Air Integrated Computers "Could Potentially Kill You."

[Bigbella]

I have a ardent distrust of mixing rkectronics with salt water, and have seen my fair share of failures over the years -- both from consumer and design faults. My first AI computer was the Oceanic Datamax Pro, circa 1992, about the size of a brick, and notorious for flooding. I will never use a transmitter, having seen interminable failures over the years.

That said, I am one of those outliers, who haven't had an issue with Suunto products; and have the first and second generation of the Cobra; but I also carry analogue gauges, should the computers ever go tits-up . . .

 

[pauldw]

Well, the transmitter could explode sending high speed shrapnel into your body like a bullet and kill you......just ask suunto.

Or it could send a shard into the tank, turning it into a very effective scooter for awhile, and you'd get to see a lot more scenery before making an emergency ascent.

 

[tursiops]

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.

There is your answer.

 

[tursiops]

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...

Computer Cressi Leonardo
The Cressi Leonardo uses a very conservative algorithm, which may well have even more conservatism built into based on your diving behavior. Comparing it to tables of some sort is not straightforward, and using it for deco is definitely not recommended.
But I suppose one's personal experience with one weird computer is plenty from which to generalize.

 

[loosenit2]

There is your answer.

this is exactly what I was talking about. This is not systematic risk analysis, it is anecdotal evidence leading to unsupported conclusions. A buddy had a computer link to his transmitter fail so it must not be safe. I had a friend get in a car accident, should I not drive a car? I’ve known people who got food poisoning, should I never again eat?

 

[formernuke]

I’ve known people who got food poisoning, should I never again eat?

I've had food poisoning, guess I have to stop eating. New diet here i.come

 

[boulderjohn]

Computer Cressi Leonardo
The Cressi Leonardo uses a very conservative algorithm, which may well have even more conservatism built into based on your diving behavior. Comparing it to tables of some sort is not straightforward, and using it for deco is definitely not recommended.
But I suppose one's personal experience with one weird computer is plenty from which to generalize.

Here is another thought on that comparison.

A few years ago two friends of mine did a dive carefully following a table-based plan. When they both got bent, they wondered why. Fortunately, they had been using a computer in gauge mode as a bottom timer, so they were able to download the dive. They discovered that their careful adherence to their plan had not been as careful as they had thought.

So the difference can be that the computer is working off the dive you actually did in terms of depths and times, not the dive you think you did.

 

[Jcp2]

It’s interesting that we won’t trust air integrated computers as much as the manufacturer’s own claims, yet we are willing to push far beyond manufacturer’s recommendations with regards to regulator maintenance and tank pressures, amongst many other things.

 

[tursiops]

It’s interesting that we won’t trust air integrated computers as much as the manufacturer’s own claims, yet we are willing to push far beyond manufacturer’s recommendations with regards to regulator maintenance and tank pressures, amongst many other things.

Is this the same as, "You can't tell ME what to do! It's a free country...."

 

[Lostdiver71]

I have been using computers for a long time, my first computer from 1991 for instance.

I have been told many times that a newfangled piece of gear was going to get me killed starting with a Zeagle back inflate BCD in 1991!
My current computer is an Oceanic OCi with an Aeris Elite T3 as a backup, both computers are set up to receive signals from my transmitters. I have a transmitter on a short hose on my primary regulator and a transmitter on my pony bottle along with a button gauge on the pony in case I need to hand it off to someone. I am also using an Atomic Air2 style combo inflator as my primary backup is my pony bottle. In my experience well maintained gear rarely fails and if a transmitter on my primary fails I end the dive just like I would if an SPG failed. When I get back into tech diving down to 150ft later this year, with double 72's, I plan on adding a transmitter to the regulator on my deco bottle and also having a transmitter on my secondary regulator on the doubles, as a backup, no analog gauges needed and 3 less hoses to route. The argument that a transmitter could be broken off is valid but a hose can also be ruptured by striking it on the roof of an overhead also. Any piece of gear can fail at any minute, the important thing to have is a plan if something fails!
My current computer.