equipment in a way that follows standardised conventions so that buddy partners will know where to access that equipment if they are called on to assist their buddy. As there are several conventions, and divers who do not follow the locally popular conventions, it is important for divers planning to dive as buddies to familiarise themselves with the configuration used by the other in the pre-dive checks.

Communication between buddies

Further information: Diver communications

Diving takes place in what Cousteau so poetically labelled "The Silent World". The relative silence of the sea is one of the very enjoyable aspects of scuba diving, but it does not help foster natural means of communication within a buddy team. Unless a significant investment is made in expensive full-face masks that incorporate through-water voice transmission capabilities, the buddy divers must necessarily communicate via some other (and cheaper) non-audible means. Two main approaches exist to provide such communication in recreational diving - standardized hand signals and submersible writing slates.[27]

Hand signals

Diving signal ok

In an effort to insure the creation of universal, easily understood signals between divers,[28] the Recreational Scuba Training Council agencies have together defined a set of hand signals intended for universal use, which are taught to diving students early in their entry level diving courses.[27] Hand signals may also have more than one variation that may benefit when one hand is occupied, or in limited visibility.

Underwater slates

Underwater slates are useful when there is more detailed information to communicate or remember. A large variety of designs are available – some that clip to the divers BCD, some that fit into pockets, some integrated with other units such as the compass and some which are held on the wrist or forearm by bungee straps. The basic parts comprise just an underwater pencil attached to a plastic board by a short tether to prevent accidental loss, and a way to attach them to a convenient point on the diver's equipment. Slates are particularly useful if information needs to be written down prior to a dive and referenced during a dive – elements of the dive plan (depths, durations, decompression schedule) or a drawn map of the area to be dived.[29]

Buddy lines

A buddy line is a line or strap physically tethering two scuba divers together underwater to avoid separation in low visibility conditions. A buddy line is usually a short length of about 2 meters with a floating element between the divers to reduce the risk of snagging on the bottom. A buddy line is a means of communication and does not need to be very strong or secure, but should not pull off under moderate loads while in use. The divers may communicate by rope signals, but will more usually just use the line to attract attention before moving closer and communicating by hand signals. The disadvantage of a buddy line is an increased risk of snagging and entanglement. The divers may need to disconnect the line quickly at either end in an emergency which may be done by using a quick release mechanism or by cutting the line, both of which require at least one hand to be free. A velcro strap requires no tools for release and can be released under tension.

Other communication methods

In more advanced diving (particularly penetration diving) additional methods of underwater communication is sometimes employed - among these are these signalling using torches, pulls along connecting lines/ropes, or through on tapping on tanks.[29]

Giving the lack of an auditory communication medium, it is surprising just how easily used and effective these types of underwater communication tools can be for the buddy team when they are fully utilized.

Responsibility

With buddy diving, each of the divers is presumed to have a responsibility to the other.[30] The actual legal responsibilities may vary between jurisdictions and are seldom if ever clear. The buddies are expected to monitor each other, to stay close enough together to be able to help in an emergency, to behave safely and to follow the plan agreed by the group before the dive.[1] When the system fails, it is generally because one of the divers does not fulfill his or her responsibilities as a buddy.[31] If one of the divers is incapable of providing the expected assistance the buddy system has already failed.

The responsibilities of each buddy during a recreational dive are generally accepted to be:[32][33]

These responsibilities may not be legally binding. A recreational diver is not normally expected to take unacceptable risks to their own safety to assist another recreational diver.[8]

The US Navy does not require buddy diving in all circumstances, but it does specify that buddy divers are responsible for both the assigned task and each other's safety. They must:[34]

Other professional divers' buddy responsibilities are likely to be similar.

Disadvantages of the buddy system

With the increased popularity of solo diving as a possible alternative to the buddy system there has been debate as to what really constitutes safe diving practise and how divers can best control the risks associated with their sport.[2] Statistically speaking, scuba is a reasonably safe activity,[35] with incidents of injury below several other "risk" sports such as football, horse riding or even tennis. Yet unlike these other sports, scuba divers are in a hostile environment for which humans are not adapted, breathing from a portable and limited capacity life support system. Under these conditions fatality is always a possible outcome, as even simple equipment or procedural problems can be mishandled. In dealing with this reality a number of major concerns about potentially inherent flaws or negative impacts that can exist within the buddy system have been identified.[2] Few, if any, of these problems are defects in the concept of the buddy system, they are problems with the application of the system.[2]

Every time I read, in a accident report, that the buddy system failed, I get livid. The buddy system does not fail, it is the people using it that have the problems. The system is fine, it is the implementation that falls down.[36]
— Glen Egstrom, Emergency air sharing

Ineffective application of the system

The amount of discipline, effort and attention needed from both divers in a buddy pair, and the even greater input required in a three diver team, is unattractive to a confident diver who has other things to do during a straightforward, low risk, recreational dive, and the system is undermined when any one of the divers fails to put in the effort, putting the burden on the remaining diver who takes the responsibilities more seriously. Familiarity with the environment, and the very low incidence of life-threatening accidents is likely to lead to a confidence that there will not be a problem on any given dive, so the divers may pay less attention to good buddy practices, and this may become habitual. This may be exacerbated by the divers being strangers thrown together by chance and the whims of the divemaster, who have no real interest in each other, and whose reasons to dive may be incompatible.[2] Pairing an explorer with a macro photographer will annoy at least one, probably both, if they comply with recommended buddy diving practices. Many nominally buddy dives effectively become solo dives soon after entering the water, with the buddies occasionally checking for the presence of each other and often being beyond direct view of each other. In spite of this, very few of these divers die as a consequence.[2]

A false sense of security

The main charge made against the buddy system as practiced is that it has been grossly overrated as a means of risk mitigation. Critics say[37][38] that the buddy system acts as a crutch to give unjustified confidence to divers who individually do not have either the skills or the discipline to adequately deal with any real diving problems.[2] This creates a situation where divers become dependent on the "security blanket" of being with another diver. The reality may be that the buddy diver on which many divers depend is often no better able to handle an emergency than the dependent buddy.[2] The fostering of this false security by diving agencies that overemphasise the effectiveness of the buddy system, develops a sense of complacency in divers about their capability to deal with these problems, a capability which they often do not have.[2] This complacency holds divers back from focusing on improving their lifesaving skills and capabilities.

Dangerous buddies

Critics [38][2] state that the proponents of the buddy system project the image of a “totally reliable buddy” that does not, in fact, exist in reality. Some buddies lack skills or experience and some are unfit. The major problem is that certain diver personality types are outright dangers; these types have been described as " the untrained diver", "the high-flyer", "the falsely confident diver", "the angry diver",[38] "the buddy from hell"[2] and several others. The bad buddy problem is compounded by training that compels a diver to “stick with his buddy” no matter what, leading to the situation that the bad buddy sets the criteria of how (badly) the dive is carried out.

Both the solo diving and the buddy diving community have come to a similar conclusion on how to best address the issues of safety in both systems – self-sufficiency. In the buddy system this means that both divers are capable of looking after themselves and sorting out almost any problems, but they still dive together as a backup to further enhance their safety as well as to share and enjoy their diving experience.[39]

Peer pressure

Divers are more likely to attempt a dive which they are uneasy with if they feel they will be letting the buddy down if they cancel.[38]

Dependent buddies

Given the emphasis placed on the necessity of all buddy divers to be fully able to aid their buddy in case of an emergency, over the last decade there have been some agency-approved diving practices established where certain types of buddies do not actually meet this criteria. This is evident in the practice of scuba diving for children. Initiated by PADI, in an effort to expand scuba diving into the realm of becoming a “family activity” like skiing, the certification of children has been adopted by most other recreational diving agencies with their own diving programmes for children. These typically include two levels, depending of the child's age. PADI has six courses/levels for children,[40] in which a child from the age of 10 can become a buddy diver in open water situations. The other buddy in this team can be a certified parent or a dive professional. Serious concerns have been expressed about this general policy of having child buddies,[41] among the concerns is the mental anguish and psychological damage that may be caused to a child who fails to rescue a buddy parent.[42] The first child buddy death in British waters occurred in 2008.[43] The first double fatality of a buddy pair in which one diver was a minor occurred with a British father and son in Gozo in 2006.[44] Proponents of dive training for children point to the great enjoyment and sense of wonderment the children feel when introduced to the underwater world[45] and point out that other family sporting activities also have unfortunate incidents of serious injury to children.

Liability of the diving buddy

Liability issues strongly affect the structure of the diving industry, its organisation and even the implementation of recommended diving practices – and this is very much the case with buddy diving. Diving is a risky sport, where very serious accidents will occasionally occur. In an increasingly litigious world, accidents trigger a search for “blame”, and aspersions of blame often trigger ensuing litigation. It is a natural thing for those who may face the potential risks of litigation to take measures to mitigate these risks. Diving certification agencies must necessarily insure themselves against liability risks, and must act to minimise the cost of this insurance for both themselves and their operatives. The buddy system, beneficial as it can be in enhancing diver safety, has the legal effect of creating an involved intermediary person between the certifying agency and any injured party, an intermediary who could be easily identified as not having provided “duty of care” if an accident occurs.[8] This may afford a legal cushion for the agency, or trainer, or boat - but it is not exactly good news for someone acting in the role of a buddy. The more skilled the buddy partner, the more these duties of care may be assumed to increase.

Liability waivers are signed whenever a diver interacts with an operative of the diving industry, e.g. the training agent or dive boat.[46] No such waiver is commonplace for the buddy in a buddy team. As case law develops, more precedents becomes established for situations where buddy action may cause them to be particularly liable.[8] It is recommended now that buddy divers carry insurance that provides coverage of themselves against legal actions by buddies, particularly if diving takes place in those countries where a culture of litigation may exist. This is particularly necessary for scuba diving professionals who earn a living in the recreational diving industry, when they "buddy up" More experienced/more qualified divers are also considered to bear a higher duty of care for their less qualified buddies, and therefore a serious burden can be placed on a vacationing diver asked to buddy up with a stranger, especially in litigious jurisdictions.

Alternatives

The three alternatives, solo diving, diving in teams of three, and diving as an individual in a large group, may have disadvantages when compared to the buddy system, especially for the novice:

  1. Although solo diving is practiced by some recreational divers, it is only considered safe if the diver is totally self-sufficient.[47] This usually entails a completely redundant gas supply, such as a pony bottle or an isolation manifold. Self-rescue is not possible in some cases, such as severe cases of entrapment in ropes and nets and during medical emergencies where the diver loses consciousness or is otherwise severely impaired in their ability to respond appropriately.
  2. Three diver teams can be very effective for safety and backup, as generally only one diver will have a problem and require assistance, and having two divers to assist can be very helpful in difficult conditions. However, this procedure requires a considerably greater level of attention to group coherence. It is usually used by technical divers in cave and wreck penetration, where the advantages are sufficient to compensate for the added task loading[2]
  3. The system of group diving, where a group of tourists are taken on a sightseeing tour of a dive site by a dive leader and "sheepdog" assistant, who brings up the rear and herds the stragglers, is often practiced when the visibility is sufficient for it to be practicable. The divers in such groups may be entirely unfamiliar with each other. In this system, especially in large groups, poor visibility or strong currents, the weak, inexperienced, or inattentive individual divers can easily become detached from the group and lose the protection of stronger or more competent divers in the group. Communication is often difficult in these groups leading to increased risk.[48]

See also

References

  1. 1 2 3 Halstead, B (2000). "Line dancing and the buddy system. reprinted with permission from Dive Log 1999; 132(July): 52-54". South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society Journal. 30 (1). ISSN 0813-1988. OCLC 16986801. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Powell, Mark (October 2011). "Solo Diving—Coming out of the Closet". Seminar: Dive 2011 Birmingham,. Dive-Tech. Retrieved 18 August 2016.
  3. ↑ Sheck Exley (1977). Basic Cave Diving: A Blueprint for Survival. National Speleological Society Cave Diving Section. ISBN 99946-633-7-2.
  4. ↑ Dugan, James; "Man Under the Sea", Collier Books, 1965, Chapter 12, Library of Congress Number: 64-18390
  5. ↑ Dugan, James; "Man Under the Sea", 1966, Collier Books, p.292-305
  6. ↑ Hanna, Nick; "The Art of Diving Archived September 13, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.", 2006, Ultimate Sports Publications, p. 107, ISBN 0-9545199-2-2
  7. ↑ Brennan, Michael; "Underwater Swimming", Mayflower Books, 1970, p.49-52. ISBN 978-0-583-19608-6.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Coleman, Phyllis; "Scuba diving buddies: rights, obligations, and liabilities", Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center, 2007, link: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1266346
  9. ↑ "Safe diving". BSAC National Diving Committee. Archived from the original (pdf) on 3 April 2012. Retrieved 8 November 2011.
  10. ↑ Halstead, Bob (2004). "On Your Own: The Buddy System Rebutted" (PDF). Retrieved 8 November 2011.
  11. ↑ "Reasons to dive solo". Diver Magazine. Archived from the original on 20 November 2015.
  12. ↑ Halstead, Bob; "The World As It Is (Buddy Diving)", SPUMS Journal Volume 30 No.1 March 2000
  13. ↑ Orr, Dan; "Scuba Diving Safety", Human Kinetics Press,2007, p.9-10, ISBN 978-0-7360-5251-1
  14. ↑ Barsky, Kristine; “California Lobster Diving”, Hammerhead Press, 2000, p. 45-50, ISBN 0-9674305-2-6
  15. ↑ Brennan, Michael;"Underwater Swimming", Mayflower Press, 1970, p. 68
  16. ↑ Graver, Dennis; “Padi Diving Manual,PADI Publishing, 1985, p.58
  17. ↑ Jablonski, Jarrod. "Evolution of DIR Principles". Global Underwater Explorers. Retrieved 2016-07-29.
  18. ↑ Jablonski, Jarrod (2006). "5: Overview of DIR Equipment Configuration". Doing it Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving. Global Underwater Explorers. pp. 66–70. ISBN 0-9713267-0-3.
  19. ↑ Jablonski, Jarrod (21 March 1997). "Hogarthian Gear Configuration". Retrieved 2009-06-15. - originally posted to rec.scuba by Carl Heinzl on 21 March 1997
  20. ↑ Rowley, Mike (December 2009). "Teaching "Hogarthian rigging" and "Primary take" within BSAC courses". BSAC Directives. BSAC. Archived from the original on 17 October 2014. Retrieved 18 August 2016.
  21. ↑ Rowley, Mike (2009). ""Hogarthian rigging" and "Primary take" when teaching "out of gas response" on BSAC courses" (PDF). BSAC. Retrieved 18 August 2016.
  22. ↑ Reed, Jeff (March 2010). "Clarification statement on Alternative Supply training and going diving". BSAC Policies. BSAC. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 18 August 2016.
  23. ↑ PADI Open Water Diver Manual, PADI, 2010, p. 97, ISBN 978-1-878663-16-0
  24. ↑ Orr, Dan; "Scuba Diving Safety",Human Kinetics Publishing, 2007, ISBN 0-7360-5251-8, p. 83-84
  25. ↑ Graver,Dennis; "Scuba Diving" "YMCA Recreational Diving Manual", 2003,p. 38-39, ISBN 0-7360-4539-2
  26. ↑ Gilliam, Bret; "Deep Diving", Watersport Publishing, 1995, p. 200, ISBN 0-922769-31-1
  27. 1 2 "Minimum Course Content for Common Hand Signals for Scuba Diving" (PDF). Recreational Scuba Training Council, Inc. (RSTC) (Jacksonville, FL., USA). 1 December 2005. Retrieved 3 July 2016.
  28. ↑ Batin, John; "The Scuba Diving Handbook" A.C. Black Publishers, 2007, p.88-89, ISBN 978-0-7136-8362-2
  29. 1 2 Prosser, Joe; Grey, H.V. (1990). "Cave Diving Communications" (PDF). Branford, Florida: Cave Diving Section of the National Speleological Society, Inc. Retrieved 13 September 2016.
  30. ↑ Lo, RCY (2006). "Personal and Social Dimensions of Risky Diving Behaviour". Honours. Thesis. University of Melbourne. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  31. ↑ Caruso JL, Uguccioni DM, Ellis JE, Dovenbarger JA, Bennett PB (2000). "Buddy versus solo diving in fatal recreational diving accidents". Undersea Hyperb Med Abstract. 27 (1 supplement). Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  32. ↑ Graver, Dennis; "Padi Diver Manual", 1984 Edition, PADI, p. 67-70
  33. ↑ Batin, John: "The Scuba Diving Handbook",2007, Adlard Coles National, p.72-73, ISBN 978-0-7136-8362-2
  34. ↑ US Navy (2006). US Navy Diving Manual, 6th revision (PDF). United States: US Naval Sea Systems Command. p. 7-32. Retrieved 2016-07-30.  This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  35. ↑ "Risk of dying and sporting activities". Bandolier. 8 August 2008. Retrieved 8 November 2011.
  36. ↑ Egstrom, GH (1992). "Emergency air sharing". Journal of the South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society. Retrieved 16 October 2016.
  37. ↑ Coutanche, Andrew Philip (2006). "Does the buddy system really make recreational scuba diving any safer?" (PDF). Chilterns University College Thesis: 40–45. Retrieved 2011-08-14.
  38. 1 2 3 4 Halstead, Bob. "On Your Own: The Buddy System Rebutted" (PDF). Anaspides.net. Retrieved 18 August 2016.
  39. ↑ Wade, Nigel (August 2011). "PADI goes Solo". Diver Magazine. Archived from the original on 8 July 2015. Retrieved 18 August 2016.
  40. ↑ Staff (2016). "Youth Scuba Diving Programs". PADI.
  41. ↑ Taylor, Larry Harris (April 2001). "Why I Do Not Train Kids".
  42. ↑ Warren, Steve (2001). "Growing Up too Fast". Diver Magazine (reproduced). mavericksdiving.co.uk.
  43. ↑ Smith, Richard (20 August 2008). "Family pay tribute to precious son Louis Price lost on dive". Retrieved 18 August 2016.
  44. ↑ Staff (2006). "Man and son die on diving holiday". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation.
  45. ↑ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2011-11-24. Retrieved 2011-11-15.
  46. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-25. Retrieved 2011-11-16.
  47. ↑ Carney, Brian; "Solo Diving Manual", Published by SDI, 2007, p. 4-15, ASIN: 1931451508
  48. ↑ Davis, FM (1990). "Letter to editor: Groupie diving". South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society Journal. 20 (1). Retrieved 2011-11-08.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/18/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.