Air integrated computer and tec diving

[KevinNM]

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.

That's pretty much the way the GUE instructors approached people like me questioning the received wisdom. They didn't says I couldn't use an air integrated computer, but offered reasons to not do it, and later pointed out that the transmitter was why I couldn't reach the valve. At which point I gave in. And while I could use a hp hose to work around this, it's not that big a deal.

 

[boulderjohn]

This thread may have set a modern record for most changes in topic per total number of posts. I will try to respond to an early topic.

As someone getting into Tech, this post has been informative. I am curious tho. How many Tec divers use computers as opposed to plain old Bottom Timers?

When I started tech training, it was with an organization (as you know) that did not allow computers for diving planning or execution. We could use bottom timers or computers in gauge mode. The standard bottom timer was made by Uwatec. The ones who used computers in gauge mode did it because they already had it and did not want to spend the money for a new bottom timer.

People argued--as some have in this thread--that bottom timers are better because they are more reliable. I don't understand that. A bottom timer like the Uwatec is nothing but a computer with fewer features. I don't see why it would be any more reliable than a computer in gauge mode.

The only advantage that I see of repurposing your old AI computer would be saving a relatively small amount of money (in a sport where you can easily spend $1400 on a flashlight).

There is a second advantage, one that two of my friends in that diving group discovered.

They were diving as directed, following a plan and then using their bottom timers to direct their ascents as they followed their written plan. One of them had a computer in gauge mode.

After they both got bent, they were able to hook the computer up to a laptop and print out the dive profile to see how very far it was from the profile they had planned and truly thought they had followed.

 

[The Chairman]

That's pretty much the way the GUE instructors approached people like me questioning the received wisdom.

Did they tell you that it was written in blood too? That's what transcends this opinion from being reasonable to just plain over the top. Trying to scare people into your way of thinking just rubs me the wrong way. It's like the Scuba version of Reefer Madness!

Cobra Madness!!!
...it's written in blood!!!
​

 

[doctormike]

The only advantage that I see of repurposing your old AI computer would be saving a relatively small amount of money (in a sport where you can easily spend $1400 on a flashlight).

There is a second advantage, one that two of my friends in that diving group discovered.

They were diving as directed, following a plan and then using their bottom timers to direct their ascents as they followed their written plan. One of them had a computer in gauge mode.

After they both got bent, they were able to hook the computer up to a laptop and print out the dive profile to see how very far it was from the profile they had planned and truly thought they had followed.

The OP already has a computer for data logging - his Mares - which he plans to use for his tech training. He was asking about using the second computer as a backup.

 

[boulderjohn]

The OP already has a computer for data logging - his Mares - which he plans to use for his tech training. He was asking about using the second computer as a backup.

And you will no doubt note after further review that I was responding to a question by Captain Sinbad and a specific comment by you that related to that question.

 

[doctormike]

And you will no doubt note after further review that I was responding to a question by Captain Sinbad and a specific comment by you that related to that question.

OK, kind of a side issue, but you quoted my comment (which was a direct reply to the OP), in which I said to the OP that there was one advantage of doing what he wanted to do (use his Mares as a DC and the Suunto as a backup SPG), and that was to save a bit of money.

You replied to me that there was another advantage, that having a DC can be used for profile analysis. And I said "well, he already has one DC for that". But I guess you are saying that your reply to me was meant for Captain Sinbad?

In any case, a side issue, and not very important...

 

[Veritably337]

As the OP, I'll clarify. I'm not trying to be cavalier with tec. I'll likely by wrist mounted computer as a back up. I was curious about the idea of a failure point v redundancy. Each hose is a potential failure point. Theoretically we could reduce that by just diving one LP and 1 HP, but clearly we would lack redundancy and safety. How much of a failure threat is an HP hose with computer as a back up only when an HP hose would release gas slower than the LP hose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Chairman]

How much of a failure threat is an HP hose with computer as a back up only when an HP hose would release gas slower than the LP hose.

With normal care and service? Probably nil. I am shocked how many people have their regs serviced and never know if the spool o-rings were changed. Change those yearly, and you'll never have an issue. No need to fear something that normal care will prevent. Diving with neglected gear should not be a tech diver value. It's certainly not for me.

 

[decompression]

Again... the difference between 'could' and 'should'.

Nobody argues x, y or z doesn't "work"..... but it violates certain principles in technical diving. Those principles were written in the blood of pioneers.

To publicly state that something is "great", when it violates key tech principles is either on the basis of vast research... or vast ego.

Personally, I like to trial new approaches and options. The emphasis is on the word "trial". Even if it "works", there's no conclusive proof it's safer. Proving safety take a larger sample size and longer time.

Approaches should be proven safe before they're publicly recommended or vouched for. Opinions are different from recommendations. When people could die, there needs to be more personal responsibility taken for opinions and recommendations..... even on anonymous social media.

I increasingly see very 'recreational' mindsets evident in technical diving discussions. It's worrying. I can only conclude that it's a consequence of certain mainstream *recreational* diving agencies venturing into the technical market and offering fast-track IT and instructor courses to improve their market share. For a novice technical diver, the lessons are hypothetical.... but for instructors and ITs they should be known from practical experience.

There's a disconnect.... and it's increasingly evident.

Good to have you back Andy!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Patoux01]

Change those yearly, and you'll never have an issue.

Really? The spool o-ring on my spg failed after 20 dives or so, that's basically within 3 months of having those regs/spgs, they were brand new. And my gear is far from being neglected.