In all such discussions we come down to failure possibilities and with no statistical evidence base often place all possibilities on the same plane as equally likely and with equal outcomes. Aside from anecdotal stories, hyperbole, arm waving, application of common sense or what might be obvious (we think) come to some conclusions. But, all things are not equal, all possible failures do not result in the same outcome or likelihood of occurrence but yet we treat each as if they were because we have nothing other to evaluate our belief system upon.
I am a minimalist, I adhere somewhat to Hogarthian concepts (but not DIR), but ultimately I am a minimalist. This thread reminds me to think of Occam's Razor, applied to SCUBA diving, system components should not be multiplied beyond what is required by necessity. What is necessity, only those things that must be present to complete a dive successfully, anything else is a complication. Nothing else. The simplest execution is most likely the best one. The OP has chosen to identify removing the second stage mouthpiece as a risk factor to eliminate. I, others, might think it more a basic skill, in any case, he has identified a particular thing which he wants to eliminate. How else might he achieve that end and how does having a single second stage affect total system redundancy? What did I miss here, rehtorical question not seeking an answer specifically.
Okay, got to go, I have posted too much on too many forums and threads over the last few days, I must log out and flail myself for having done so. Y'all be safe, be well, have a blessed day.
James
