Pony or buddy when low/no air?

[scubadada]

I understand that, but when you start talking about an additional 40 or even 80 cft of 'emergency' gas for a single tank recreational dive, you are so far beyond what is required to get 2 divers safely to the surface that it almost implies diving in environments that are more technical in nature.

The basic bedrock of safe recreational diving is based on two principles: 1) dive with a responsible buddy, and 2) always have access to the surface. Once you abandon either of those principles, you are adding risk to your diving. Nothing wrong that, but the simple addition of redundant gas does not really mitigate those risks. A catastrophic gas loss in recreational diving should never be life threatening; you simply head to the surface with your buddy. If you can't do that for any reason, then my argument is you have de-facto left the realm of recreational diving and entered technical diving. It's a grey area for sure. What bothers me is that many divers, sometimes very new divers, talk as if just strapping on a bail out bottle takes the risk out of those scenarios, and in my opinion it does not.

Solo diving is an entirely different situation, but IMO solo diving is a form of technical diving, in the sense that it is not taught in basic OW classes and generally requires some specialized training, awareness, gear, and attitude.

The 'emergency gas' part of technical and/or solo diving is a small part of the solution to diving in higher-risk situations.

SDI Solo Diver and PADI Self-Reliant Diver are both included in their recreational curriculum. Solo diving is not to include overhead restriction, including deco.

 

[doctormike]

I understand that, but when you start talking about an additional 40 or even 80 cft of 'emergency' gas for a single tank recreational dive, you are so far beyond what is required to get 2 divers safely to the surface that it almost implies diving in environments that are more technical in nature.

The basic bedrock of safe recreational diving is based on two principles: 1) dive with a responsible buddy, and 2) always have access to the surface. Once you abandon either of those principles, you are adding risk to your diving. Nothing wrong that, but the simple addition of redundant gas does not really mitigate those risks. A catastrophic gas loss in recreational diving should never be life threatening; you simply head to the surface with your buddy. If you can't do that for any reason, then my argument is you have de-facto left the realm of recreational diving and entered technical diving. It's a grey area for sure. What bothers me is that many divers, sometimes very new divers, talk as if just strapping on a bail out bottle takes the risk out of those scenarios, and in my opinion it does not.

Solo diving is an entirely different situation, but IMO solo diving is a form of technical diving, in the sense that it is not taught in basic OW classes and generally requires some specialized training, awareness, gear, and attitude.

The 'emergency gas' part of technical and/or solo diving is a small part of the solution to diving in higher-risk situations.

I think that you may have misunderstood the original exchange that you are commenting on. Take another look.

Steve said that he carried a 19 CUF pony, but that he would not rely on it to get him back to the anchor line and ascend in a catastrophic gas loss, but rather that he "would go on the pony and if I have a buddy we would start back toward the anchor, I would then possibly go over onto my buddy's air for a few minutes, and then back on the pony to go up the anchor and do a safety stop".

I was saying that instead of relying on a plan to stretch a small pony bottle by using it for part of the ascent and his buddy's gas for part of the ascent, just carry enough gas. My point is that a 40 is a very easy tank to carry. I only mentioned the 80 that I carry to say that I hardly notice it being there, which implies that carrying a 40 isn't much of a burden either. I wasn't recommending an 80 for this situation.

Buddy separation happens - it happens to excellent divers, it happens to instructors. If you feel that buddy separation is always avoidable and only happens to bad divers, that just means that it hasn't happened to you yet. I don't dive single tank any more, but when I did I always was happy to have a redundant gas supply with me instead of relying on CESA and it's attendant DCS risk.

But I do agree with you that I am postulating catastrophic gas loss and either buddy separation or a really bad insta-buddy, which are unlikely to happen together. So maybe a pony isn't necessary for basic recreational diving after all.

 

[scubadada]

I think that you may have misunderstood the original exchange that you are commenting on. Take another look.

Steve said that he carried a 19 CUF pony, but that he would not rely on it to get him back to the anchor line and ascend in a catastrophic gas loss, but rather that he "would go on the pony and if I have a buddy we would start back toward the anchor, I would then possibly go over onto my buddy's air for a few minutes, and then back on the pony to go up the anchor and do a safety stop".

I was saying that instead of relying on a plan to stretch a small pony bottle by using it for part of the ascent and his buddy's gas for part of the ascent, just carry enough gas. My point is that a 40 is a very easy tank to carry. I only mentioned the 80 that I carry to say that I hardly notice it being there, which implies that carrying a 40 isn't much of a burden either. I wasn't recommending an 80 for this situation.

Buddy separation happens - it happens to excellent divers, it happens to instructors. If you feel that buddy separation is always avoidable and only happens to bad divers, that just means that it hasn't happened to you yet. I don't dive single tank any more, but when I did I always was happy to have a redundant gas supply with me instead of relying on CESA and it's attendant DCS risk.

But I do agree with you that I am postulating catastrophic gas loss and either buddy separation or a really bad insta-buddy, which are unlikely to happen together. So maybe a pony isn't necessary for basic recreational diving after all.

The choice of pony size has also been discussed ad nauseam on SB. This really depends on your gas consumption rate and everyone should do their own calculations. So, my average RMV is 0.37 cf/min. I use 0.75 cf/min for my emergency calculations, though my highest RMV ever, is well below that. So, I spend a minute at depth, do an ascent at 30 ft/min, and a 3 min SS. From 130 feet I use about 17 cf of gas. For an NDL dive I could obviously blow off the SS. Most of my diving is drift with free access to the surface. If, for some reason, I could not make it back to an ascent line in a reasonable amount of time, I would deploy my SMB and ascend on that. I'm perfectly comfortable with my 19 cf pony for all of my recreational, mostly solo, diving

 

[doctormike]

This really depends on your gas consumption rate and everyone should do their own calculations. So, my average RMV is 0.37 cf/min. I use 0.75 cf/min for my emergency calculations, though my highest RMV ever, is well below that. So, I spend a minute at depth, do an ascent at 30 ft/min, and a 3 min SS. From 130 feet I use about 17 cf of gas. For an NDL dive I could obviously blow off the SS. Most of my diving is drift with free access to the surface. If, for some reason, I could not make it back to an ascent line in a reasonable amount of time, I would deploy my SMB and ascend on that. I'm perfectly comfortable with my 19 cf pony for all of my recreational, mostly solo, diving

Craig, you have an extremely low RMV, which is great for you, but even given that you say that an ascent from a deep recreational dive would use up 17 CUF from your 19. My point is that a 40 is just as easy to sling as a 19, in my opinion. And it doesn't take much to lose some gas, especially if you keep the valve open.

I say sling a 40, for the average recreational diver, who might not be so slick with their emergency procedures...

 

[scubadada]

Craig, you have an extremely low RMV, which is great for you, but even given that you say that an ascent from a deep recreational dive would use up 17 CUF from your 19. My point is that a 40 is just as easy to sling as a 19, in my opinion. And it doesn't take much to lose some gas, especially if you keep the valve open.

I say sling a 40, for the average recreational diver, who might not be so slick with their emergency procedures...

Maybe a 30, if you're worried about it

 

[Steve_C]

I agree that if you need it 40 is better than 19 and 19 is better than 13 and 13 is better than 0. I gave a lot of thought to this and decided that a pony I use basically all the time and is sufficient to get me to the surface alive is better than one I use some of the time. Went with the 19. I always have a reel and smb and am comfortable with an open water assent and using the smb. Know yourself and what you will and will not do.

 

[BoltSnap]

So what if the reason you are OOA and need to use an alternate source of air is the fact you are unable to make an ascent because you are stuck underwater (fishing net or line, marine life (Kelp, etc.), any other reason)? Heck, what if the diver was caught in a fishing net delaying his ascent ran OOA, had a deco obligation, etc.? The deeper the dive the worse it is for sure.

I truly can't get a person who is actively advocating not using a pony and in fact making his argument sound as if divers should be punished and not have access to an independent alternate source of air because they were faced by an expected situation that went beyond anyone's expectations, experience or power. Pony bottle use is meant to provide a safer and true reliable and final way for a person to survive until they are out of the water when the unexpected potentially catastrophic comes up without any warning.

Curious, do the "good" folks who advocate the none use of a pony also argue for not using an octopus? What about the use of any type of backup equipment such as additional cutting device, lights, etc.?

 

[halocline]

I agree with the point about access to the surface, but one of the reasons I got the pony was to mitigate the risk of a less-than-responsible/reliable buddy. Seems to me if I can get myself to the surface in a controlled and safe manner using a pony, then I have pretty much mitigated the buddy issue (again, solely for an OOA situation). What am I missing?

I think your argument is perfectly reasonable, with the caveat that you have only mitigated the risk of needing immediate air from a buddy in the event that yours is somehow immediately lost. Any other trouble you might encounter, like illness, injury, getting lost, entanglement, or any other emergency, is not mitigated.

 

[mi000ke]

I think your argument is perfectly reasonable, with the caveat that you have only mitigated the risk of needing immediate air from a buddy in the event that yours is somehow immediately lost. Any other trouble you might encounter, like illness, injury, getting lost, entanglement, or any other emergency, is not mitigated.

Totally agree.

 

[halocline]

So what if the reason you are OOA and need to use an alternate source of air is the fact you are unable to make an ascent because you are stuck underwater (fishing net or line, marine life (Kelp, etc.), any other reason)? Heck, what if the diver was caught in a fishing net delaying his ascent ran OOA, had a deco obligation, etc.? The deeper the dive the worse it is for sure.

I truly can't get a person who is actively advocating not using a pony and in fact making his argument sound as if divers should be punched and not have access to an independent alternate source of air....

I suspect this was directed towards me. First, I did not advocating not using a pony, and I certainly did not say anything about divers "being punched." I also mentioned nothing about cutting devices, although you thought it necessary to bring that up as well. I merely said that carrying a very large bailout bottle ( the post that I originally responded to discussed taking an additional 80 cft tank on a recreational dive) is not a substitute for diving with immediate access to the surface and a good buddy in terms of recreational dive safety.

The entanglement example you provided in a way proves my point. If you are entangled and can't get free without assistance, a bailout bottle, regardless of the size, does not solve your problem.