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

[Wibble]

Which, unfortunately, is not what OW training is meant to provide.

Alas, that's what you get in the dive resorts; 3 or 4 days and buy a pack of dives for the rest of your vacation. So easy to "master", what's so hard with that?

It's quite some shock when you come to realise that diving's not like that everywhere.

 

[tursiops]

Alas, that's what you get in the dive resorts; 3 or 4 days and buy a pack of dives for the rest of your vacation. So easy to "master", what's so hard with that?

It's quite some shock when you come to realise that diving's not like that everywhere.

I guess you've never been to the dive resorts where there is no DM in the water to follow. Your experience appears to be limited, or hearsay.

 

[Lorenzoid]

On Your Own: the Buddy System Rebutted ~ New Jersey Scuba Diving

njscuba.net

A good read, though it hardly touches on the equipment aspect, which is the topic of our discussion here. The author says, "I believe that all divers should be trained primarily as self-sufficient – solo – divers." I would like to see that, but if he believes the buddy system as it is currently taught in most OW courses doesn't work well once divers are out in the real world, then why would he believe teaching solo diving in the OW courses would work better out in the real world? I haven't taken one, but my impression is solo diving courses are rigorous--more so than the typical OW course. If the typical OW course doesn't teach the buddy system rigorously, then the same model of OW course wouldn't teach self-sufficiency rigorously. If self-sufficiency is taught as standard OW practice, including the use of a pony, I believe it's inevitable that some divers will leave the pony at home for some dives, perhaps because they deem the particular dive low risk, or just out of laziness, complacency, or something else, and then they won't have the buddy-donation skill to fall back on.

 

[MichaelMc]

There’s a clear shift in mindset in divers carrying redundancy (pony) they are not diving in a buddy team. Their plan in a failure is to switch to redundancy. There’s no incentive for them to stay with a buddy. They are effectively diving solo. I wouldn’t be getting in the water with them without redundancy.

I disagree that there is no incentive for me to stay with my buddy when I am self-reliant on gas. My training and duty of awareness to my buddy is the incentive.

Before having gas redundancy:
- If my mask flooded, I'd fix it myself, not have my buddy fix it.
- If my reg got dislodged, I'd fix it myself, not have my buddy fix it.
- If my reg was really tangled, I'd get my buddy's help, after switching to my alternate.

Being redundant on gas just moves fixing most gas issues to the things I can solve myself.

Exploring together, getting untangled from line or kelp, giving them gas if they do not have a backup and a duty to look after each other are still incentives to stay close. Unless I'm just a selfish prick, which was not something caused by gas redundancy.

 

[grf88]

A good read, though it hardly touches on the equipment aspect, which is the topic of our discussion here. The author says, "I believe that all divers should be trained primarily as self-sufficient – solo – divers." I would like to see that, but if he believes the buddy system as it is currently taught in most OW courses doesn't work well once divers are out in the real world, then why would he believe teaching solo diving in the OW courses would work better out in the real world? I haven't taken one, but my impression is solo diving courses are rigorous--more so than the typical OW course. If the typical OW course doesn't teach the buddy system rigorously, then the same model of OW course wouldn't teach self-sufficiency rigorously. If self-sufficiency is taught as standard OW practice, including the use of a pony, I believe it's inevitable that some divers will leave the pony at home for some dives, perhaps because they deem the particular dive low risk, or just out of laziness, complacency, or something else, and then they won't have the buddy-donation skill to fall back on.

It may provide a reason for carrying a redundant air supply of which a pony is an option. How many insta-buddies do you believe would be proficient at an air share especially if there was a large buoyancy swing from thermal protection. I have taken over the air share responsibilities for a buddy pair that were struggling.

 

[Wibble]

I guess you've never been to the dive resorts where there is no DM in the water to follow. Your experience appears to be limited, or hearsay.

Limited but that was my experience.

 

[Celt]

I disagree that there is no incentive for me to stay with my buddy when I am self-reliant on gas. My training and duty of awareness to my buddy is the incentive.

Before having gas redundancy:
- If my mask flooded, I'd fix it myself, not have my buddy fix it.
- If my reg got dislodged, I'd fix it myself, not have my buddy fix it.
- If my reg was really tangled, I'd get my buddy's help, after switching to my alternate.

Being redundant on gas just moves fixing most gas issues to the things I can solve myself.

Exploring together, getting untangled from line or kelp, giving them gas if they do not have a backup and a duty to look after each other are still incentives to stay close. Unless I'm just a selfish prick, which was not something caused by gas redundancy.

Would you stay closer if you depended on them for air.

 

[MichaelMc]

Would you stay closer if you depended on them for air.

No more so than if they still depend on me for air, as I am a fairly responsible person and responsibility and awareness of my buddy was ingrained into me early on, with arm or double arms length from your buddy at all times if you or they are wearing a tank.

Now, if people were crummy selfish buddies to begin with who sometimes managed to stay close together but only out of mutual fear, then you may have a point.

 

[grf88]

Would you stay closer if you depended on them for air.

Are you suggesting it is better to rely on a less reliable source of emergency air.

 

[Celt]

Are you suggesting it is better to rely on a less reliable source of emergency air.

Why would an air supply that’s in use ( buddies air supply) be less reliable than one not in use. (Pony )