Spare Air or Pony?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Solodiver,

The first comparison I did (Click Here) shows you don't even have to panic to run out of air. If Diver B uses just 2 more breaths per min (12 instead of 10, or a SAC of .68 instead of .57), he exhausts his air at about 40 ft. Of course, a diver in panic mode would be acending like a rocket instead of 30 ft/min.
 
How about this bottle as an OOA emergency backup then?
"CTC/DOT 3AL2015 Luxfer 13 cuft pony bottle"

And if you recomend it, how much would it be worth second hand?

Thanks,

SpyderTek
 
This topic just keeps coming back up, and back up again. Hell, I'm just gonna post my same reply again....

SpareAir is a complete waste of money, and a complete piece of crap. Your tanks, regs, weight systems, exposure suits, and other gear form a life-support system. Hopefully, most people view this with the seriousness it deserves, and purchase and learn to use quality life-support equipment. Anyone who purchases a SpareAir -- for any reason -- is ipso facto not thinking well about his life-support equipment. It is a gimmick.

You will never convince me that three breaths of air at 100' are in any way relevant to any life-saving situation. Anyone who runs out of air at 100' and needs a SpareAir to surface is a disaster waiting to happen, and shouldn't be diving. People that do such things kill themselves, and sometimes their buddies.

Here are some myths:

1) If I get entangled, my SpareAir will save me. Wrong -- if you get entangled enough to run your primary gas supply dry, 3 breaths will make virtually no difference. If you're in an environment where entanglement is an issue, you should be diving with rational gas management techniques (such as the rule of thirds, or, in some specialized cases, the rule of sixths). In such a situation, your buddy could go back to surface, get more gas, get more tools to free you, and be back at your side before you run dry. Further, if you're in an environment where entanglement is an issue, a good quality knife will be much more useful than a $300 SpareAir contraption. Further, if you're going to be in an environment where entanglement is an issue, the SpareAir itself presents an enormous entanglement opportunity.

2) The SpareAir will get me to the surface with a CESA. Wrong -- if you're too incompetent to manage such a basic skill as gas management, then you ipso facto will be horribly unskilled to actually use such a stupid contraption as a SpareAir. If you're stupid enough to run your tanks dry, you probably will not have the wherewithal to properly use a SpareAir anyway. Spend the $300 on pool sessions and practice how to actually manage emergencies.

3) The SpareAir will save me when my reg goes kaput and fails. Wrong -- there are paltry few situations where a reg can fail closed. Those situations, like ice diving, require real training and real equipment. The SpareAir has no place in such diving. If your HP SPG hose fails, you have a slow leak. If your tank O-ring bursts, or your first-stage HP seat fails, you will have a moderate leak. You will certainly have MUCH MORE than 3 breaths left in your primary, unless you were already run dry. Once again, anyone who lets himself go dry to begin with is waiting to kill himself. Anyone who worries about a HP seat failing after having already run dry really needs to think some more. The only conceivable way the gas supply could be completely interrupted would be to have a yoke reg literally popped completely off of the valve. This would require Herculean effort and inordinate stupidity to accomplish. It isn't a reasonable failure mode.

4) People often run out of air, so the SpareAir should be a good thing. Wrong -- the condition is correct -- people run out of air all the time -- but the conclusion is wrong -- the SpareAir is not a good idea. There is no emergency short of three simultaneous equipment failures at maximum depth or penetration that cannot be solved without loss of life by a properly formulated dive plan. In no way, absolutely no way, is the SpareAir an acceptable replacement for appropriate training, equipment, or dive planning.

I'm the first to admit that skill, technique, and knowledge are the most important qualities of a good diver, but equipment is a VERY CLOSE SECOND. I can halfway acknowledge the use of a real (50cf+) pony bottle. In moderate to extreme diving scenarios that could benefit from a pony, I'd just rather bring an AL80 stage with me for backup. The regulator is not expensive. If the reg on a proper stage bottle is too expensive for you, you are not able to make a dive that might need one. Go play checkers instead until you get a paycheck.

If I dive with someone who insists on using a pony, I do not expect him to ever crack that puppy open. If, no matter what the situation, he finds that he needs to crack open his pony, I chalk that up as a massive, unacceptable failure. At this point, that diver needs to begin seriously thinking about what led to the failure, and how he can prevent it from ever occuring again. Anyone who opens a pony more than once in his lifetime is not responsible enough to dive. Anyone who fails to adhere to a properly arranged dive plan more than once in his lifetime is not responsible enough to dive. Contrary to popular conception, a properly formulated dive plan contains contingencies for entanglements, equipment failures, and all other conceivable modes of failure. A properly formulated dive plan is conclusive, in every way, for every possibility. Anyone who finds their way out of such a plan is not responsible enough to dive.

THE SPAREAIR IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORE THAN A PATCH TO MEND HOLES IN A POOR DIVE PLAN OR IN A DIVER'S POOR ABILITY -- NEITHER OF WHICH SHOULD EVER EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.

- Warren
 
And now for VTWarrenG's tirade against ponies:

Stuff breaks down all the time.. which is why every technical diver fiercely advocates redundancy. Redundancy is wonderful and necessary. Conservatism is wonderful and necessary. Buddies, the rule of thirds, backup lights, and dual-post gas delivery systems are all a requirement for good diving. No one ever, ever said that a good dive plan prevents problems: the dive plan doesn't prevent problems, it provides methods to solve them safely. Lights will go out, hoses will burst, mask seals will fail, etc. All technical divers are acutely aware of these failure modes. You'll notice our gear choices and our techniques above and below water are specifically aimed at mitigating those known risks.

So, the operative questions are:

1. "How can I make my equipment redundant?"
2. "How can I make my diving more conservative?"

The answer to 1 is almost universally a good set of doubles and a good set of regs. They're more reliable, simpler, easier, and more cost effective than a pony setup.

Consider, for example, a person tying himself to a car seat with a piece of rope: it will indeed provide some safety benefit in a crash, but it comes bundled with a variety of new problems, like entrapment and difficulty. The proper solution is to use a well-engineered, well-thought-out seatbelt system with accessible releases, tensioners, and inertial locks. This system provides all of the desired goals (safety) without introducing any new problems.

The analogy is easily extended to ponies. The pony DOES solve the problem of providing redundant gas. Unfortunately, though, like the piece of rope around the car seat, it comes bundled with its own host of new problems. It has an additional, third, second stage regulator. It cannot be shared without buddy-breathing. It it difficult to stow properly. It is difficult to deploy easily. It is an entanglement hazard. A good set of doubles provides the desired goal (redundant gas) without introducing any new problems.

You'll find this a very common issue with many divers: they buy some bit of gear to eliminate some perceived risk, without noticing the three new risks the piece of gear itself produces.

The answer to number 2 is somewhat more complex. Proper training, equipment, and well-rehearsed emergency plans reduce inherent risks to very small levels. This in itself is a type of conservatism.

- Warren
 
As you can tell, I'm not a fan of either ponies or SpareAirs. I will not dive with someone using a SpareAir. I will be heavily dissuaded from diving with someone using a pony. This, of course, is my own humble opinion.

- Warren
 
Ok, I think we are all in agreement regarding the Spare Air product. Bad idea. However, to dispute a few of your issues regarding Pony's

(quote edited for content)

Originally posted by VTWarrenG
And now for VTWarrenG's tirade against ponies:

1. "How can I make my equipment redundant?"
2. "How can I make my diving more conservative?"

The answer to 1 is almost universally a good set of doubles and a good set of regs. They're more reliable, simpler, easier, and more cost effective than a pony setup.

. This system provides all of the desired goals (safety) without introducing any new problems.

- Warren

There are considerable new problems associated with going doubles...

1) My BCD needs to be replaced or modified to accommodate doubles
2.a) 2x the weight to just carry emergency air seems excessive
2.b) Twice the buoyancy issues depending on the material the tanks are made from
3) Doubles do not qualify as a "pony" bottle on some charter boats since they go to the same regulator / first stage (If using a manifold if I understand correctly) so I will STILL need to carry the pony. So now I'm talking carrying 3 bottles?!?
4) Cost prohibitive to buy complete setups for both bottles if I chose to go without manifold. Where as I can find a 13cft Pony, First stage, hose, Second stage, and fill/not full pony SPG all for under $100.

Agreed, all things considered, if you are building things from scratch (as opposed to adding to your existing set up) then build your system to accommodate a doubles set to start with. But if you're diving on a budget doubles doesn't satisfy the requirement.

Heck, I'd chose NOT to have a pony at all also but as I've said before, it will be required gear for the boats I plan to use to explore the areas I want to see this summer.

Remember there is always the "worst" solution to a problem (Spare Air) and the "best" solution to a problem (Doubles configuration) but ultimately most of us are going to need to find something in the middle of the two extremes.

SpyderTek
 
I have a pony set-up. I use it when I'm on training dives... particularly when it's a deep dive with students who are .... shall we say not great air users (aka air hogs).

Before someone jumps on me, no it's not used as a "continuation" air source. Rather a "just in case". We monitor air use constantly, when the predetermined limit is reached, the dive is ended and we proceed to our safety stop, and exit. Sometimes someone is just a bit too excited (or something) and uses air more rapidly than anticipated.
 
SpyderTek,

What charters require a pony but wouldn't accept doubles as meeting the requirement.

I don't think cost should be an issue. If you don't have the right equipment you shouldn't do the dive.
 
The requirements being fulfilled or not depended on your set up with doubles.

As it was explained to me: If I had independent doubles with their own Regulators (1st & second stages) then the "pony" requirement was satisfied. However, if the bottles were strung together using a manifold so that they breathed from the same regulator then if there was a 1st stage failure or hose cut or something else catastrophic like that I wouldn't have access to the gas in either tank so "doubles" in this case doesn't mean dual-sources of air.

As for the money issue...I heard a similar argument once for why women shouldn't be allowed to work outside the home. "If you don't have the right equipment ..." Especially not a valid argument when there are varriable cost alternatives to solve the issue.

SpyderTek
 

Back
Top Bottom