Air Integrated Computers "Could Potentially Kill You."

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

scubadada

Diver
Staff member
ScubaBoard Supporter
Messages
14,992
Reaction score
11,814
Location
Philadelphia and Boynton Beach
# of dives
1000 - 2499
Who keeps those records?

Risk management is ultimately an individual termination based on facts available, life experience, personal bias, knowledge, of in this case the weakness of digital tech and potential if not recorded failure points in their equipment and how it applies to their type of diving. Then there is the risk benefit trade off. Some divers don't need a computer to calculate how much time they have at depth with the air remaining in their tank. Some divers learned to dive pre-computer / AI for them the risk /benefit is questionable.

All of this of course is one diver's opinion.
I learned to dive in 1970 with a J valve, capillary depth gauge, watch, and USN tables. Now I dive nitrox and AI computers. You can dive all kinds of ways, it's not necessary to change with the times.
 

AfterDark

Contributor
Messages
10,979
Reaction score
7,990
Location
Rhode Island, USA
# of dives
1000 - 2499
I learned to dive in 1970 with a J valve, capillary depth gauge, watch, and USN tables. Now I dive nitrox and AI computers. You can dive all kinds of ways, it's not necessary to change with the times.

Some changes are on their face indisputable. Not many divers didn't see the benefit of an SPG over a J valve.
I don't remember much resistance to the BCD either, although I did dive with a die hard BCD opponent that I finally wore down into trying my horse collar for one dive. The next dive he had one. The benefits of some changes are self evident, IMO AI doesn't fit that slot.

Other changes are "conditional" Although it had a rough start Nitrox enjoys wide usage but some of that usage is based on some subjective reasons; feeling "better" after a dive for example. I've never found that effect, there other practical reasons I don't use nitrox although I do have the card. AI IMO is one of those changes in equipment that fits the "conditional" slot.

We all dive one way, we go down, swim around, and then come up, but we do it with different equipment configurations.
 

pauldw

Contributor
Messages
652
Reaction score
831
Location
America the Beautiful
Yeah, I suppose it's possible an air integrated computer could kill you if it fails on a dive. I'm not sure how, since if you're inclined to ignore a malfunctioning computer and press on, you're probably also inclined to ignore a malfunctioning mechanical gauge. But it's more likely that a malfunctioning AI computer will not kill you but will actually make your dive safer. Because when it malfunctions, you end the dive. Which is safer than doing what you otherwise probably would have done: continuing to dive until your computer shows you're close to your dive plan's limits. So how is a shorter dive more likely to kill you than a longer dive?
 

scubadada

Diver
Staff member
ScubaBoard Supporter
Messages
14,992
Reaction score
11,814
Location
Philadelphia and Boynton Beach
# of dives
1000 - 2499
...Other changes are "conditional" Although it had a rough start Nitrox enjoys wide usage but some of that usage is based on some subjective reasons; feeling "better" after a dive for example. I've never found that effect, there other practical reasons I don't use nitrox although I do have the card. AI IMO is one of those changes in equipment that fits the "conditional" slot.

I'm with you, I dive nitrox only for the additional bottom time. That happens to be almost every dive I make. I can easily imagine dives where air would be just fine.
 

Boston Breakwater

"Outlaw." Solo Diver
Messages
522
Reaction score
503
Location
Brunswick, Georgia.
# of dives
None - Not Certified
Yeah, I suppose it's possible an air integrated computer could kill you if it fails on a dive. I'm not sure how, since if you're inclined to ignore a malfunctioning computer and press on, you're probably also inclined to ignore a malfunctioning mechanical gauge. But it's more likely that a malfunctioning AI computer will not kill you but will actually make your dive safer. Because when it malfunctions, you end the dive. Which is safer than doing what you otherwise probably would have done: continuing to dive until your computer shows you're close to your dive plan's limits. So how is a shorter dive more likely to kill you than a longer dive?
Hello. It seems most mention a loss of communication between the computer, and the transmitter.
Scenarios......(This is not aimed directly at you.) Your diving in a wreck, your making your way down a passageway, and misjudge the height of the hatchway hitting your A.I. transmitter. Could the brute force be enough to damage your transmitter, or even the threaded port that your transmitter is in causing an air leak? What if something fell on you from above? I personally dive a lot of wrecks, and an A.I. computer would not be used. I think these scenarios are within the realm of possibility. Again, in some of my other Posts....I firmly believe in using the right gear for the dive intended.
Cheers.
 

loosenit2

si respiratio sub aqua amet
Messages
932
Reaction score
1,106
Location
Virginia
# of dives
I'm a Fish!
Who keeps those records?

Risk management is ultimately an individual termination based on facts available, life experience, personal bias, knowledge, of in this case the weakness of digital tech and potential if not recorded failure points in their equipment and how it applies to their type of diving. Then there is the risk benefit trade off. Some divers don't need a computer to calculate how much time they have at depth with the air remaining in their tank. Some divers learned to dive pre-computer / AI for them the risk /benefit is questionable.

All of this of course is one diver's opinion.
There are two answers to your question on who keeps the records, the first is equipment manufacturers, who may or may not share the data for liability reasons.

The second,and really who I was talking about, is any agency or group promoting a specific gear requirement or configuration. Right now that is mostly the DIR agencies, those are the groups promoting the “failure point “ discussion” By and large they expect folks to use their directed equipment configuration but do not give any specific data to support the likelihood of failures in their failure points.

As a specific example. If someone is going to say you must use stainless steel cam bands or no plastic buckles I would expect you to provide some data that shows actual failure rates of plastic cam bands or buckles to support the requirement, not just anecdotal evidence that They once saw a cam band break. Alternatively if there is a higher risk of breakage a solution may be periodic replacement of that item. Another specific example might be requiring the use of spring heel straps in your fins vs bungee cord ones because the bungee cord is a failure point. Is there any systemic data to indicate that bungee cord heel straps break more often? Could a viable solution be that you must replace the bungee cord heel strap annually?

There is far too much dogma in some areas of diving rather than data driven risk management. What I am advocating is moving more and more towards data driven risk management models.
 

scubadada

Diver
Staff member
ScubaBoard Supporter
Messages
14,992
Reaction score
11,814
Location
Philadelphia and Boynton Beach
# of dives
1000 - 2499
Hello. It seems most mention a loss of communication between the computer, and the transmitter.
Scenarios......(This is not aimed directly at you.) You diving in a wreck, your making your way down a passageway, and misjudge the height of the hatchway hitting your A.I. transmitter. Could the brute force be enough to damage your transmitter, or even the threaded port that your transmitter is in causing an air leak? What if something fell on you from above? I personally dive a lot of wrecks, and an A.I. computer would not be used. I think these scenarios are within the realm of possibility. Again, in some of my other Posts....I firmly believe in using the right gear for the dive intended.
Cheers.
Attaching AI transmitter to the 1st stage
AI transmitter damage when directly connected to 1st stage
 

AfterDark

Contributor
Messages
10,979
Reaction score
7,990
Location
Rhode Island, USA
# of dives
1000 - 2499
There are two answers to your question on who keeps the records, the first is equipment manufacturers, who may or may not share the data for liability reasons.

The second,and really who I was talking about, is any agency or group promoting a specific gear requirement or configuration. Right now that is mostly the DIR agencies, those are the groups promoting the “failure point “ discussion” By and large they expect folks to use their directed equipment configuration but do not give any specific data to support the likelihood of failures in their failure points.

As a specific example. If someone is going to say you must use stainless steel cam bands or no plastic buckles I would expect you to provide some data that shows actual failure rates of plastic cam bands or buckles to support the requirement, not just anecdotal evidence that They once saw a cam band break. Alternatively if there is a higher risk of breakage a solution may be periodic replacement of that item. Another specific example might be requiring the use of spring heel straps in your fins vs bungee cord ones because the bungee cord is a failure point. Is there any systemic data to indicate that bungee cord heel straps break more often? Could a viable solution be that you must replace the bungee cord heel strap annually?

There is far too much dogma in some areas of diving rather than data driven risk management. What I am advocating is moving more and more towards data driven risk management models.

Oh I see where you're coming from, it's an expanded form of the LDS telling students that if they don't use brandX, that they sell, then death is just a dive away. These agencies are going further by telling people that if you don't use X then not only will you die but you may kill one or more of them also, without any data to backup their demands so, spend the money or dive elsewhere, ballsy. I get that.
That's enough to keep me away from those agencies, I dive locally, mostly solo so I do what's good for me, I probably don't have one piece of DIR approved gear.

@Boston Breakwater I believe that some cave divers don't use AI out of concern of damage from impact.

There's a lot of ideas these days that IMO are over rated and sometimes taken for fact when they are not.

I've lived my live above and underwater by the KISS principle with pretty good results.
 

Steve_C

Contributor
Rest in Peace
Messages
4,270
Reaction score
2,929
Location
Raleigh, NC USA
# of dives
500 - 999
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 examreliability.

For several of your examples the critera is financial, their finances. Personally that sounds like a trust me plan.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Top Bottom