a great read.... It brings forth what some of us "cavemen" (a.k.a.: old) divers complain that we see in how this wonder device has replaced knowledge.....
Article: Dive Computers and the Magic Bracelet Syndrome
- Thread starter AFdivedoc
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Messages
- 4,632
- Reaction score
- 6,370
- # of dives
- 200 - 499
It's just like driving for some, green means go, red means stop and yellow means go like hell because the red light is coming.
ekremer
Contributor
Wow, you could replace the word computer with table in this article and it would still mostly be right minus the part about understanding what your computer tells you. I don't know any diver recreational or technical that knows what is going on with their NDL's, or decompression requierments. They only know what a mathematical model tells them, How it is displayed either a computer or a table or an equation it is all the same. It is a model based on the performance of a monitored diver sometime in the past then backed off a bit for safety, then backed off some more by the recommendations of instructors, then everyone pats themselves on the back when they memorize the equation or the table.
Instead of making these models the end all be all, maybe future computers can take the individual divers physical make up, plus the environment and build a more accurate model on the fly.
I do agree with way too many divers do not understand what their computer tells them, but I see no difference to that and not remembering how to use the tables, or the equations.
Instead of making these models the end all be all, maybe future computers can take the individual divers physical make up, plus the environment and build a more accurate model on the fly.
I do agree with way too many divers do not understand what their computer tells them, but I see no difference to that and not remembering how to use the tables, or the equations.
Great post, thanks Gary! While I think and dive very similarly to you, I'll be sure to steal some of your points and your humorous way of getting them across when I teach. =) A colleague of mine suffers from magic bracelet syndrome despite being an instructor. I'll point him this way, and see if I can turn the tables on him. (pun very much intended)
OP
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 76
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
Great article. One comment. Per your "For divers just starting out, buy a simpler computer for less money.." I recently noticed that the pricey large screen matrix computers are easier for beginners to use. This is because they have full words on the menus and displays.
Ricky B
Contributor
I take partial issue with number 6, My computer will make me a better diver. It is a correct statement if "used properly" is added (or implied). Any instrument used improperly will make for a worse result.
Having recently started to use a computer, I am a better diver than before. The reason being that I have a better sense of my ascent rate, something that I did not pay as much attention to before. When I started diving, the rule was "ascend no faster than your bubbles." Of course, that is now considered too fast, and the rule is 33 ft per minute (10 meters/minute). But how does the occasional diver know how fast he is going. Rate of speed in the water column is not obvious for most of us (or at least, for me). One way to know is for the diver to look at his watch and to look at his depth gauge and calculate. But now the diver is looking at two instruments instead of one and calculating at the same time.
With the dive computer, I look at the ascent rate graph when I am ascending and try to keep it between zero and two bars, which I find to be much slower than the rate at which I had previously been ascending. If I am inattentive and ascend too quickly (>10m/min), the computer beeps at me and scolds me with a SLOW warning and maybe adds a mandatory safety stop. So now I have much better awareness of my ascent rate--all thanks to the computer. With greater experience using the computer, I won't need to study the computer while ascending, just as I now look at my SPG from time to time and can predict within 50 lbs. what my remaining pressure is.
Complaining about a computer is like complaining about speedometers in cars. If you stare at the speedometer instead of looking at the road, big problem. But most of us don't do that with speedometers--or computers.
When I started diving, we didn't use SPGs, only tanks with J valves. I trust that when those become common, you didn't complain about divers fixating on the pressure gauge.
Aside from the foregoing quibble, however, I agree with you.
Having recently started to use a computer, I am a better diver than before. The reason being that I have a better sense of my ascent rate, something that I did not pay as much attention to before. When I started diving, the rule was "ascend no faster than your bubbles." Of course, that is now considered too fast, and the rule is 33 ft per minute (10 meters/minute). But how does the occasional diver know how fast he is going. Rate of speed in the water column is not obvious for most of us (or at least, for me). One way to know is for the diver to look at his watch and to look at his depth gauge and calculate. But now the diver is looking at two instruments instead of one and calculating at the same time.
With the dive computer, I look at the ascent rate graph when I am ascending and try to keep it between zero and two bars, which I find to be much slower than the rate at which I had previously been ascending. If I am inattentive and ascend too quickly (>10m/min), the computer beeps at me and scolds me with a SLOW warning and maybe adds a mandatory safety stop. So now I have much better awareness of my ascent rate--all thanks to the computer. With greater experience using the computer, I won't need to study the computer while ascending, just as I now look at my SPG from time to time and can predict within 50 lbs. what my remaining pressure is.
Complaining about a computer is like complaining about speedometers in cars. If you stare at the speedometer instead of looking at the road, big problem. But most of us don't do that with speedometers--or computers.
When I started diving, we didn't use SPGs, only tanks with J valves. I trust that when those become common, you didn't complain about divers fixating on the pressure gauge.
Aside from the foregoing quibble, however, I agree with you.
OP
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 76
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
I'll harken back to my statement "I won't lie--I love my dive computer." If it didn't offer me some advantages and enhance my diving, I wouldn't use it. That part of my article was aimed at people substituting equipment for experience. Your computer is enhancing your situational awareness, which is already good from your depth and breadth of diving experience.
As an example of what I mean, I have thousands of hours in military aviation in many aircraft. As someone who has seen most things there are to see in that regime, I can tell you that better instruments don't turn a poor pilot into a good pilot. Drop a newbie into a state-of-the-art glass cockpit and he or she is still a newbie, even if the information is potentially easier to interpret. What that newbie needs is basic stick-and-rudder skills and intensive instrument flying training to take advantage of the potential improvement in situational awareness the better instruments offer.
Sorry to wax metaphoric. I agree with your speedometer analogy.
As an example of what I mean, I have thousands of hours in military aviation in many aircraft. As someone who has seen most things there are to see in that regime, I can tell you that better instruments don't turn a poor pilot into a good pilot. Drop a newbie into a state-of-the-art glass cockpit and he or she is still a newbie, even if the information is potentially easier to interpret. What that newbie needs is basic stick-and-rudder skills and intensive instrument flying training to take advantage of the potential improvement in situational awareness the better instruments offer.
Sorry to wax metaphoric. I agree with your speedometer analogy.
the constant theme is:
1. please don't just follow the computer blindly (plan the dive, dive the plan)
2. flying the edge of NDL adds risk (yet this is the selling point of the PDC - it gives you more time in the water)
3. know what the computer is doing/telling you. (RTFM and/or get instruction)
4. repetitive dives need to have significantly more planning as the consequences pile up exponentially (that "unplanned DECO")
could probably add many more.....
1. please don't just follow the computer blindly (plan the dive, dive the plan)
2. flying the edge of NDL adds risk (yet this is the selling point of the PDC - it gives you more time in the water)
3. know what the computer is doing/telling you. (RTFM and/or get instruction)
4. repetitive dives need to have significantly more planning as the consequences pile up exponentially (that "unplanned DECO")
could probably add many more.....
aikiguy
Contributor
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 1
- # of dives
- 50 - 99
Looking at Gary's credentials, I expected a lot more out of this article. Well written, but not informative really, I want to hear more of what Gary has to say, but he really didn't say anything here.
Left me with the question; How do the current batch of computers with algorithms that are more precise compare to diving with tables? Are more out of shape 50 year old men dying from using their computers or tables that were designed for 18 year old men in peak physical shape and tested on sheep? Do the very expensive tech programs for desktop computers really generate safer profiles for recreational divers? Is there are common theme in what was missing in diving education that came out in how they viewed their computers? (This is hinted at but not stated, state it.... Do you think learning tables and calculating everything based on square dive profiles is better?).
The stories of stupid mistakes were cool though.
Write something more detailed and that really gets into what you do and see Gary... I was frustrated by being teased with this wonderful source of knowledge that you seemed to want to share, but then really didn't.
Thanks for the article though.
Guy
Similar threads
