Hola:

This product (http://www.spareairxtreme.com/) is something that I've thought about from time to time, and it has come up again after the recent close call on the MM.

I've tried to analyze my own rationale for not really considering it, and really haven't come up with what I consider a good (rational/practical/etc) reason.

The first thing that comes to mind is looking like a goofball and having to field questions about the goofy mini-air tank thingy on my chest, field questions about how often I swim, get unsolicited feedback about working on my technique, re-assessing my skill-to-river class ratio, etc. Seriously. Sad but true. Terrible reason in my book but there you go.

The second, and better reason has do do with wondering if I'd actually be able to use the thing when it counted - particularly when being trashed in a violent recirculating hole. There are other scenarios when it seems less implausible - I've heard several undercut-entrapment stories where people weren't being violently trashed - it was just a matter of finding their way to the surface before they lost consciousness.

Don't think it'd help in a full-on limb entrapment scenario - but you wouldn't be any more dead at the end.

Anyhow - just wondering if the reason that no one uses these things is driven by vanity, doubts about practicality, etc and would appreciate feedback from the PP brain trust.

In principle - the idea doesn't seem too terribly different from the avalung, and the last time I went BC skiing on a powder day five out of six people were wearing them.

Many thanks.

Those are good points Brett, and I hope that more folks at your level will chime in.

I've made trying to prevent bad swims by building up pretty much every aspect of my skills and experience, and maintaining what I think is a reasonably conservative skill-to-river-class ratio my number one strategy for staying alive and totally agree that doing so is the best plan.

Having said that - Scott had the same philosophy, and has the same skill level, experience, etc (and also has better cardio and is a way stronger swimmer via his many years of competitive swimming) and still came pretty close to flush drowning on a river that was way below his top-end boating level that he'd done over 100 times. Ditto for Jim O'Brien - pretty much the most solid creeker in that part of the country, who did tragically drown on a run that was way, way, way below his max that he'd run at least 100 times.

I've taken the same approach with travel in avalanche terrain - that is, putting the vast majority of my efforts into staying out of avalanches in the first place - but I still carry a beacon and wear an avalung while I'm out there.

I'm not planning to rush out and buy one of the spare-air deals, but I thought it'd be worth discussing why pretty much no one seems to use something that (at least on paper) doesn't seem to have many theoretical downsides (e.g. won't make you any more dead) other than costing $250 (way less than my paddle) and looking goofy.

Good input Arno.

I'm with you on the full-face. Wore one on tougher, trashier ones for a while but after upgrading to the Sweet FF, which is just a better helmet all around, I started comparing the cost (more than the helmet) and the pain of a good bash to the face and now wear the FF most of the time.

I've also found that it's much easier to stay relaxed and focused on a roll in shallow, trashy water when you're not worried about having your face smashed in...

Incidently - I've had all of my worst shots to the head on easy rapids.

I've been trying to convince people for years that the cutsie helmets that don't even cover your ears are no good.  I've seen them where they are even made of Kevlar and super expensive yet half of your head is exposed.  Full ear coverage is especially important for oarsman.  I wear a full ear coverage Jofa hockey helmet and I don't give a damn how it looks.  I went on a commercial trip on the MF of the Salmon with rescue guru and legend Les Bechdel's outfit and was pleased to see he puts all of his customers in Jofa hockey helmets exactly like I wear.  Thats about as much of an endorsement as I need.

I could have been easily killed this last December on the Sky, an easy familiar run that I have done hundreds of times.  The flow was low and as I was lining up and anticipating where to put my oar between House Rocks, my blade hit a rock.  The handle of my oar came at my head like a gunshot.  I turned my head just in time to have the handle crack me right on the ear and side of my head.  It hit so hard I was seeing stars as if it were one of those hits I took playing football that didn't quite require the smelling salts.  If I had been wearing one of those cute kevlar 250 dollar helmets with no ear coverage I would have been knocked out cold.  Swimming unconscious on the river is asking to be killed.

Go for protection over style.  I totally support everyone wearing the full face helmets....

I don't like the spare air concept because the only place I see it being within reach when I need it is in my PFD. If I put it in there I would have to put my throw bag somewhere else, and I see the throw bag as being more handy. Plus I doubt I am getting to any of that spare air when it hits the fan.

Great point Arn:

Seems obvious now that you mentioned it - but from what I've seen there's no way that you'd be able to access the bite valve thingy if you're wearing a full face helmet, since (as far as I understand it), it's designed to be mounted on your chest and accessed by leaning downwards and clamping onto the valve.

I think that realistically, the safety tradeoff between wearing full-face helmet and a Spare-Air device as it's currently configured definitely favors the full face, helmet by a pretty substantial margin.

Of course, that same tradeoff wouldn't be an issue if you're the type of person who never wears a full-face then I suppose it's not as clear cut....