Air integrated computer and tec diving

[JohnnyC]

Like I said.... I call BS on 95% of these claims.

I hear it all the time on the internet, or in the bar... but never see it being practiced in the water....

I don't know your skill as a diver, only your claims on the Internet.



The point being.... they don't. But they'll contentedly rely upon it (in theory) as a means to avoid wearing an 'uncool' dual-bladder wing. Skills are perishable... even even IF this was taught in training, it isn't on many dives (1?) and then never repeated. Basically... it's not a reliable skill. People gamble on never having a wing failure... or if so, hope they can muddle through an ascent ok... which is hardly an appropriate technical diving mindset.



Yes...and students conduct proper ascents using their wing on every dive... hence the improvement. They don't use a lift-bag... hence no skill development for that.

Is there one agency that supports lift-bags for redundancy that actually mandates one (or more!?) practice ascents using this method in training?



Note: Incapacitated. That can mean a lot of things... Cramp? IBCD? Blown ear-drum? Environmental or marine life injury?



Let's not be pedantic. I was giving examples of a plethora of scenarios that could significantly undermine an attempt to ascend via lift-bag. Stuff that can be handled on a wing, but not whilst having to deploy, fill, hold and control a lift-bag. Don't be inane to suggest I was stating they'd all happen simultaneously. I have sufficient doubts of 95% people handling a single problem whilst ascending on a lift bag..... I don't need to go overboard.



If I read your bio correctly, you're only trained to ER level? So you've not really got the experience to talk about the weighting issues inherent with deep mixed-gas diving? Expand your horizons, because the debate isn't limited to the reach of your experiences alone...



...and yet it's killed divers with infinitely more experience and training than yourself.



Nothing theoretical. That's your bailiwick, it seems.

Neither did I say "no one". I said 95%. That's an estimation, but it's based on more than a decade of full-time observation.



I very clearly ASKED if you were a plonker. You very kindly answered.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're pretty funny. Thanks for reminding me I should probably update my profile. You have a great way of picking and choosing what to address. I guess that's because you air-of-superiority can't seem to stand up to full scrutiny.

I still don't know what a plonker is. I also don't know what balliwick is, but I'm sure you're full of it. However, a British friend said it would be appropriate to call you a tw*t. Have a wonderful day chicken little!

 

[Storker]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

I think some of the posters in this thread could benefit from dialing it down a bit. Remember the ToS for Scubaboard:

Profane, racial, insulting or mean spirited language is simply not allowed here [...] There is never sufficient reason to resort to personal attacks.

So breathe in, breathe out and count to ten before you hit "Post"

---

 

[Centrals]

Are we going to resurrect "stroke" after all these yrs?

 

[Jared0425]

All the OP asked was if his cobra would be sufficient in deep diving. Not anything to do with bladders and redundancy skills. So simply put a computer would be fine as long as an analog gauge instrument was also present. Plain and simply put there are 1000s of opinions between all of us and there is no truly right or wrong answers.

 

[PfcAJ]

Are we going to resurrect "stroke" after all these yrs?

Can I please?

 

[doctormike]

All the OP asked was if his cobra would be sufficient in deep diving. Not anything to do with bladders and redundancy skills.

It's an online conversation, not a legal deposition.

Plain and simply put there are 1000s of opinions between all of us and there is no truly right or wrong answers.

There are people here with a lot of experience and insight to share. What's the point of commenting at all, if the answer to any question is "whatever"...?

 

[DevonDiver]

When did 'redundancy' become out of vogue in the tech world?

With regards buoyancy... it was at the time a caving agency said dual bladder wings were dangerous and insisted a balanced rig was sufficient.... then changed its mind after fatalities... but trapped in dogma, still couldn't support dual bladder wings... so the acolytes now have to sit in wash tanks to prevent heat exhaustion in their drysuits...

With regards the redundancy of everything else.... well 'redundancy' was never in vogue. Redundancy of life support was.... on the premise that the diver intelligently and honestly examines redundancy on a basis of benefit versus risk. Of course, in conjunction with other principles, like K.I.S.S.

... Like I said, point out a single tech diver who has had an injury because of an AI transmitter or hose. It's a mythical problem that is not written in blood anywhere. How did you put it? It's just some BS on the internet at this point. Point in fact, You already dive with two SPGs on your side mount rigs. What's the real difference here?

Like I said.... read what's written, not what you assume.

I've been agreeing with you since the start Pete, quite clearly and emphatically. Debate is a process of transmission and reception. Be open to recieve...

---------- Post added January 6th, 2016 at 02:27 PM ----------

What's the point of commenting at all, if the answer to any question is "whatever"...?

Very correct. It's indicative of the fact that technical diving is being discussed in a non-tech venue. Thus we see 'opinions' being voiced that are contrary to the most basic principles, philosophies and mindset fostered in tech training and amongst the tech community.

.... and it's the internet.... so everyone has an equal right to voice their opinion, no matter how uninformed on the topic they may be..

If this were a recreational diving thread, there'd be literally no solid argument against people attaching whatever superfluous and unnecessary crap to their rigs and D-rings they like.

But this isn't about rec diving.... and the OP asked specifically about tech diving/training..... so the answer lies in understanding the core, universal, principles that form a critical aspect of the Tech Diver mindset...

 

[jhh]

Are we going to resurrect "stroke" after all these yrs?

Nothing to resurrect, it's still alive and well. I got called a stroke just a few months ago because I had EMT shears instead of a stubby knife. The funny part was that I was on a boat headed to a monofilament covered wreck, where my shears make much more sense.

Moving back on topic: OP, if it adds redundancy when it works, go for it. If it breaks redundancy when it fails, well that's not good.

 

[Centrals]

Can I please?

Your choice!

 

[DevonDiver]

All the OP asked was if his cobra would be sufficient in deep diving. Not anything to do with bladders and redundancy skills. So simply put a computer would be fine as long as an analog gauge instrument was also present. Plain and simply put there are 1000s of opinions between all of us and there is no truly right or wrong answers.

No... He didn't.

What he asked was:

My next tech diving question. I have a Suunto Cobra air integrated console computer. I was considering using it as a back up to my Mares Nemo wide for tec 40 and 45.

1. Is this configuration okay?

2. If not, why?

Deep diving and technical diving is different terminology. A Deep course and Tec40/45 courses are world's apart..

I've taught many Tec40 and 45 courses. I get asked similar questions regularly.

The answer... from an educational objective.... isn't a simple YES/NO (it's not a GUE question, huh?). That's because the issue is all about exhibiting the appropriate technical diving mindset to safely interpret core and underlying tech principles.

The Tec40 and Tec45 courses teach this mindset, and these principles extensively. Demonstrating that mindset is a pass/fail criteria for qualification.

However, TecRec doesn't globally standardise equipment beyond honest application of core principles. Thus... there can be interpretation of specifics for a number of reasons. Some reasons may be relevant (regional or environmental concerns) and some maybe be irrelevant (and exhibit poor mindset)... like penny-pinching or corner-cutting.

The essence is that we should strive for an optimum solution. Safety is the first and paramount priority. Cost is a low priority. Safety stems from the principles that are taught. Principles that are learned from accidents and deaths.

"It doesn't kill many divers" is not good enough.

Neither is "It never happened to me.."

If a factor has killed someone... and abeen identified in tech community accident analysis as a principle violation... then there is a justification to consider it detrimental to safety. Tech divers shouldn't allow secondary objectives (budget, convenience etc) to over-ride primary principles.

In technical diving, the 'accident' chain is very short...and accidents are inherently less survivable. This gets increasingly severe as our diving expands in depth and duration. We don't allow elements that could provoke accidents. We eliminate those risks. No excuses, no exceptions

Recreational divers are used to longer accident chains. Even then, they invariably survive those accidents. Nobody can blame them for a less rigid application of principles. Nobody dies, right? The odds are against it ever happening... and if it does, you'll get away with it anyway.

What I advise the OP is to answer their own question. What are their true motives for considering this equipment choice? Because it is safest? Because it is optimal? .... or because it saves them the effort of selling their Cobra and the cost of an SPG and basic bottom timer...?

I can't speak for other tech instructors.... but that's how my lessons work. I don't dictate... I ask for honest justification. I want to see an appropriate mindset at work. Invariably, the student answers their own question.