No such thing as a Pony Bottle

[dumpsterDiver]

While I don't like throwing equipment at a training issue, I understand why some do. I also understand why some instructors won't allow it. I was talked into buying Twin Jets when I started diving again. My old Jets were way too small and they seemed to be a good alternative. I even developed adequate anti-silt techniques with them. However, when I took my cavern class I was told point blank that splits were simply not allowed. No, he was not interested in seeing my technique. No was the final answer and so I bought a set of Jets that would fit me. I don't think I've used the splits since.

Asking an instructor to change their standards for a class is problematic on many levels. If I am teaching buddy skills, the last thing I want on any OW diver is redundant air. This is especially true if I am presenting a series of task loading exercises and I think the pony adds more than they can handle. Maybe standards was a poor excuse, but I can see a number of problems arising from it's use in class.

I am interested in hearing what task loading issues arise from say.. a back mounted pony bottle. Do you think all of your OW students would be excessively task loaded or only some of them?

 

[The Chairman]

OW students are task loaded with the newness of it all. I'm talking about OW certified students taking additional training. If I had one show up with a back mounted pony, I don't think I would care. But danglies almost always get in the way of initial learning. It's why I don't allow cameras, lobster gear, and a litany of other "stuff" on many training dives. I want them to learn the basics first. Then we can add complexities along the way or they can do it after the class. There are times when they simply have to have a pony on them, like during search and recovery when they are out of sight of their buddy.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

OW students are task loaded with the newness of it all. I'm talking about OW certified students taking additional training. If I had one show up with a back mounted pony, I don't think I would care. But danglies almost always get in the way of initial learning. It's why I don't allow cameras, lobster gear, and a litany of other "stuff" on many training dives. I want them to learn the basics first. Then we can add complexities along the way or they can do it after the class. There are times when they simply have to have a pony on them, like during search and recovery when they are out of sight of their buddy.

That makes sense.

I personally think that open water divers should be trained with a redundant air supply right from the beginning. The cost (relative to other expensive gear) is pretty low. As dive training has become so much more "streamlined" over the last 20 years, I think depending upon other divers with questionable training (for your own personal safety) is less and less wise.

I remember when mechanical BC inflators (low pressure inflators that were fed from the regulator) first came out. They were thought to be dangerous and were only suitable for advanced divers who would not be overly task loaded with the buttons and the added risk of an uncontrolled ascent due to gear failure or inappropriate use. It was thought to be safer to orally inflate the BC.

Not that long ago, the only divers (it seemed) who commonly used SMB's were local Florida divers who were doing drift dives. I did two trips to Cozumel and never saw anyone with one ever. They too were thought to be an added complexity that adds task loading and also had potential pitfalls if used incorrectly. However now, these devices seem to have been adopted as almost standard equipment in many locations.

I'm honestly surprised that the evolution toward widespread acceptance of a redundant system has not occurred.

 

[redacted]

OW students are task loaded with the newness of it all. I'm talking about OW certified students taking additional training. If I had one show up with a back mounted pony, I don't think I would care. But danglies almost always get in the way of initial learning. It's why I don't allow cameras, lobster gear, and a litany of other "stuff" on many training dives. I want them to learn the basics first. Then we can add complexities along the way or they can do it after the class. There are times when they simply have to have a pony on them, like during search and recovery when they are out of sight of their buddy.

I fully understand most of that but, it seems to me, when an instructor (or dive operator) disallows a piece of recognized scuba safety equipment, he increases his liability in the event of an accident. While the risks are quite small, the ramifications may be quite large.

 

[boulderjohn]

OW students are task loaded with the newness of it all. I'm talking about OW certified students taking additional training.

In the case identified in this thread, the students are taking the deep diver specialty; they are not newly minted divers. One of the stated standards for the course is for the diver to breathe from an alternate air source while doing a simulated emergency decompression stop. It will be a new experience for the student, but the purpose of taking a class is to learn how to do something new. If what you want to learn is specifically stated in the standards, the student should expect the instructor to provide the necessary instruction prior to the dive in which the skill is required.

In this case, the shop owner said that none of the instructors in the shop knew how to do this, despite the fact that in order to become qualified to teach the specialty, they had to affirm that they had the ability to teach the skills within it.

I myself do not use a pony bottle when I do recreational dives, but I do not deny others the right to make that choice. When I teach the deep diver specialty, I talk through the options for this skill with the students. I have used a hang bottle, and I have used a pony bottle, using one of my AL 40 deco bottles for that purpose. It takes very little instruction to get the students to use the slung pony bottles without any difficulty.

 

[fire_diver]

While I don't like throwing equipment at a training issue, I understand why some do. I also understand why some instructors won't allow it. I was talked into buying Twin Jets when I started diving again. My old Jets were way too small and they seemed to be a good alternative. I even developed adequate anti-silt techniques with them. However, when I took my cavern class I was told point blank that splits were simply not allowed. No, he was not interested in seeing my technique. No was the final answer and so I bought a set of Jets that would fit me. I don't think I've used the splits since.

Asking an instructor to change their standards for a class is problematic on many levels. If I am teaching buddy skills, the last thing I want on any OW diver is redundant air. This is especially true if I am presenting a series of task loading exercises and I think the pony adds more than they can handle. Maybe standards was a poor excuse, but I can see a number of problems arising from it's use in class.

Would you also ban a student from carrying a DSMB on a dive because they may or may not be versed in deploying it? Would you ban student from carrying a light on a night dive because it might fail?

Nothing the OP has said was causing an instructor to "change their standards", it was about carrying a recognized and RECOMMENDED piece of safety equipment which the instructor was too ignorant and stubborn to allow without acting like a child.

 

[PantherDiver]

For a diver who is dedicated to always using a pony, I would further state that it would be acceptable to remove the "octopus" second, the donor second stage, from the primary regulator as it is now obsoleted by the fully redundant pony rig. There is no reason to have three second stages.

N

The SS1 from Atomic is also a inflator/deflator for my BC, so getting rid of it isn't really an option. I can't handle the weight of a double. I've looked at back mounted systems it just seems to me that in an emergency I would have a harder time grabbing something behind me. I can't even scratch my back when it itches let alone fumble with a tank I need to save my life.

Boulder John: completed my OW, AOW in '09, Rescue in '10 and with 43 dives I am not closed to even thinking I'm "experienced". I do however know am able to maintain good control of my buoyancy and trim and last decently with air consumption. I practice if I change anything on my kit, know to take a refresher if it's been a good deal of time between dives.

 

[boulderjohn]

Here is an analogy to a different skill, but a similar situation.

Not all that long ago, deploying an SMB from depth was considered a technical diving skill, one not seen all that much in most recreational diving, depending upon location. Then PADI made it a required skill for DM training. I know that when they introduced that requirement, there were dive shops all over the world that did not have a single instructor who ever done the skill that was now being required of new DMs. How were they to teach it to them? The correct solution to such a problem is not to ignore the standard. The correct solution is for instructors to get the necessary training so that they can fulfill the requirements of the certification for which they are instructing.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Precisely, it's why ever since my own experience as a DM and the limited amount of skills and knowledge that actually imparted, aside from upselling students on stuff they did not really need, I have been a firm believer that all DMC's should at least do a good Intro to Tech, Cavern/Intro to Cave, or other tech class before starting DM training. Learn to actually dive. Then how to assist an instructor.

It was not just PADI that resisted the bag shoot. When I put it in my AOW class in 2008/2009, SEI tried to tell me it was a tech skill. I told them it was not. I asked how we could issue an AOW cert that included and gave access to deep, wreck, and drift dives yet not give the student a basic, simple skill to allow them to create a visual and tactile reference should they miss the up line.

My argument was that it was easier and safer to teach them to shoot a bag from 30, 50 or even 100 ft and do an ascent on that rather than a blue water one with no reference other than a depth gauge/computer. Not to mention that the line would greatly help in keeping buddies together by allowing them to stay in contact with it. When I put it that way they immediately saw that it was a recreational skill and approval took all of five minutes from the time I sent the email to the time I got a reply.

I see DM's and DMC's that scare me with the lack of knowledge and skills they possess. I've been in the water and saw DM's dog paddling, unable to hold trim, and have no idea how to calculate a decompression stop in an emergency. Why they are DM's is clear. They were sold a rating. Clearly it was not earned.

 

[cocoajoe]

For myself, I would never do a dive to 130' w/o redundancy. Sorry but I don't trust anyone else with my life.
Sounds like the OP has trained herself and I guess that's OK. For me, I got training thru IANTD 'Deep Diver' and more at TDI 'Intro to Tech'