Recreational Pony Bottles, completely unnecessary? Why or why not?

[wetb4igetinthewater]

One individual stated that it should not have been possible for the user to make that mistake because the rebreather should have been designed so that the incorrect fitting would not match. It would be a simple design change. He was nearly alone in that view, though, with his words drowned out by the majority repeating the phrase "user error!" over and over and over and over and over. The "change the system" guy kept repeating it, and everyone else got frustrated. Eventually the guy calling for that simple change in the rebreather's design was banned because he kept persisting, to the annoyance of others.

Why doesn't this surprise me?

I hope Gareth Lock continues to make progress to chance dive culture. Sure people do stupid things from time to time (daily for me), but no one intends to do so especially when there are dangerous consequences potentially. I personally believe that if a system can be configured incorrectly, training is only part of the solution. System design changes go hand in hand. Incidents will never be eliminated but processes and systems should always be open to enhancement.

You related a story of Bill Hogarth continuing to improve his dive configuration. Some are obstinate to change unfortunately.

 

[Wibble]

The expectation that a product or system is going appear fully formed and immutably perfect on shelf or dive boat is naive.

That’s not what I said and certainly not meant.

The obligation is for the design engineers to do their best endeavour and improve/update as new information comes to light especially during the product refinement phase. I.e. safety first design and improvement. What’s not needed is where they hide dangerous design.

 

[CT-Rich]

That’s not what I said and certainly not meant.

The obligation is for the design engineers to do their best endeavour and improve/update as new information comes to light especially during the product refinement phase. I.e. safety first design and improvement. What’s not needed is where they hide dangerous design.

There was no design flaw. Both regulators worked as designed. The user placed the two regulators where he thought he would have ready access to both. His error was not realizing he needed away to distinguish primary from his reserve.

 

[boulderjohn]

There was no design flaw. Both regulators worked as designed. The user placed the two regulators where he thought he would have ready access to both. His error was not realizing he needed away to distinguish primary from his reserve.

And I would say the flaw was in HIS system for placing the regulators, which is what I wrote in a post above that.

 

[60plus]

I was recently inside a wreck (20 t0 30m) in quite a big dive group. I have previously been inside same wreck in smaller groups and know it quite well. The group were all recreational / holiday divers and some of it was pretty substandard, getting separated, kicking up silt etc. I would have been far happier had I been carrying a pony than having to rely on any of that group should my equipment fail. I certainly won't be going into that wreck again without a known good buddy or a pony.

 

[Wibble]

I was recently inside a wreck (20 t0 30m) in quite a big dive group. I have previously been inside same wreck in smaller groups and know it quite well. The group were all recreational / holiday divers and some of it was pretty substandard, getting separated, kicking up silt etc. I would have been far happier had I been carrying a pony than having to rely on any of that group should my equipment fail. I certainly won't be going into that wreck again without a known good buddy or a pony.

The main skills are being self reliant. Even if you’re diving "with a buddy" the reality is you’re diving alone. Self reliance is vital. When I n a wreck that’s silted out by another's incompetence it’s only your own skills that will help you.

A pony is good, a twinset or sidemount is far better.

 

[CT-Rich]

The main skills are being self reliant. Even if you’re diving "with a buddy" the reality is you’re diving alone. Self reliance is vital. When I n a wreck that’s silted out by another's incompetence it’s only your own skills that will help you.

A pony is good, a twinset or sidemount is far better.

But do you NEED a twin or sidemount? If you want five minutes to make a safe ascent, why carry forty pounds of extra gear? All that extra gear, just to make sure you can reach the surface from 30m, when everyone else is on singles?

Gear is only good if you are willing to take it in the water. I don’t feel compelled to bring a pony into the water on most dives because it seems like over kill. Would I go on a single tank charter with a twin set? Just so I have a redundant air supply? Probably not.

 

[Wibble]

But do you NEED a twin or sidemount? If you want five minutes to make a safe ascent, why carry forty pounds of extra gear? All that extra gear, just to make sure you can reach the surface from 30m, when everyone else is on singles?

Gear is only good if you are willing to take it in the water. I don’t feel compelled to bring a pony into the water on most dives because it seems like over kill. Would I go on a single tank charter with a twin set? Just so I have a redundant air supply? Probably not.

We’re discussing shades of grey, most definitely not binary choices.

I like diving around and inside wrecks. There’s thousands of them around UK coastlines of all shapes and sizes. As a rust enthusiast, I’m very keen on having the right kit for the task to mitigate risk and that most definitely includes redundancy for vital components, especially gas redundancy and reserves.

Sort of perils that concern me are getting caught on something, being stuck inside, the ever-present nets, currents, poor visibility especially sudden problems, getting lost on a wreck and going inside, etc. Gas reserves make all the difference for mitigation.

Even if I were to do a baby shore dive I would still have redundant gas in sidemount cylinders.

Maybe that’s just me diving in the UK for the risks they present. I definitely recommend this for people diving on and around wrecks and in typical cold, tidal and often murky UK waters.

Maybe, if diving in a benign resort, I’d dive with a single (with longhose and backup kit of course).

 

[grf88]

Choice of redundancy is often related to the mode of travel to the dive site and availability at that location. Driving with your own gear is a lot different to flying to a location that has limited availability.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I was recently inside a wreck (20 t0 30m) in quite a big dive group. I have previously been inside same wreck in smaller groups and know it quite well. The group were all recreational / holiday divers and some of it was pretty substandard, getting separated, kicking up silt etc. I would have been far happier had I been carrying a pony than having to rely on any of that group should my equipment fail. I certainly won't be going into that wreck again without a known good buddy or a pony.

A group of "substandard" holiday divers INSIDE a SILTY wreck at 30m sounds like an accident waiting to happen. It's hard to know from that description, to echo @Wibble 's thought, what "shade of grey" that is. It sure doesn't sound like a simple swim-through. Maybe some of us would rather err on the side of overkill and consider it worthy of full wreck penetration gear, meaning sidemount or backmount doubles and all the protocols that go with that. I'm not trained to dive wrecks, so anything that doesn't look like a simple swim-through is beyond my self-imposed limits. Those who dive in varying degrees of challenging environments are probably better at gauging shades of grey and what is needed to do a particular dive than I am. If it isn't clear to me what kind of dive it is and whether I've got what it takes in terms of gear, training and buddy/team, I'm sitting it out. There's nothing in that wreck worth risking a life for.