Average Depth Diving?

[MXGratefulDiver]

A computer is a device that helps you too see where the edge of the cliff is. You get to choose how close you want to stand to it. The problem is that so many of the computers out there have become so conservative that you no longer know where the cliff is, just that its somewhere over there and that inefficiency frustrates people.

The thing that I don't understand is the Luddite approach of many of the averaging adherents; average depth diving is an obvious potential computer application. It is not hard to envision a dive computer that can do both "conventional" and averaging calculations and show you were you stand from both perspectives.

I'm not sure about Luddites, but my issue with dive computers is that people often rely on them to the point where they stop thinking about what they're doing and just let the computer do their "thinking" for them. They often don't understand what the computer's telling them ... and it sometimes gets them into trouble.

Those who eschew computers are often doing so because they want to develop and maintain that understanding through practical application ... preferring to use their "built-in" computer in such a manner as to establish that understanding as part of their regular diving regimen.

It's not so much that computers are bad (I hope not ... I use one regularly) so much as that people have a tendency to use them to develop bad habits ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Charlie99]

I'm not sure about Luddites, but my issue with dive computers is that people often rely on them to the point where they stop thinking about what they're doing and just let the computer do their "thinking" for them. They often don't understand what the computer's telling them ... and it sometimes gets them into trouble.

Agreed. But do you think that those people that overly rely upon their computer are going to be "saved" by vague references to a depth averaging method?

Were I to become king for the day and be able to change diver education practices, my priority wouldn't be to eliminate computers, but instead would be to teach everyone improved ascent profiles.

Ascent profiles can be chosen independently of how one tracks NDL or depth & time.

 

[Thalassamania]

I agree whole-heartedly. But that is solved by fixing the problems with diver education, not by anathematizing computers, no?

 

[Rick Murchison]

Agreed. But do you think that those people that overly rely upon their computer are going to be "saved" by vague references to a depth averaging method?

Were I to become king for the day and be able to change diver education practices, my priority wouldn't be to eliminate computers, but instead would be to teach everyone improved ascent profiles.

Ascent profiles can be chosen independently of how one tracks NDL or depth & time.

An excellent point. I would begin with the ascent from the safety stop... as an informal "survey" I decided several years ago to time folks from the safety stop to the surface. I timed hundreds and hundreds of them over 5 or 6 years, in the Gulf, in the Bahamas, in the Caribbean. Divers from all over the States and Europe and Asia. Even a few Aussies.
Average time??? Under 7 seconds, about 140 ft/min!
Ask any one of these folks if they made a safe ascent according to the tables or computer and they'd invariably say "yes."
Looking through Open Water texts at the time (perhaps there have been some revisions but I doubt it) the casual reader - most students - would be led to believe that the dive ends with a safety stop; next step, get out of the water. I try - and I emphasize "try" - to teach my students to take a full minute from the safety stop to the surface; even make 'em practice it with me. But my bet is that most of 'em go right to "what everybody else does" once they're out of my sight.
Pet peeve of mine.
Rick

 

[Thalassamania]

That jibes with acent rates measured by some UCLA researchers over twenty years ago. And those were, as I recall, from 60 ft!

 

[Rick Murchison]

That jibes with acent rates measured by some UCLA researchers over twenty years ago. And those were, as I recall, from 60 ft!

Yeah, but at least in those days we were supposed to be shooting for 60 fpm, following some mythical "smallest bubble" and so... had an excuse... sort of...
Oh, and it was more like 30 - 35 years ago, wasn't it??? Are we getting a little long in the tooth?
Rick

 

[Thalassamania]

Could be, time flies when your havin' fun. Don't you know, everything happened "about 20 years ago."<G>

 

[Rick Murchison]

Could be, time flies when your havin' fun. Don't you know, everything happened "about 20 years ago."<G>

Yeah, I have a habit of saying that too... then when I realize 20 years ago was only 1986... man, that was just yesterday!... that's when I realize that most of the time when I say 20 years ago I ought to be saying 40.
AAaarrrggghhhh!
Oh, well, beats hell out of the alternative, eh?
Rick

 

[GreenDiverDown]

Pet peeve of mine.

Mine, too! I see it all the time... safety stop done... time to get out. Zoom!

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Agreed. But do you think that those people that overly rely upon their computer are going to be "saved" by vague references to a depth averaging method?

Well, I have two thoughts to contribute on this point ...

The first ... since some people do depth averaging, I see it as a valid topic of discussion. Vague references are only vague to those who don't practice this method. Doesn't that apply to many aspects of diving ... like spearfishing, solo diving, and DIR? To some people it's a passion, to others it's a total turnoff ... something they might be passionately against even though they've never tried it. In which case, references will necessarily be vague because there's no experiential context around which to get specific. In this case, passion is typically borne of misunderstanding about why people do what they do ... and discussing the subject could be helpful if people would be open to listening rather than simply trying to repudiate the other person's POV.

Second ... the depth averaging discussions I've seen here always come with caveats that you should not use this method unless you understand the principles behind it. Frankly, it works for a lot of people.

Those who eschew computers are no different than those who aschew other types of gear ... and there seems to always be a lot of gear-centric discussions going on in here.

Were I to become king for the day and be able to change diver education practices, my priority wouldn't be to eliminate computers, but instead would be to teach everyone improved ascent profiles.

Well, you don't have to become a king ... simply a dive instructor. I long ago decided I can only change diver behavior one diver at a time ... and I apply myself to doing so every chance I get. But I do agree with you that diver education encourages people to be lazy and rely on technology rather than comprehend what the technology can help them accomplish.

Ascent profiles can be chosen independently of how one tracks NDL or depth & time.

Yup ... and that's why I think these discussions have value ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)