Ontwreckdiver
Contributor
I have been diving a Suunto Cobra for over 20 years without any backup and it has never missed a beat. IF they still made the original Cobra, I would buy another one if mine ever dies.
Air Integrated Computers "Could Potentially Kill You."
- Thread starter Boston Breakwater
- Start date
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
- Messages
- 19,759
- Reaction score
- 18,612
- Location
- Philadelphia and Boynton Beach
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
As long as you are happy with the deco algorthm
God forbid we use modern technology to make life easier, safer, more convenient and more fun...
I started diving in early 70's and used tables all through the mid 80's. I switched to using dive computers, and was an early adopter and believer, in late 1987 and never looked back. I have NEVER used dive tables since 1987 and never missed a day of diving because of computer issues and I dive extensively all around the world. The myth about not trusting dive computers or "electronics underwater" is just that, a huge myth that some good folks propagate just like when some people don't trust automatic transmission and always insist manual transmission giving many irrelevant and very out of date rationalization.
How about I just prefer s manual transmission
One may like vanilla ice-cream and the other chocolate just based on difference in taste but this is different from insisting on propagating the false idea that dive computers or "dive electronics" are untrustworthy and all of the "stories" that accompany such discussions. I live in Libya now and I can remember only few years ago, probably less than ten years ago, many people would attack automatic transmissions and simply would not accept the idea of change and moving forward with what technology has to offer. I remember the day when my father almost kicked out of the family because I ordered a car for him with automatic transmission and insisted that I should change the order to car with manual trans. I spent several days convincing him that automatic is the way to go especially since the make and model of the car he wanted comes in automatic only. People accepted automatic transmissions when auto makers started making new cars with automatic transmission only and people had a difficult time finding new cars with manual trans. Now, since only few years ago, everyone forgot about the old arguments and they all buy automatic trans and now very few complain about them. Their fears about reliability were self propagated myths nothing more.
I recognize that people just simply like/love/want manual transmission and that is all they accept especially in some special cars with "sporty" design but these people are the extreme minority.
Years ago, I worked on dive boats, both in he US and abroad; and there were frequently failures of electronic gear among the tourists, especially air integrated computers, with and without transmitters, for whatever reason -- so much so, that there was a milk crate full of cheap-scheiß SPGs, to cover them in event a failure occurred. More often than not, few gauges remained, after a few days; and I was usually tapped to lead a refresher on tables.
No, I don't rely entirely upon air integrated computers or electronics; but use them, regularly; and carry analogue back-ups. I also have tables, which date from the late 1970s; and they too have been put to use as well . . .
I have owned a dive center and lead groups diving all over the world so many times since 1987, sometimes the groups exceeded 20 divers in addition to extensive local diving in New England, NY and NJ and I have NEVER seen such extent of failures you are talking about even though all of my divers used a dive computer. There were occasional failures for one particular brand and model in their early 3 - 4 years of making hoseless AI DC's but they were pioneers in that technology and some others but nothing even close to what you describe.
I would attribute many of the failures to weekend warriors who don't maintain their own gear; don't even bother to check equipment, exiled to a hall closet for eight months -- before heading on some colossally expensive annual trips. They're legion.
For a while, there were nasty issues with depth sensors or buggy software in several Suunto products (there was even a class action suit, if I recall). They were all the rage at the time; seemed everyone had them on hand. D6s, D9s, Vytecs, giving off erroneous depth readings; erroneous gas readings; going into hours-long violation modes on the first dive of the day.
Just a taste of that Suunto magic:
"The software bug may activate when the D9 and D6 automatically recalibrate to keep the correct time, or the user manually updates the seconds in set mode. Suunto approximates that there is 0.6 % chance that the software bug may appear during a dive. When the dive time is incorrect, every fourth second is not registered in the dive time and surface interval time, i.e., dive time goes 25% slower than actual time and tissue loadings are recorded at 25% less than actual loadings." -- certainly, not trustworthy on repetitive dives, 100 nautical miles at sea.
Another brand, whose transmitters were notorious for developing cracks; whose fragility made them inclined to be sheared off due to all-too common mishandling or a sudden tank fall, whose make -- Shearwater? -- escapes me for the moment; Shearwater, who experienced transmitter interval interferences (which did involve a recall), where one transmitter could potentially affect another; serial floods; or, even the use of esoteric battery models -- Suunto, yet again -- which couldn't easily be replaced, in the field. How many LS 14250s do you have, laying about, in your battery drawer?
My first air integrated computer was an Oceanic Datamax Pro, circa 1992, a brick -- two of which wouldn't boot-up on a new battery, while still in shop; two others, which flooded, fresh out of the box -- "bad o-ring batch," I was later told, by the manufacturer. I've gone through three Suunto non-AI Solutions; a couple of Cobras; an Aeris; a Cochran; a Uwatech, over the years. I'm back, using a Cobra 2, while it lasts -- its depth sensor is a-ok and gas consumption perfectly mirrors my SPG -- and, on occasion, a Poseidon M28, set to open circuit.
In all those years, I haven't replaced my SPG . . .
For a while, there were nasty issues with depth sensors or buggy software in several Suunto products (there was even a class action suit, if I recall). They were all the rage at the time; seemed everyone had them on hand. D6s, D9s, Vytecs, giving off erroneous depth readings; erroneous gas readings; going into hours-long violation modes on the first dive of the day.
Just a taste of that Suunto magic:
"The software bug may activate when the D9 and D6 automatically recalibrate to keep the correct time, or the user manually updates the seconds in set mode. Suunto approximates that there is 0.6 % chance that the software bug may appear during a dive. When the dive time is incorrect, every fourth second is not registered in the dive time and surface interval time, i.e., dive time goes 25% slower than actual time and tissue loadings are recorded at 25% less than actual loadings." -- certainly, not trustworthy on repetitive dives, 100 nautical miles at sea.
Another brand, whose transmitters were notorious for developing cracks; whose fragility made them inclined to be sheared off due to all-too common mishandling or a sudden tank fall, whose make -- Shearwater? -- escapes me for the moment; Shearwater, who experienced transmitter interval interferences (which did involve a recall), where one transmitter could potentially affect another; serial floods; or, even the use of esoteric battery models -- Suunto, yet again -- which couldn't easily be replaced, in the field. How many LS 14250s do you have, laying about, in your battery drawer?
My first air integrated computer was an Oceanic Datamax Pro, circa 1992, a brick -- two of which wouldn't boot-up on a new battery, while still in shop; two others, which flooded, fresh out of the box -- "bad o-ring batch," I was later told, by the manufacturer. I've gone through three Suunto non-AI Solutions; a couple of Cobras; an Aeris; a Cochran; a Uwatech, over the years. I'm back, using a Cobra 2, while it lasts -- its depth sensor is a-ok and gas consumption perfectly mirrors my SPG -- and, on occasion, a Poseidon M28, set to open circuit.
In all those years, I haven't replaced my SPG . . .
clownfishsydney
Contributor
I have no idea if the newer computers are more reliable than the first air integrated ones. I had an Aladin Air-X back in 1994 and it was not too good on the consistency of link for the air. So many times it would drop out at depth. Luckily for most dives I knew what it said before and the fact that I would not be anyway near low on air and could continue the dive.
However, on a dive on the San Francisco Maru in Chuuk Lagoon 55 to 60 metres), I looked at it and thought, well, the tank pressure does not appear to have changed for a while, I should have a lot less air than what it was showing so I started an ascent. Turns out I surfaced with about 30 bar, normally I would end up with 60 bar or so for the same dive. From then on I put a pressure gauge on my first stage.
However, on a dive on the San Francisco Maru in Chuuk Lagoon 55 to 60 metres), I looked at it and thought, well, the tank pressure does not appear to have changed for a while, I should have a lot less air than what it was showing so I started an ascent. Turns out I surfaced with about 30 bar, normally I would end up with 60 bar or so for the same dive. From then on I put a pressure gauge on my first stage.
Well, but in my (very limited) cases, computer and analog equipment did both agree perfectly on maximum depth and total diving time. Of course the real diving profile was not spent at max depth for the whole time, so I was expecting the tables to require more deco than the computer. It appears, instead, that for the very same "square" profile the Leonardo computer is less tolerant than the old US Navy tables.
My diving profile was not perfectly square, of course, but probably it was "square enough" for the computer to require more deco time than the tables.
I suppose that now, having both computer and traditional timer - depth meter, following always the more conservative of the two systems is providing me with additional safety, which is good.
As I have this config since less than one year, and made only very few dives with it, I have definitely not enough experience for evaluating the behaviour of this computer. I hope that we are allowed to go to the sea again in a couple of months, so I will be able to test it in a larger number of cases.
What I did not understand is why @tursiops wrote that it is not recommended to use this computer for deco.
Should I ignore it whenever I exceed NDL, and simply use the tables? Why?
If it asks me to make some more minutes of deco stop (as it did), I found it to be conservative to follow its indication. What's the problem doing all the deco it is asking for? I see no danger in following the computer, when it is more conservative than the tables. Of course, if the tables are requiring more deco than the computer, I will follow the tables (as I always did for 45 years).
Similar threads
