why hate safety devices?

[String]

Why do some scuba divers hate some scuba innovations that can give rise to a higher degree of safety?

Because a lot if not most of the so called "safety innovations" on the market do nothing to improve safety (eg AI computers) and in some cases increase the chances of an incident happening (spare air). They're marketed to target divers common fears (purge masks, AI computers, spare air etc) and do nothing to address the problem and simply reinforce the mistaken belief that it is a problem.

Nobody as far as im aware "hates" computes but the brutal fact is an analogue SPG is more reliable and far less likely to be break than an electronic one. If you give someone "low air" alarms what you find is they just keep going until hearing it thereby relying on hearing it to know when to get out. It happens.

As for "pilots know to do this and that" yes they do. However the standard of the average holiday or newly qualified diver is very very much lower than that, the training isn't as rigorous, the standards are lower, they aren't required to dive to keep current or anything else so the analogy doesn't work at all.

 

[Doc Harry]

I agree that many "safety" innovations have nothing to do with safety. Instead of improving safety, these "innovations" promote complacency.

There is also cost-to-benefit ratio to consider. If I should be checking my gas frequently anyway, how much safer will I be if I spend $1,100 on an AI computer with fancy alarms instead of a low-tech $60 SPG? Personally, there will be no increase in my safety for the additional $1,040 spent.

 

[iztok]

I dive with AI dive computer. I use the setting for low air. However before each dive I run at least the basic plan and set up my gas alarm accordingly. That is, if I am just doing the 20-30ft OW dive the setting is much lower than say for 100ft dive. Up to now the alarm was never a surprise to me. I knew it was coming as I also check the pressure regularly. I am an IT guy who likes electronics and I like to compare myself with what my computer is telling me and often it is not too far apart. If I think I should have 1500 psi left and look at my actual pressure I am rarely off by more than 100 psi.

I don't consider my AI part of the computer as safety device.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

And none of these so called safety devices go as much towards actually promoting safe diving as using safe diving practices, careful planning, and a sense of personal responsibility do. Work on those areas, save some money as Harry said, and then when you are informed and have developed those attributes it may be time to look into something that is more convenient IF you still feel you need it. The new OW diver that needs an air integrated computer to tell him when it's time to look at it or to think about surfacing probably should have put more thought into their instruction. And I'm not saying it is the instructors fault. It may be that the diver should have been paying more attention to the materials and just how serious a F up in this sport can be, it's not all fun and sun. And finally why would you spend 1000 bucks on a computer that you don;t really need unless you like spending that much. I've seen no computer that costs over 500 bucks do anything a cheaper one will not do when it comes to OW level dives for the diver who is trained properly.

 

[40Fathoms]

I agree with the point made on disliking innovations that 1) are costly for the average user to acquire, 2) are not that necessary. If for instance the example you mention led to me getting access to information that I could in no other way get, information that made my dive safer, I'd go for it in a heartbeat. The way it is, it adds a nice-to-have feature, but I prefer knowing my gas levels continuously, not just when I'm getting low. The "today's J-valve" problem. And yes, some people do end up using them like that. Should we discount the technology just because some people don't use it correctly? Of course not. But it's something I may use if my next computer features it, not something I'll shell out extra greens on.

A little story about precisely those sorts of computers: I was diving in the Red Sea last summer, when towards the end of our dive, the most amazing Napoleon Fish came up to us. I lined up my camera, waiting for a good shot of it. I almost had it, when another diver's computer suddenly started up a hell of a ruckus, beeping and hollering. The Napoleon Fish was accustomed to the sound of our exhalation bubbles, but the beeping scared it off. Not picture. And one more reason why I'm not a big fan. :depressed:

 

[captain]

Simplicity is is safer than complication. Analog SPG simple, AI computer complicated.

 

[SDAnderson]

This post is likely to start a flame war, but my intent is to solicit opinions.

Hmm. In the old days, this was known as a troll alert.

The apprenticeship of angst.

Of course! How helpful!

Yep, that's how a troll would respond to an imagined slight. OP made a concise (and, I believe, essentially accurate) statement, if slightly intemperate. Your reply was less helpful and more inflammatory.

Why do some scuba divers hate some scuba innovations that can give rise to a higher degree of safety?

Your basic premise is mistaken. It's not hating devices that increase safety, it's about hating devices that falsely promise increased safety - especially when those devices decrease utilization of critical skills/knowledge/techniques.

Example: the air-integrated computer with audible warning when you pass your user-determined "reserve gas" pressure.

Many SB members feel that a good 'ol brass 'n glass SPG is all you need. Fine. A few have made jokes about the cacophonous symphony that accompanies a class of new divers completing their OW certs when their computers warn them about various issues. Point taken.

Of course you should manage your gas. Of course your buddy should be near at hand. Of course you should learn to use your computer. Of course you should learn to dive without a computer. But why do some hate computers, or at least a perceived over-reliance on them in this case?

You've essentially answered your own question. Is the "over-reliance" "perceived" or actual? If the use an air-integrated computer teaches complacency instead of self-reliance, if it's more prone to failure than the device it replaces, if it costs ten times as much as the device it replaces, if users don't learn how to operate them, would you support their use?

For example, a pilot should know to watch the altitude gauge. Also, pilots of aircraft with retractable landing gear should know to extend said landing gear prior to landing. I am not a pilot, but I am sure that warning systems exist in aircraft to alert pilots to low altitude and retracted landing gear, irrespective of how good the pilot is.

Best if you don't use an example that you (admittedly) know little about. There are lots of planes out there that don't have computers telling the pilot if he is below his planned altitude or only is running low on fuel. Those pilots learn to monitor their gauges themselves, a system that has proven itself both effective and reliable.

What makes scuba different?

It isn't. Though sometimes the number of folks with less than 100 dives and more than 1000 posts sometimes make it seem like Bedlam around here.

Despite their many shortcomings, I think most new divers should be using computers - air-integrated or otherwise. They have their hands full learning buoyancy and finning and navigation and keeping their hands off stuff and buddy skills and, well, they have their hands full. A computer can be a back-up while they work on learning to monitor their gas pressure, acting as an electronic nanny while they master a bunch of complex and life-critical skills. Quite frankly, the computers fail less often than new divers do and that makes them worth considering. On the other hand, developing a dependency on that little beep to tell you you're doing something wrong is dangerously foolhardy. Crutches can help you walk but eventually they just get in the way.

 

[scubadiver888]

As others have posted, hate is a very strong word. I know there are some features companies add to scuba equipment to give them a perceived advantage over their competition.

I would say I have concerns over marketing ploys which claim to be safety innovations. Your analogy to piloting an aircraft is interesting and actually helpful for me. I am not a commercial pilot but did fly small aircraft in the past. When you get your initial pilots license in Canada (or at least this is how it was when I flew) you are a VFR pilot (Visual Flight Rules). My instructor was a commercial pilot. As I attempted my first landing he observed that I was using the instruments. He took me up again but this time he covered the instruments. VISUAL Flight Rules. Only after you have been flying visually for a while do you get to use the instruments.

Additionally, the school had a twin prop 6 seater with retractable landing gear. At least once a year someone would land the plane with the gear up totally destroying the props. Why? No audible warning system. Many pilots (even commercial) might never see a plane with an audible warning system. It takes literally years of training and experience to fly the big planes which have this sort of stuff by default.

Compare this to your example of air-integrated computers with audible warnings, if it is a backup to proper training then it makes sense but if people use it in place of existing training it could be a hazard. I have an air-integrated computer with audible warnings. I turned them all off for two reasons. First, I don't want to annoy other divers and scare away the marine life. Second, with the gurgling of regulators, wearing a hood and generally bad hearing, I never hear the thing away.

An interesting tidbit relating to AI computers... I went on a cruise in the Caribbean a few years back. We had around 20 divers going out on shore excursions. Most of them had AI computers. On one dive the guide said we'd be diving out and back. He also asked when you get to 1500 PSI let him know. We are drifting along this wall, I'm checking my computer. I get to around 2200 PSI and I hear some beeping. I look around but cannot tell who it is. Around 2000 PSI and I hear more beeping. Around 1800 PSI and there is a LOT of beeping. No one is signalling the guide. Finally, I get to 1500 PSI and signal the guide with half tank. He immediately turns around and heads back. As we are heading back a diver seems to be racing ahead of everyone. The guide catches up to him, calms him down and takes him shallow. A few minutes later the guide brings two more divers shallow. The first guy goes to the surface and switches to snorkel. There are only 4 of us still at 60 feet. Everyone else is going shallow as we get to the boat.

It seems pretty obvious what happen there. None of the divers were checking them air supply. I don't know if they didn't hear the beeping or what. When I heard the beeping I looked around for someone checking their gauges. I didn't see anyone checking their gauge.

Another 'scuba innovation' I've seen that has similar concerns is SpareAir. I have seen people compare this thing to seatbelts. You would have seatbelts in a car, why not have SpareAir when you dive? When I get in my car I put on my seatbelt. It is now effective. If I get in an accident it will AUTOMATICALLY engage. With SpareAir I need to service the regulator on a regular basis, I need to deploy it when I or my buddy run out of air. If you are in good shape and prepared for an out of air situation you won't need SpareAir from 60 feet or shallower. If I am not in good shape, SpareAir won't last very long; the typical out of shape diver will exhaust the larger SpareAir before they safely getting to the surface. If you are deeper than 60 feet, SpareAir won't last long enough to be worth having. It just strikes me as people using technology to replace proper training. The fact that someone compared SpareAir to a seatbelt tells me they really didn't think about it and probably just bought into marketing hype.

I would also add that the diver who typically relies on technology to replace proper training is usually the person who is ill prepared to use the technology when they need it.

 

[4sak3n]

Wow ... consensus on SB is a rare, rare thing however EVERYONE seems to agree in their responses to your question. I'd take that as a rather prominent sign.

I'm not going to reiterate everything that has already been said but would like to point out that your question was well and truly answered.

 

[Paladin]

The only true safety device, regardless of what activity you are involved in, is sitting between your ears.