I do not own a Spare Air but I do think it adequate for shallow solo shore dives and similar and it is specifically included in the standard. N
PADI Self Reliant Diver with Spare Air?
- Thread starter VikingDives
- Start date
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
Which is exactly why I prefer to teach the SDI course, which requires redundant gas, not just a redundant reg. And, of course, I can choose not to accept a PADI student that demands to use a SA. After all, the cert card says Solo or Self-Reliant, it doesn't say "Shallow-water near-shore solo diver." What you choose to do after certification (or instead of certification) is up to you, of course, but I'd prefer that to reflect I'm your judgement rather than on my training.
The course (SDI in my case) talks about needed equipment, etc. However, there is nothing on a card that says you can only dive with that equipment. I have had places take my solo card and they did not care whether I was actually in a solo configuration equipment wise. My lnstructor told me he would have accepted a spare air for taking the course but he made a point of discussing whether that would actually provide the needed redundancy. His style was to ask questions and have me come up with the answers. Answer was no for the kind of diving I do. In fact thinking about your choices and continually reassessing them was part of the course.
Could it be that the instructor was having the student try using the SpareAir to reinforce that it is NOT sufficient?
drrich2
Contributor
Been a few years since I took the SDI Solo course. What I recall (without the manual immediately to hand) is that ideally, you plan your dive with intentions to use up to 1/3rd your gas heading out, up to 1/3rd coming back to shore or boat, hold at least 1/3'rd in reserve in case of unforeseen difficulty, and your redundant air source needs to be at least equal to that 1/3'rd reserve, so if you have a primary gas source equipment failure, you can get back to shore or boat from the farthest point in your dive, using the redundant gas source.
Even a 3 cf Spare Air isn't going to be that, unless you intended to run your dive only going through 6 cf of gas. What a Spare Air can do for some recreational dives is give you gas for an unplanned direct ascent in the event of a primary gas source failure, which may or may not be sufficient for a full 3 minute 15 foot safety stop, etc... I've read at least one, maybe two, account(s) of someone testing this out starting at 90 feet and taking a moment at that depth to simulate figuring out what's going on, and it didn't last him all the way up.
But if I had a primary system failure at 90 feet, I'd rather have the 3 cf Spare Air than nothing. For solo dives where direct surface ascent is practical (without fear of overhead entanglements, the need to ascent a line due to strong current, or significant risk of boating accidents), it may be reasonable in practice (probably that debate the OP was hoping to avoid).
I wonder if the Instructor for the course you saw believed that's what the student would probably be using out in the 'real world,' and chose to allow training him in what he'd actually use? I'm not advocating it.
Richard.
Even a 3 cf Spare Air isn't going to be that, unless you intended to run your dive only going through 6 cf of gas. What a Spare Air can do for some recreational dives is give you gas for an unplanned direct ascent in the event of a primary gas source failure, which may or may not be sufficient for a full 3 minute 15 foot safety stop, etc... I've read at least one, maybe two, account(s) of someone testing this out starting at 90 feet and taking a moment at that depth to simulate figuring out what's going on, and it didn't last him all the way up.
But if I had a primary system failure at 90 feet, I'd rather have the 3 cf Spare Air than nothing. For solo dives where direct surface ascent is practical (without fear of overhead entanglements, the need to ascent a line due to strong current, or significant risk of boating accidents), it may be reasonable in practice (probably that debate the OP was hoping to avoid).
I wonder if the Instructor for the course you saw believed that's what the student would probably be using out in the 'real world,' and chose to allow training him in what he'd actually use? I'm not advocating it.
Richard.
Wookie
Proud to be a Chaos Muppet
Staff member
ScubaBoard Business Sponsor
ScubaBoard Supporter
Scuba Instructor
That (to me) sounds like an instructor requirement, not a standard. Was your instructor a tech instructor maybe? Remember, solo/self reliant are recreational certs, therefore, no overhead. Your gas supply needs to be enough to get you to the surface, no more, no less. Of course, rule of thirds is nice, but not to standard. Big fat redundant systems are nice, not required. and safety stops, while nice, aren't required. All that's required is to get you to the air that nature provided safely. For most folks, a spare air can do that.
lamarpaulski
Contributor
What is the rationale regarding a redundant computer or depth gauge/bottom timer ? Just asking not criticizing.
WarrenZ
The Ultimate Bad Example
Gives you something to reference if your main computer is giving you erroneous messages. Same as why you need redundant signaling devices two is better but you will only need one.
While I agree the SDI standard specifically includes Spare Air and does not make an exception for shallow.
N
Last edited:
Similar threads
