Should Shearwater add Air Integration to its computers?

[scubadada]

I bet DAN or some other organization keeps statistics on how many accidents/incidents involve pP02, Nitrogen loading, and OOA/gas management...

OOA is the big, big winner

 

[drrich2]

I think the truth behind much of this is that some tec. divers want the tec. diving community to be Shearwater's only child, don't want a separate rec. diving community sibling, and both in these and past threads the contention that A.I. would introduce an unacceptable potential failure point & render the product potentially unreliable is a red herring rationalization in the service of the true agenda.

I can relate. I was an only child, and from early on unequivocally did not want a sibling.

Richard.

 

[Baron015]

Yes please.

I would like to see O2 and Dil contents on the computer please, at the touch of a button.

Rate calcs etc nice to have but not necessary, same with warnings.

Not just for Rec. For convenience on my rebreather too. Thanks.

Those that don't want it don't have to buy transmitters. But nor can they stop me from using them.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CuzzA]

I really wonder why so many have a rigid stance against AI technology. To the point of threatening a company if they consider it...

A few years ago my dad broke down and bought a cell phone. He didn't want to be bothered with the extra technology, thought it was useless. No text, voice mail, email, navigation, etc... Just a phone. So he bought a Jitterbug. Yes, a Jitterbug phone "as seen on tv". Lol. The only feature the Jitterbug has is the phone. He was proud of his Jitterbug. Finally, last year he caved again and bought a Samsung Galaxy S5 with all the bells and whistles. Despite his resistance all of these years to accept technology and even go so far as to criticize it and call it useless, he's now texting, emailing and navigating away on his smart phone.

It'll Never Work

My guess is AI is the future of dive computers and will eventually replace the SPG. Didn't the SPG replace J valves?

If nothing else, I thank this thread for making me aware of the Hollis TX1. Now to write Hollis an email about redoing the crappy screen so I can become a customer. Perhaps Mares too and see if they'll consider adding trimix and the Buhlmann/VPM algorithm to the Icon. Someone needs to make the perfect computer for crying out loud

 

[boulderjohn]

What I do find interesting, though, is that apparently formal PADI tech standards state that AI carries a risk of you not only the gas info, but the dive data as well, if the AI fails, thus requiring you to go to your back-up dive plan (either second computer or written plan). Interestingly, PADI tech does not prohibit AI computers, only notes this as a possible risk to account for. This was quoted by Andy (Devon Diver) in the thread "AI computers for tech diving" in the Tech Diving forum.

PADI Tech does not say anything like this.

It gives principles you can use to evaluate equipment choices. You use those principles and your judgment to determine whether or not certain equipment constitutes a valid choice. The statements Andy made regarding AI were the judgments he made using those principles as a base. Other people looking at the same equipment and the same principles might make a different judgment.

It's that way for all equipment. In a nutshell, we look at everything we might use and determine if the value it brings to the dive outweighs the risks of failure enough to use it.

 

[hroark2112]

I can't say I care one way or the other if AI is there or not, I don't need it or want it personally. Whether diving OC or CCR, I'm normally aware of my gas on hand, usually without looking at the SPG I can get pretty close based on depth & time.

I think it would be a waste of their time to put it out, but I don't run their business. I have an AI Aeris T3 and never bothered much looking at the the pressure because it just pissed me off when it wasn't there. I don't thing the nice folks at Shearwater want to waste their time fielding calls from rec divers bitching about AI connectivity.

On a totally unrelated note, it seems the current trend for dive computers is "Smaller is better!" and "It should look like a watch!" Any time rec divers comment on my Petrel, it is always about the size. Can anyone see SW putting out something like the Seabear?

 

[Lorenzoid]

Those are problems that have already been solved by most other D.C. manufacturers. . . .

Yeah, the same "other D.C. manufacturers" whose products' reliability I have so little faith in.

 

[BoltSnap]

Can anyone see SW putting out something like the Seabear?

What about Seabear?

 

[uncfnp]

Can anyone see SW putting out something like the Seabear?

and lose the diver replaceable battery, charge more and then sell out to Scubapro...

 

[DevonDiver]

PADI Tech does not say anything like this.

It gives principles you can use to evaluate equipment choices. You use those principles and your judgment to determine whether or not certain equipment constitutes a valid choice. The statements Andy made regarding AI were the judgments he made using those principles as a base. Other people looking at the same equipment and the same principles might make a different judgment.

It's that way for all equipment. In a nutshell, we look at everything we might use and determine if the value it brings to the dive outweighs the risks of failure enough to use it.

Yep, that's very true. PADI enable considerable interpretation of their outline technical diving equipment principles. They have a 'standardized rig', but it is very generalized. This is the opposite of agencies like GUE, which have very strict definitions of their standardized rig (i.e. DIR).

What I teach my students is to make an intelligent decision for themselves. Learning to prudently apply the principles is more critical than learning a rigid set of 'rules'. Of course, one has to guard against complacency or compromise for the wrong reasons.

For beginner technical divers, it might be wise to stick with a stricter application of principles. As experience increases, the tech diver understands better the principles and considerations. They also become more competent and might start to appreciate that certain solutions, that initially appeared attractive, were actually inefficient equipment solutions to skill deficit problems.

Beyond your personal decisions, there are other factors that have a large bearing on equipment decisions. Of particular importance are any 'team' decisions; i.e. the level of standardization that the technical diver you work with want to apply on their dives. This can be very important - if you want to be invited/accepted to join other tech divers. Then you have regional practices - and these can vary markedly, for instance NJ wreck divers versus Florida cave divers.

I firmly believe that, one day, technological advances like AI will be standard in technical diving. But, to date, I don't see that the equipment technology level is successful in simplifying the processes of technical diving. AI adds complexity to the processes and protocols of tech diving, and increases failure risks, for the spurious benefit of a minor convenience.

What I've tried to do in this, and other, threads is simply educate recreational divers on the mindset of technical divers - whereby a minor convenience (a 'want') is largely irrelevant in comparison to applying principles ('needs') of simplicity, life support redundancy and reliability.

In all honesty, adding AI to a Shearwater would have little impact on a technical diver who choose not to use it. There might be more complexity to the menu architecture and a price increase. As a technical diver, my rationalization is that some drawbacks versus no benefits is a bad trade-off. So that's what drives my opinion.

If Shearwater intends to create dedicated technical diving instruments, then adding AI is a departure from their intentions. If, however, they saw benefit in creating more general diving instruments, with a wider spectrum of features that appealed to a wider demographic of (recreational) divers, then AI would be one of many functions they could consider adding.

All I can say is that with the Predator and Petrel they got the balance just right for technical diving. Changing that formula might have a negative impact on their perceived desirability in the tech community.

Personally, I can see that recreational divers have very little 'need' for many of the functions and features they profess to 'want'. There are also many, many recreational diving computers on the market. In contrast, there are very few dedicated technical diving computers in production. Until now, I've seen no real justification for watering down a market-leading niche product just to satisfy the wants and whims of divers that product (... the company) never sought to appeal to.