Cthippo
Contributor
I'm probably overthinking this, but it has been bugging me...
Diving with a pony makes sense to me. Two separate air sources, each with it's own first and second stage reg and hoses etc provides redundancy in case of mechanical failure of any component and also mitigates the possibility of an out of air situation. One literally cannot use all their air without consciously switching air sources.
With a twinset, you still have mechanical redundancy, but unless you isolate your tanks from one another, it is still possible to find yourself in an OOA situation with no reserve gas available.
So, are twinsets considered redundant enough because the mitigate the possibility of mechanical failure alone? Is mechanical failure more or less likely than failure of the squishy part it is attached to? Are people discounting the possibility of human error while focusing on the possibility of mechanical failure?
What are people's thoughts on this?
Diving with a pony makes sense to me. Two separate air sources, each with it's own first and second stage reg and hoses etc provides redundancy in case of mechanical failure of any component and also mitigates the possibility of an out of air situation. One literally cannot use all their air without consciously switching air sources.
With a twinset, you still have mechanical redundancy, but unless you isolate your tanks from one another, it is still possible to find yourself in an OOA situation with no reserve gas available.
So, are twinsets considered redundant enough because the mitigate the possibility of mechanical failure alone? Is mechanical failure more or less likely than failure of the squishy part it is attached to? Are people discounting the possibility of human error while focusing on the possibility of mechanical failure?
What are people's thoughts on this?