Is a cutting instrument at fault if the diver does not deploy it to cut himself out of an entanglement, of course not any more than the pony is at fault when it is not deployed. It is just as likely that he would not be able to deploy his octo in a state of panic if that is the case. You ask me to provide positive examples from these same reports, why would successful deployment of a pony be in an accident and incidents report when it would have avoided the accident or incident from occurring. That would be like looking for examples of domestic bliss in a domestic violence report. I repeat none of the examples you cited has a pony as a root cause and it is even clutching at straws to suggest that they were even contributory.
You stated: I carry pony because I mitigate a bad/non existing buddy and sudden air loss risks
I stated: Oh that actually happened in real life and reported by bsac and diver did not make it and he had a pony, I do not think you are fully mitigating
Btw, thanks for your argumentation above (cutting instrument), as you say, there is no guarantee you can deploy the equipment in real life emergencies, I am happy we agree. But this will potentially render your pony a dead racoon you have been carrying around all your life.
Regarding your comments about successful cases not being recorded; actually those reports contain all reported incidents (oog, emergency ascents, dcs...), not only fatalities. There are several oog incidents, even successful deployment pony. But then, even an octopus would do in that case.
Accidents that result in no injuries or deaths are never reported to DAN. If using a pony bottle resulted dead divers, we would have Accidents & Incidents being filled with reports of divers being knocked unconscious by their Pony bottles or exploding their heads or something. Since divers are not being found dead with fully or half-deployed ponies, my guess is it is not going to kill a new diver if he chooses to carry one.
As said above, if you read the reports I referred to, you would have seen all kind of incidents have been reported, not fatalities or negative outcomes only. But I agree, who cares, too complicated, why bother to check, personal bias is underrated.
From brilliant BBC comedy Yes Minister:
"How to discredit an unwelcome report:
Stage One: Refuse to publish in the public interest saying
1. There are security considerations.
2. The findings could be misinterpreted.
3. You are waiting for the results of a wider and more detailed report
which is still in preparation. (If there isn't one, commission it;
this gives you even more time).
Stage Two: Discredit the evidence you are not publishing, saying
1. It leaves important questions unanswered.
2. Much of the evidence is inconclusive.
3. The figures are open to other interpretations.
4. Certain findings are contradictory.
5. Some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they
haven't, question them yourself; then they have).
Stage Three: Undermine the recommendations. Suggested phrases:
1. 'Not really a basis for long term decisions'.
2. 'Not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment'.
3. 'No reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy'.
4. 'Broadly speaking, it endorses current practice'.
Stage Four: Discredit the person who produced the report. Explain (off
the record) that
1. He is harbouring a grudge against the Department.
2. He is a publicity seeker.
3. He is trying to get a Knighthood/Chair/Vice Chancellorship.
4. He used to be a consultant to a multinational.
5. He wants to be a consultant to a multinational."
