Emergency Air Source

[Codyjp]

People fly single engine aircraft, some crash from engine failure and the pilot is killed. Some make emergency landings and live. There is no shortage of single engine aircraft or pilots willing to fly them. I view my choosing to solo with no back up the same..

But those who do die after an engine failure in a sigle engine aircraft were not trained to always stay in a situation that a safe, survivable landing can be made. Not flying over mountains at night is proper planning, not a matter of running the odds, just like many diving decisions.

 

[captain]

But those who do die after an engine failure in a sigle engine aircraft were not trained to always stay in a situation that a safe, survivable landing can be made. Not flying over mountains at night is proper planning, not a matter of running the odds, just like many diving decisions.

Diving is no different, not venturing into the bowels of a wreck while solo is no different then not flying over mountains at night but again some chose to take that risk in both cases but it is not an issue of training. I am not a pilot but I highly dought that all single engine pilots never fly over mountains at night even if part of their training advises them not to. Each person has to determine the degree of risk they are willing to assume. Training may affect different individuals differently as to what degrees of risk each is will to take but in the end it is a personal decision.

 

[Ragnar]

Definitely a personal decision regarding solo diving What concerns me sometimes is that as technology continues to increase reliability, people seem to be less and less concerned with redundancy and more likely to get themselves in a deadly situation. Sure, the failure rates of aircraft engines, scuba gear, whatever, are a lot lower, but until the failure rate is zero (never) the decisions made should really be as conservative as they always were. With that your taking the gain in safety that advances made possible rather than having a greater false sense of security.

 

[Ob1Stogie]

I always dive with my 13cft pony. Even with "buddies" and even in open water shallow solo dives. Frankly in a "situation" I really only trust myself.

Case in point:

Took a buddy down to Redondo Canyon. I had been diving with him prolly 20 times. Everything was fine until we hit about 105ft. Suddenly he started filling his BC and signaled he was going up. I of course grabbed his dump valve and his BC and held him down. We swam along the bottom until we got to about 80 ft and then he "came around". When we got in, he couldn't really explain what happened. He got narc'ed. Plain and simple. What if he had run out of air? Is he gonna go crazy on me in that situation too? It was at that point that I realized, I had to depend on myself.

I guess lucky for him I was there.

 

[abman]

i always dive with my 20cu. ft. pony. ALWAYS, the ONLY time i don't is when i'm diving doubles. doesn't matter if i'm diving in 10' or 120' . it took only 1 regulator malfunction at 90' on a night dive in montery bay to drill that into my head. ken

 

[Charlie99]

Sure, the failure rates of aircraft engines, scuba gear, whatever, are a lot lower, but until the failure rate is zero (never) the decisions made should really be as conservative as they always were.

THere is rarely only 1 risk in play. A simple example is whether to dive my favorite shallow dive site as I normally do, with just a single AL80, or to bring along a pony or a set of doubles. The failure rate of my reg and tank is acceptable, as are the consequences of that failure.

OTOH, adding extra gear makes increases significantly the often ignored risk of injuring my back during enty, exit, or even just the long walk to the entry point.

We sometimes get so focussed on certain risks that we ignore other, rather mundane risks that in reality are much more likely to impact my quality of life.

 

[captain]

Definitely a personal decision regarding solo diving What concerns me sometimes is that as technology continues to increase reliability, people seem to be less and less concerned with redundancy and more likely to get themselves in a deadly situation. Sure, the failure rates of aircraft engines, scuba gear, whatever, are a lot lower, but until the failure rate is zero (never) the decisions made should really be as conservative as they always were. With that your taking the gain in safety that advances made possible rather than having a greater false sense of security.

I would argue that technology doesn't necessarly increase reliability. Modern regulators with balanced first and second stages increases complexity, plastic construction reduces durability and are more maintenance intensive than an old single stage two hose regulator which has one moving part, no critical O rings or pressurized hoses, simple and anvil reliable. The old orally inflated B/C has no inflator to stick open. The older 1/2 pipe thread tank and valve has no O ring to blow out. I tend to look back for simple reliable mechanisms rather than forward for increased complexity.
The rebreather is one of the most complex systems with one of the highest failure and maintenance rates. I would rather have one simple system than several complex ones to acomplish the same task.

 

[Loneranger]

Nemrod-Captain I agree with your sentiments. I feel more at risk of getting injured or killed just getting on the highway to drive to work than diving 100' by myself. As stated earlier there are inherent risks with many activities. Some choose to take the risk, some not. Maybe I should quit my job and stay off the highway to be safe?