Should Shearwater add Air Integration to its computers?

[scubadada]

I wonder what Shearwater thinks about this thread?

Shearwater built the OC Rec mode into the Petrel and continued it in the Perdix. The Perdix does not have the Fischer connector. An AI Perdix would arguably be the highest quality AI out there and would likely be enthusiastically adopted, perhaps more frequently by us recreational divers over our tech colleagues.

I still want one, and I bet I'm not the only one http://www.scubaboard.com/community/threads/what-i-want-and-i-bet-im-not-the-only-one.519268/

 

[boulderjohn]

Let's talk failure points in general. People have a way of dismissing something because it is a potential failure point, but in many cases that is just a mindless statement that gets in the way of real thinking. Whenever we consider using a particular item, we have to weigh all the factors related to failure:
1. How much benefit does this item provide?
2. What are the consequences of failure?
3. What is the likelihood of failure?

Let's use those areas to sore a back plate and harness, an item no one questions. It provides a whole lot of benefit, since carrying tanks, especially doubles, would not be a pleasant experience. That means the consequences of failure are very high. Fortunately, the likelihood of failure is so low that it tips the scale to the degree that we don't even bother to bring a backup.

So let's look at AI, and when we do, let's look at it from two points of view: Pete's (NetDoc) and mine. Me first.

1. When I am diving backmount, as I usually do, it is no big deal for me to pull out my SPG and take a look at it. Because I plan for plenty of gas, I usually only have to do this occasionally. The exception is when I get near my turn point in a cave, at which time I get very anal about it. So, the benefit is not that great from my point of view.
2. The consequences of failure are moderate. I would have to abort the dive and head back. This will be annoying, but not life threatening.
3. The likelihood of failure is pretty remote. I would say it is not much different from an SPG. I haven't seen a failure yet.
Putting it all together, I would say that the low score on item number one is the tipping point, so I don't use it.

I dive sidemount enough to see it from Pete's point of view, so I will take the liberty of rating it for him. Items #2 and #3 are the same, so let's look at item #1 more carefully.
1. When I dive sidemount, I have the two familiar lollipops sticking straight up from the two tanks. They can get in the way of travel in tight areas. It would be good to get rid of them. Unlike backmount, I check them often because I like to keep those two independent cylinders within 300 PSI of each other in case of an air sharing situation. Many people who say they are sidemounted are really frontmounted, so their cylinders are out in front of them. I am actully sidemounted, so it is more of an effort to see the gauges. In a dark environment like a cave, I have to shine my light on it first to get it to glow, and then I have to look down to read it. It is thus much less convenient to read those gauges than it is with backmount, and I have to do it more often. AI would be much more of a benefit.

In summary, for me item #1 tips the scales away from AI; for others it might tip the scales in its favor.

 

[DevonDiver]

When I dive sidemount, I have the two familiar lollipops sticking straight up from the two tanks. They can get in the way of travel in tight areas. It would be good to get rid of them.

Then get rid of them!? Don't lollipop....

One solution requires a spanner and some skills practice. The other requires hundreds of dollars investment in AI...

I am actully sidemounted, so it is more of an effort to see the gauges. In a dark environment like a cave, I have to shine my light on it first to get it to glow, and then I have to look down to read it. It is thus much less convenient to read those gauges than it is with backmount,...

As you said in another thread John... your experience in sidemount is still relatively small. If you find it more difficult in sidemount, then I'd suggest that familiarity is the real issue.

Locating and unclipping an SPG from the right waist D-ring, negotiating it past deco cylinders, illuminating and reading it..... versus running the crook of your elbow up your tank, snagging the SPG, looking down and reading it...(yes, with practice, no hands required to locate and read a downwards orientated SPG).

I don't get upset about quick-fixes using equipment... but it's sad when a short-cut ceases the potential to develop a skill into an intuitive, ingrained function. And 'reading the SPGs' IS a skill performance standard on most sidemount courses....

The picture illustrates how the SPG can easily be caught inside the elbow and brought forwards for inspection 'hands-free' (with a little practice). As an aside, you get a sneaky glance of an analogue depth gauge on my left wrist (beneath the Suunto Vyper in gauge mode)... I have a Shearwater Petrel 2 and Suunto compass on right arm. The photo was taken last week, as I was laying line within some very silty, very restrictive stowage compartments 2 decks down en-route to the chain locker, in a WWII Landing Ship Tank...

 

[stuartv]

Wireless integration is a tool. As of yet, there has been no injury, much less death ascribed to using this tool.

Pete, I agree with you, but I had a PM from another member who gave me a couple of examples where he feels like AI did result in an accident (though death was averted). I'll recount the general idea just so that it can be called out and debunked.

A diver was diving with AI and monitoring his ATR display. Another diver went OOA and came to the first diver. They buddy breathed and subsequently ran out of air together before they made it to the surface.

The person who PM'ed me about this believes that ATR is "deadly" because the diver that had it depended on that display and the fact that it didn't factor in the increased consumption from starting to air share meant that it was very wrong, once he started to share.

I think the original purposes of my posts have gotten lost in the spiral of this debate. Here's how I interpret the track of the debate...

Original Question: Should Shearwater add air integration to its computers?

1. Shearwater currently only make dedicated technical diving instruments.

False. It WAS a dedicated tech computer ... until SW added OC Rec mode. It is no longer a dedicated tech computer.

it's sad when a short-cut ceases the potential to develop a skill into an intuitive, ingrained function.

So, you prefer to shun technology that makes tech diving easier for a new diver to learn by obviating the need for developing an intuitive, ingrained physical skill? You find value in developing a skill just for the sake of developing the skill, when you could instead use technology to render that skill moot? What if AI only cost $50 and had become 99.999% reliable?

 

[The Chairman]

Pete, I agree with you, but I had a PM from another member who gave me a couple of examples where he feels like AI did result in an accident (though death was averted). I'll recount the general idea just so that it can be called out and debunked.

A diver was diving with AI and monitoring his ATR display. Another diver went OOA and came to the first diver. They buddy breathed and subsequently ran out of air together before they made it to the surface.

The person who PM'ed me about this believes that ATR is "deadly" because the diver that had it depended on that display and the fact that it didn't factor in the increased consumption from starting to air share meant that it was very wrong, once he started to share.

I disagree. The transmitter worked perfectly. Both the divers screwed up. As a buddy, it's as much my responsibility to know my buddy's air as it is his. The opposite is as equally as true. It's no accident that I've never had a buddy run out of air and neither have I. For the OW buddy, I need their pressure. For the tech buddy, I just need them to let me know that they are "OK". Secondly, anytime you add a load to your breathing gas, you have to check it more often. That's not an AI or wireless AI fault. That's like blaming the hammer for the carpenter missing the nail. It would have happened with either an AI or an SPG.

 

[DevonDiver]

So, you prefer to shun technology that makes tech diving easier for a new diver to learn by obviating the need for developing an intuitive, ingrained physical skill? You find value in developing a skill just for the sake of developing the skill, when you could instead use technology to render that skill moot?

I will refer to my earlier point:

"...in the digital age, we might be prudent to consider "self sufficiency" in respect to the diver versus the computer, not just in the team context. Can the tech diver complete the dive independently without computer support?"

Provided this criteria were met, then I see there is no problem. The skill/s in question are gas planning, gas awareness.... and the need to re-calculate 'on-the-fly' should the unexpected occur.

I will reiterate though, that for technical diving, there would need to be robust protocols and procedures to eliminate the chance of human error when preparing, configuring and diving multiple transmitters on multiple tanks. 'Ease and simplicity' for a single-tank recreational diver doesn't necessarily equate to 'ease and simplicity' for a multiple tank, multiple gas diver.

Whilst AI can provide many functions currently done mentally, I don't believe that technical divers would be wise to move forwards without the human capacity to complete those functions. The human brain has to remain as a safeguard against the unexpected.

I just posted this, about dive computers, in the 'other' AI thread... and it applies to this question:

"...I've never had a problem with tech computers, provided technical divers don't forsake proper planning and preparation. They should be a tool, not a crutch".

In respect to the skill of 'reading gauges'... then I see no issues with technology replacing the need to ingrain those muscle memory functions. However, it's a skill that takes a short time...the duration of an (effective) technical training course.... to resolve. This makes practice and skill development a very cost-effective alternative to AI.

What if AI only cost $50 and had become 99.999% reliable?

I've already stated that "if AI transmitters were the size of button gauges, cost $25 each and had a failure frequency (total system) equal to that of mechanical SPGs" then I'd have no issue with them.

People are assuming that I vehemently opposed to AI, when I am not. All I've done is comment upon the key principles that technical divers are taught in training; explained how those principles shape technical diving equipment considerations and applied that to the pros and cons of AI at its current state of technology. The purpose of that explanation was merely to answer questions about why technical divers generally don't use AI.

In addition, I've stated a personal opinion that I (me...solitary... just me) have little interest in AI because it provides no useful function for me. I've been technical diving very successfully without it for quite a while; and all the functions that AI provides already exist through my experience and habits. Because of that lack of need - I'd be disappointed if the quality, simplicity or reliability of Shearwater computers declined as a result of introducing AI.

 

[jhnmdahl]

Whenever we consider using a particular item, we have to weigh all the factors related to failure:
1. How much benefit does this item provide?
2. What are the consequences of failure?
3. What is the likelihood of failure?
...
2. The consequences of failure are moderate. I would have to abort the dive and head back. This will be annoying, but not life threatening.

It seems like consequences being moderate are the tipping point for your analysis, as you wouldn't use AI much or get much benefit from it. I suspect that even if I had AI, I'd still dive with an SPG and could complete my dive plan, making the consequences of failure significantly lower. This raises a good point, though - some people seem to be assuming that they would rely on AI alone, while others assume they would still have a pressure gauge should their transmitter or dive computer have a problem.

 

[The Chairman]

This raises a good point, though - some people seem to be assuming that they would rely on AI alone, while others assume they would still have a pressure gauge should their transmitter or dive computer have a problem.

After hundreds of dives with no equipment induced problems, I trust my transmitters.

 

[WarrenZ]

I think Shearwater should introduce AI in the perdix or another computer like it, However they should hedge their bets by continuing to offer a non AI computer for the traditionalists who would cry witch and attempt to burn Shearwater at the stake here at Scubaboard.

 

[BoltSnap]

I have used the Suunto D9 AI wrist computer since 2007 and no failure of any kind at all since that time until now. No signal loss at all and I do U/W photography in almost 100% of my non-teaching dives with two strobes (hundreds of dives and thousands of photos). I change the wrist unit and transmitter batteries every two years and that's it!! I have used an old fashioned SPG during this period and I had leaking swivel and hose (on two different occasions) but nothing more serious.