Taking into account that it is a TIB knot, I believe that yes, it is - although I should repeat that I have a limited, only, experience of using it. ( You should better ask Knot4u, he has said that he uses it all the time ). However, that does not mean that I answer the initial question of this thread in the affirmative : to my view / taste, and for the time being, I think that the Ampersand bowline or the pet loop are “better”( 
) eye-knots.
Is there a demo of the Ampersand and the Pet Loop anywhere? I’ve searched on Youtube but no luck!
Festy, the mother of all knots is THIS Forum ! Search here !
For the Ampersand bowline :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4877.msg31923#msg31923
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4877.msg31929#msg31929
For the pet loop :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4354.msg27824#msg27824
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4354.msg27855#msg27855
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4354.msg27856#msg27856
If there is something still unclear there, please, tell me and I will see if / how I can correct it. Also, I have to stress that, in those posts, I describe one, only, of the many tying recipes you may use to tie those knots in-the-bight- there may well be many others, which are waiting for you to discover and describe them to us here.
You may also wish to post your own video on the tying of those eye-knots in YouTube. In the KnotLand, as in any of the experiences we get from life, paths are made by walking. Reading the posts in this Forum, or remembering the posts you have already read ( and even commented on ), may also help a little bid…
ha, ha, very good Xarax.
however, Thomas should be my middle name, unless I can see it happening in realtime I’m in trouble (unless it’s a simple knot) 
“Simplicity” is a complex thing - and that is true for knots, too. Mathew Walker 2-stand bend looks like a pretty “simple” knot, but it is difficult to dress correctly. The falsely tied Zeppelin bend is more symmetric, so more “simple”, than the Zeppelin bend, yet it is a lousy knot, for reason we do not quite understand. The Tumbling Thief knot is the most “simple” bend possible, but the way it works is difficult to analyse, so there is a discrepancy between the “feeling” of security it conveys and the actual security it delivers. On the other hand, a retraced stopper turned into a bend ( as the fig.8 knot, for instance ) is “complex” in topology and appearance, yet it is easy to tie, because all one has to do is to make the Working End of the second link follow the Standing Part of the first link.
Also, what seems “simple” to one person, may not look so simple to another. The tying methods of the Ampersand bowline and the pet loop seem pretty simple to me now, but perhaps that is due to my recent understanding of the working of those knots, which did not come without some previous preparation, on other, similar knots. The “haltered collar” method of inserting the Standing and the Tail Ends into a collar looks like a very easy thing, but it was not understood, or appreciated, by me, until I had applied it many times, in many other knots. The “three bights” method of tying the pet loop was implemented in ABoK many times, but I had not realized how productive it was until I had tied many TIP loops following it. So, “simplicity” needs time to reveal itself - but when it does, man, it is a most beautiful sight one can watch, which he can/will never forget.
Glad to hear that the Yosemite bowline is classified as secure, I must say I like the Yosemite knot.
One could surmise that the ultimate test of ‘security’ is literally putting your life-on-the-line (as I do when I go mountaineering or rock climbing at my local crag) and be willing to take a free-fall (and repeated free-falls in quick succession). I suppose if you live and can walk-away unharmed, that might be evidence of the knots performance! If you die, I guess that might be evidence to the contrary. Note: This is my attempt at poorly conceived dark humor.
The are only a select few knots that I’m willing to use as a ‘tie-in’ directly to my harness (that is, the rope is tied directly into the harness - a soft interface - no metal links present).
I have used the Yosemite Bowline but, as Xarax points out, it can easily be disturbed by prematurely pulling on the tail before the nipping turn has been drawn tight. Furthermore, somewhat stiffer ropes may not be an ideal material for this Bowline variant. You need to assess the knot after tying it and make a judgement call on its ‘security’.
A ‘strangled double overhand knot’ can be added to the Yosemite Bowline as ‘insurance’ - which is to say that the tail is used for this purpose and tied around the Spart.
There are other forms of so-called ‘secure Bowlines’ that are ‘more secure’ in my humble opinion.
My view on this may be skewed - as I am commenting from the viewpoint of a rock climber who intends to live a long healthy life.
Mark
Mark, your opinion is most assuredly much valued.
Perhaps, if time permits, you might name the bowline forms that you consider ‘more secure’, and how they would compare to the ‘security’ of the Double Dragon.
F
Some features the Double Dragon has that other loops lack? (possibly)
-
The DD can be easily verified visually as being tied correctly.
-
Each aspect of dressing the DD by pulling the legs (both loop legs, the bitter end and the SPart), can be carried out in any order.
-
It is easy to see when dressing the knot where each leg needs to be pulled.
-
Resistance to side loading (as far as I can ascertain with just muscle power).
-
Pulling hard on any combination of legs will not capsize or upset the knot (as far as I can ascertain with just muscle power).
I stand to be corrected on any or all of the above, of course.
F
There are some mistakes that can be made in tying that yields very convincing impostor knots. Whether they have any especially problematic weaknesses is a topic of investigation.
4. Resistance to side loading (as far as I can ascertain with just muscle power).I'm not too sure what you mean by "side loading". Can you clarify?
5. Pulling hard on any combination of legs will not capsize or upset the knot (as far as I can ascertain with just muscle power).As you note, muscle power isn't all that great, but I was able to fully capsize the Double Dragon Loop in 3/16" diameter nylon rope without much trouble by pulling the legs in opposite directions. In some 5/16" diameter nylon rope, I was able to partially capsize the knot by pulling the legs in opposite directions such that upon normal loading, the knot was unable to return to it's usual shape. All this was done with mere hand strength.
In tests of abseil-ropes-joints, the offset water knot (aka "EDK"="Euro Death Knot" ) proves more secure under load than the "more complex" offset figure 8 bend --with the irony that the latter might have been chosen presuming just the opposite.[b]Quoted from Dan Lehman[/b]
Not intending to steer the subject matter of this thread off-topic but, I again support these wise words of wisdom.
I theorise that the so-called ‘EDK’ is none other than the Offset F8 bend.
The offset overhand bend (aka offset water bend) is secure and stable provided it is dressed and cinched tight. I use this method of joining my 2 climbing ropes to the exclusion of all other knots. I further theorise that the EDK has been consistently misreported by people who are either parroting others or, by sketchy eye witness reports from surviving members of the party - they would obviously be suffering from shock, they are in a very vulnerable and emotional state and they are generally not expert in roping skills.
Back on topic… I have never used the Double Dragon in mission critical applications (where a human life is at stake). So I have no empirical evidence base from which to comment. Be that as it may, I can confirm that it is definitely not in widespread use in the climbing, caving and vertical rescue community. But that by itself is not evidence to discredit the DD knot.
I will look into this in detail and get back to this site and comment soon…
Mark Gommers
Thanks for that, Roo…that throws it into the ‘well maybe not then’ category
In paracord I wasn’t able to capsize it like you did, but I’m no Mr Universe ;D (by sideloading I meant pulling apart the loop legs when the knot is dressed)
F
Thanks, I look forward to that
F
I have conducted some very quick and dirty (and unscientific) tests on the Double Dragon.
Cyclic loading (which some call ‘slack shaking’ on this site) will compromise the core (nub) of this structure relatively quickly - unless - it is drawn up and vigorously cinched tight.
In direct comparison, the [Yosemite] Bowline did not require such strict attention to cinch down and compress the core (nub) - it was more resistant to cyclic loading.
This ‘testing’ was carried out with 8.0mm diameter Sterling USA cord (human rated 17.5kN high strength - my favourite brand of cordage).
Obviously, a lot more testing needs to be done!
Mark