Air Integrated Computers "Could Potentially Kill You."

[ScubaWithTurk]

I used to dive with SPGs but have since made the change to dual transmitters with my Perdix AI. I have never had a communication issue between the computer and the transmitter.


I love it for all the same reasons @tbone1004 stated above. I only use it to see remaining bar in my cylinders and in SM it is an absolute dream. No need to reach back to grab the spg. I just take a quick glance at my computer.

I have had multiple spools blow out but never a transmitter failure. If I did, I would do the same thing a diver using an SPG would do...I would thumb the dive and begin my ascent.

I believe Shearwater changed the game when it comes to reliable WAI.

 

[shoredivr]

I’ve watched two buddies have to bail on dives because their AI computers wouldn’t synch to their tanks. One was a Scubapro
Something or other and I don’t remember the other one, not a shearwater.

My two Perdix are not integrated.

 

[UTscuba]

Now on my 3rd computer, first was an oceanic pro plus 3 with air integrated hose, second was an Eon Core, and I've just bought a perdix ai and a pair of transmitters. I used the Eon Core with the wireless AI when I was diving backmount singles, but switched to dual SPGs when I dove sidemount doubles.

I liked the wireless AI on the Eon Core because I could read my dials without having to move a muscle, and diving wet in cold water that kept me warmer (at least it didn't cool me so quickly) and probably added a few minutes onto the length of the dive. But I do have a fundamental distrust of wireless communication, and I wasn't ever truly comfortable with it.

The plan going forward for sidemount doubles with the perdix is to keep the SPGs and add the transmitters as well, to have the benefit and convenience of AI, but with the SPGs providing a redundant backup if the AI fails.

 

[Mike1967]

The plan going forward for sidemount doubles with the perdix is to keep the SPGs and add the transmitters as well, to have the benefit and convenience of AI, but with the SPGs providing a redundant backup if the AI fails.

Transmitters down with lollipop SPGs?
Forget the SPGs, no one ran redundant SPGs before AI.

 

[Brett Hatch]

I used to dive with an analog SPG and a non-AI wrist-mounted computer, with a backup SPG in the dive bag and no backup computer. Recently acquired a Shearwater Teric with AI, which I use as my primary SPG and computer, and dive with the old computer and SPG as well for backups. Backup analog SPG is still in my dive back -- I guess I can take it out at this point, come to think of it.

Cannot speak to the reliability of the Shearwater + AI, since I am up to a grand total of 1 dive on it, although the reputation is of course solid. However I can say that it's pretty convenient, definitely more so than the analog SPG. Probably not worth the extra $1000 for the convenience alone, but I am looking to pursue tech training when the world goes back to normal, so it will hopefully go to good use.

In the mean time, it looks really cool

 

[Angelo Farina]

I did never thrust electronics underwater, nor I thrust nowadays. I prefer simple, old mechanical objects.
In the last 45 years I always employed just deco tables. The past summer I was forced to buy a computer as it was "mandatory" with the dive center I was going to. So I bought the chapest I found, a Cressi Leonardo for 99 Eur.
Hence now I have some redundancy, still using watch, mechanical depth gauge and tables, but having also the computer attached to my mechanical console. It provides a duplicate as bottom timer and depth gauge. So now the strategy is to always be conservative, and following the shortest NDL between tables and computer. With my surprise, I discovered that the computer can often indicate a shorter NDL (or longer deco times) than tables...
Regarding air management, I have always been very prudent, as I am still employing my old 15-liters, 200 bar cylinder, equipped with a valve with reserve and two independent posts. So I can use two fully independent regs, and I have an air reserve, in case my SPG fails. All being fully mechanical and proven by more than 30 years of usage, I do not plan to change anything in the next future.

 

[Mike1967]

I discovered that the computer can often indicate a shorter NDL

Please explain?

 

[ToneNQ]

With Suunto, in about 175 dives, I had one sync issue pre-dive that were saved with having the SPG. When I changed to the Perdix AI, I haven't had an issue nor seen an issue with other divers. It just works. For years I have carried an SPG on my main reg and never used it. The SPGs primary value was easily reading off my remaining air to the DM when I'm back on the boat.

I've just received a second transmitter to use AI in sidemount (no lollipops) and when I start doing CCR. I figure I'll leave the yellow transmitter installed on the left post when I backmount, it becomes the redundancy. I still have SPGs on my stage regs, but I only look at it at the end of the day to decide if it needs a refill for tomorrow.

I cannot see additional safety from having an SPG fitted. I'll need to be deliberate about transmitter batteries, might even carry an SPG in my reg bag as a 'save a dive' item. Every instrument is digital these days, there has not been capillary gauges in machinery for 25yrs, but we talk about AI like digital pressure monitoring is new and unproven. The wireless link was solved properly some time ago, for me there isn't a reason to stay analogue. Key thing is to be comfortable with your decision.

 

[AfterDark]

I notice almost all the AI users use SPG's as backup. I have a couple of analog SPGs backup for my analog SPG they live in a box in my dive locker. I see no need to bring a backup SPG with me but just in case I need another SPG I have one or two. I also have an SPG on my second regulator set used for ID's that reg set lives in my dive bag as total backup.
SPG's are a dime a dozen on Ebay these days, plus sometimes ya can get a Scubapro LS-1 compass along with the SPG.

 

[loosenit2]

It always amazes me that the discussions about failure points in scuba are never backed up by any data. In developing maintenance schedules for cars, airplanes and a host of other mechanical equipment they use a methodology called Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM). Fundamentally the approach tests components of the system to determine the probability of failure and then test the system as a whole to determine probability of failure. Based on an unacceptable probability of failure (time, miles etc) you insert a maintenance (inspection, replacement, service etc). After initial development equipment is monitored for performance in the field to determine if observed failures match predicted failures (it is sometimes different), and maintenance schedules are adjusted.

In SCUBA all of the discussions seem to revolve around some theoretical fear of "failure" and reducing what someone thinks is a "failure point". However, no-one ever has any systematic data to back up their idea. At best they have anecdotal evidence from an incident report or a story. We need to get a lot more systematic about our approach to failure points and reliability.