Pony Tips

[Diver-Drex]

Just do whatever want. You have an idea in your head and you’re just looking for someone to acknowledge or confirm it. Or you’re looking to push buttons.

69 years, that’s almost twice as long as me, you know what you’re doing.

 

[Cthippo]

This is a solo forum, so it appears that you are diving solo deep on air, presumably deeper than maybe 130 and advocating for no redundancy, because... why again... you are going to only plan on using a third of your gas? And of course you have never had a failure at depth and you have a lot of dives - so this is why you don't follow the recommendations of every training agency wrt redundancy? Is that the train of thought being applied here?

Because he wants to, and that is a good enough reason.

Everyone gets to make their own risk/reward analysis and decide what risks are worth mitigating and how. If he has decided that a single point failure at depth is either not credible or not survivable and hence doesn't need mitigation, but that latent bubbble formation is a risk that needs to be mitigated, that is his choice.

 

[LI-er]

Because he wants to, and that is a good enough reason.

Everyone gets to make their own risk/reward analysis and decide what risks are worth mitigating and how.

It's his choice however when he decides to share with others via posts about his oddball and questionable diving procedures on a public forum filled with experienced and knowledgeable members there's inevitably going to be criticism directed his way.

That's a good thing because however remote the possibility may be, a less experienced diver might read his posts and think it's a good idea.

 

[Cthippo]

That's a good thing because however remote the possibility may be, a less experienced diver might read his posts and think it's a good idea.

 

[johndiver999]

Because he wants to, and that is a good enough reason.

Everyone gets to make their own risk/reward analysis and decide what risks are worth mitigating and how. If he has decided that a single point failure at depth is either not credible or not survivable and hence doesn't need mitigation, but that latent bubbble formation is a risk that needs to be mitigated, that is his choice.

I have zero problem with him diving like that, I have several friends who dive solo, deep with no redundancy and even go into a little deco every week. I recognize that is their choice and I don't hound them about it, because they have enough experience to make their own decisions.

It still doesn't mean those practices deserve to be emulated, supported or promoted without the benefit of a reasonable discussion that focuses on the inherent and relative risks that are at play.

If the guy has the balls to risk his life in that manner, he certainly should have the testicular fortitude to accept reasonable criticism of the practice on the internet. Who is protected by stifling discussion/criticism?