Should all divers have a redundant air source on every dive?

[White Knight]

Why only have one pony or only two first stages? That isn’t safe! Perhaps three ponies or three separate two post manifolds with six completely separate regulator combinations made from different manufactures? Piston regs on one side and diaphragms on the other? Why only have one buddy when you could have 10? Why not have a Navy nuclear submarine standing by with a SEAL strike force ready to rescue you? For those that measure acceptable risk as using a high quality, well maintained regulator, combined with diving with an experienced dive buddy whom you trust and staying within recreational limits......I vote for your common sense.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I vote for your common sense.

A quick perusal around any conversation on ScubaBoard such as this one will demonstrate that to be a contradiction in terms ... ... we flay horses here.

As with most things scuba ... "it depends" ...

... on how deep I'm diving
... who I'm diving with
... what the conditions are like
... my mental, emotional and physical state on the day of the dive

Diving's all about making informed judgment calls ... and not one of us can make that call for someone else. That's the kind of freedom that makes diving attractive to me.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[redacted]

I always plan at least one redundant air source. It may be my dive buddy, or maybe my yellow buddy, or even the blue sky that is readily accessible right over my head.

 

[captain]

I do believe that for most recreational dives, redundant air really is not necessary, but...

I think you've just nailed the problem that I often wrestle with: Deciding on a personal point where redundancy goes from being not necessary to mandatory. Like you said, the extremes are obvious. It is the line in the middle that gets blurry for me.

Since I don't have a concrete answer, I'm only comfortable (when solo and no redundant air source) on pretty mild, shallow dives.

A side issue is whether having a redundant air source could cause a diver to take risks they would not take if they did not have redundant air.... would I dive a little deeper, push a little closer to a NDL, swim a little further from the entry/exit point, etc.?

Is the redundant air source creating a false sense of security and letting you push into situations you may not be ready for?

Best Wishes.

I don't believe redundancy ever becomes mandatory in recreational limit dives and on planned decompression dives it is not redundency it is just another piece of required equipment.

I tend to believe in some instances redundancy on rec limit dives may at the most encourage pushing the limits and comfort zone and at the least give a somewhat false sence of security.

I don't look at redundancy so much as a solution to an equipment malfunction as it is a solution to failure in gas management.

The argument is made that you may need extra gas to to allow time to solve a problem such as entangelment but no one can know how much time or gas may be needed, so if that is the logic just carry as much as you can every dive and hope it is enough.

 

[Walter]

I'm quite happy with whatever decision you choose to make for yourself. As long as everyone agrees this is a personal decision and no one has the right to make it for someone else, I have no problem with whatever you choose.

dying only hurts once

Dying doesn't hurt. The events leading up to it might hurt, but dying ends the pain.

My husband says I am the most risk-averse person he has ever met, bar none.

Cave diving is way too dangerous for me. Everyone who dives in caves is a huge risk taker. On the other hand, diving without a backup air supply is not something I consider dangerous at all.

 

[Nemrod]

I'm quite happy with whatever decision you choose to make for yourself. As long as everyone agrees this is a personal decision and no one has the right to make it for someone else, I have no problem with whatever you choose.



Dying doesn't hurt. The events leading up to it might hurt, but dying ends the pain.



Cave diving is way too dangerous for me. Everyone who dives in caves is a huge risk taker. On the other hand, diving without a backup air supply is not something I consider dangerous at all.

Dying is a process with death as the end result, so we cannot agree there, dying could hurt, death (state of being dead) of course will not. I will go with my statement, it only hurts once, wink. You are killing me Walter.

N

 

[Nemrod]

I ALWAYS have a redundant air supply -- every dive, every depth.

For dives above 100 fsw, with a known buddy, their backgas is my redundancy. With an unknown buddy, I dive doubles.

For dives below 100 fsw, or in an overhead, I dive doubles.

My husband says I am the most risk-averse person he has ever met, bar none. (I think that's not true, because I cave dive . . . but I AM risk averse.)

Some people innately seek out those things they fear and try to master them. Some who are scared of heights fly or skydive.

If you are risk adverse, I would stay out of caves, seen two many blue bodies pulled from them.

Without details, 20 barely, camped out, Spring Break, pretty girls sitting on a rock (sans tops) waiting on boyfriends to come up, our question to them, how long they been down, screams ensue. Going shorter, sheriff arrives, well, that was the first time I was banned from Flaridah. Dead bodies on a rock. Cave diving has high lethality potential. Certain well known cave experts have died increasing their expertness, there are no cave diving experts, just those who have cheated death once more. But, safety is way overrated.

N

 

[ssidiv3r]

I agree with Walter, it's all personal choice.

I myself don't currently dive with a source of redundancey aside from my buddy, but since I will be taking an assistant instructor course shortly I think that might change. For OW check out dives we normally don't go below 30-35 feet so I don't think I would need a back-up but I would probably want a pony during advanced check outs. I don't feel that having the back-up would cause me to "push the limits", I feel that it's there for those worst case scenarios (hope for the best, plan for the worst).

I think having a pony bottle is a good idea, but has the possibility of becoming a nusance during regular rec dives. I have thought about getting into double because of the redundancy (and because I think it would be fun) but at the current point in time don't feel the need just yet (notice, I said "yet") and also don't have the funds.

 

[Walter]

Dying is a process with death as the end result, so we cannot agree there, dying could hurt, death (state of being dead) of course will not. I will go with my statement, it only hurts once, wink. You are killing me Walter.

N

It all depends on the definition. It's mutual, buddy. ROTFLMAO!

 

[don Francisco]

An independent redundant air source is only a benefit for two types of situations. OOA due to a total failure to manage primary air supply, which is 100% avoidable. Or OOA due to a sudden catastrophic failure of the primary air supply. The likelihood of the second varies with conditions and is highly unlikely in warm tropical waters, but becomes more likely with lower water temps in the north.

A pony's benefit of extra air for other emergencies can easily be duplicated with a larger tank, or setting aside larger reserves in air planning.

The personal decision then depends on a risk assessment which considers the likelihood of failure and the consequences, which in turn depend on your ability to manage crises, the reliability of your buddy and the depth and nature of the dive.

For open water dives to mid-range depths in warm water, I consider a secondary air source totally unnecessary, and prefer to focus my efforts on prevention vs cure.