Redundant Air: H Valves, Ponies, Doubles, And The Surface.

[rx7diver]

I would say that if you are a solo diver because you took a course, then you better follow the book, as you will not have the experience of diving solo for years or decades to draw upon. If you have been diving solo for decades then you should already have your own rules.

This.

 

[uncfnp]

I would say that if you are a solo diver because you took a course, then you better follow the book, as you will not have the experience of diving solo for years or decades to draw upon. If you have been diving solo for decades then you should already have your own rules.



Bob

This.

I respectfully disagree. Yes experience is part of it but I think that mindset plays an even larger role. There are those for whom solo is a choice and not just the circumstance they find themselves in. The diver that solo's as the only option at the time needs to follow the "rules." Divers that solo by choice will, by their very nature, make their own rules.

 

[tkaelin]

The question as to what is safe is subjective and subject to much discussion, thought and debate. If the question is framed as to what is required by your certifying agency the answer is almost certainly yes, at least it was for mine. No exceptions. That leads to another potential issue - from the insurance perspective. I am thinking of life insurance. If you have a family, dependents etc for which you have life insurance and its important to your financial planning, you may want to explore with your agent whether diving and a diving related fatality is covered. Assuming it is covered, you may want to obtain a copy of the applicable policy language to see what is actually covered and what may be excluded. There could be language for coverage or exclusions based about diving within the parameters of your training and certification. If you have a solo cert and that cert requires redundancy and you were to have a diving related fatality while solo where they find you did not have a redundant could it provide a basis for a denial. There may be similar issues with disability insurance and maybe DAN as well. I am not saying you will not be covered. I am saying it raises a potential issue that would be worth exploring if life insurance and other coverages are important to you.

 

[tkaelin]

. . . Your profile describes you as new to diving and uncertified. A revise my post. It is unsafe for you to dive solo, period.

 

[redacted]

The question as to what is safe is subjective and subject to much discussion, thought and debate. If the question is framed as to what is required by your certifying agency the answer is almost certainly yes, at least it was for mine. No exceptions. That leads to another potential issue - from the insurance perspective. I am thinking of life insurance. If you have a family, dependents etc for which you have life insurance and its important to your financial planning, you may want to explore with your agent whether diving and a diving related fatality is covered. Assuming it is covered, you may want to obtain a copy of the applicable policy language to see what is actually covered and what may be excluded. There could be language for coverage or exclusions based about diving within the parameters of your training and certification. If you have a solo cert and that cert requires redundancy and you were to have a diving related fatality while solo where they find you did not have a redundant could it provide a basis for a denial. There may be similar issues with disability insurance and maybe DAN as well. I am not saying you will not be covered. I am saying it raises a potential issue that would be worth exploring if life insurance and other coverages are important to you.

Or maybe you will need to prove that you had your gear serviced IAW mfgr recommendations???

I doubt it.

I'm fairly confident I could do a cesa from at least 60 ft. Heck, I would bet my life on it. But I plan solo dive up to 30 ft with the surface as my redundant gas.

 

[chrisch]

I was trying to start a general, abstract discussion, not one about the specifics of my local lakes or my skills.

But an abstract discussion is meaningless. Your lakes might have no fishing line while mine do. You are "safe" I am not. In an abstract (i.e. generalist) discussion everyone will automatically default to the worst case scenario. You can easily die in shallow water if you have an entanglement hazard combined with out of gas. What are the chances of that? That depends on the specifics. So the abstract is pointless, only the specifics matter.

In the final analysis the solo diver makes the call and takes the risk, there is - by definition - no one else to blame. The simple answer is always carry a redundant gas source. If you choose not to it is your call simply as it is your risk and your life. I will always tell anyone that asks to carry the redundant gas. You can choose to ignore me any time you like.

 

[The Chairman]

So, germane to this discussion is the question: Why NOT dive with redundancy? Here's my list:

• Complacency
• Laziness
• Ignorance
• Arrogance
• Inconvenience
• Too expensive
• Misguided agenda

Now, I agree with Bob... 8ft away from the surface is closer than most buddies. I would be tempted to use that excuse, but carrying a stage is just so easy that I would probably be castigating myself for being so lazy and limiting my dive. What if I found a 'hole' in this lake? No, I'm not talking cave, but where the lake's bottom unexpectedly descended to 20 or even 30 feet? Yesterday I was diving my rebreather at the Blue Heron Bridge with a buddy. Guess what? It's way shallow, but I still had a bail out bottle with me. Almost as quick to pop to the surface to breathe than to bail out, but that's not the point. Why break the rules? Why break the protocol? Why break your routine? Why change it up? Just so you can prove to yourself what a mensch you are?

Don't underestimate the power of a good routine. I rely on my routines, some of which are even guided by a written check list. That simplifies my more complex dives, but they start to break down if you don't use them consistently on every dive. Break my routine and you can be sure that I'll forget something. Part of my solo routine is to clip on at least a 40cf stage. Like the AmEx commercial, I don't leave the surface without it!

Ultimately, your safety is your biggest job when you dive. It's up to you to evaluate and ameliorate the risks to the best of your ability. Those are just as much a part of your limits as gas/time/depth when it comes to planning and even calling a dive.

 

[rx7diver]

So, germane to this discussion is the question: Why NOT dive with redundancy? Here's my list:

• Complacency
• Laziness
• Ignorance
• Arrogance
• Inconvenience
• Too expensive
• Misguided agenda

NetDoc,

Here's another reason you might add:

• Just want to (for whatever reason)

Safe Diving,

rx7diver

 

[kr2y5]

Yesterday I dived solo in a lake that is 8 feet deep at its deepest point. It's nearby and I wanted to get wet.

Planning my dive, I determined that immediate access to the surface during all phases of the dive obviated the need for redundancy of scuba equipment.

I've used pony tanks and back-mounted doubles for slightly deeper solo dives, to about 25', but in reality that's as much about training and familiarization as safety. I've thought about using an H-valve setup.

When do you believe a solo dive requires redundant air to be safe? At what thresholds do you believe that progressively more capable redundancy (H valves offering the least and doubles offering the most capable redundancy, with ponies somewhere in between by most people's reckoning) becomes necessary?

While I agree that diving doubles in 8 feet of water is usually not necessary, safety is at least in part about comfort and familiarity. If a friend invited me to an 8-foot dive this afternoon, I would show up in doubles. I don't even have a properly configured singles rig at the moment, haven't dove singles for years, and if I started messing with my rig right now (which I can't be bothered with), that would just amount to diving with unproven unfamiliar equipment, and the additional stress, however minor, this entails. Using the right tool for the job sounds good in theory, but practically speaking, it also sounds like a major PITA, and for little benefit. So, realistically, in practical terms, for me, the threshold is at 0 feet. I might give you a different answer once I get my singles rig back in one piece (working on it) and have a chance to play with it again.

 

[The Chairman]

Here's another reason you might add:

• Just want to (for whatever reason)

That would be under "Misguided agenda"