computer dependent divers...

[Jason B]

Assuming that having analogue instruments somehow makes a diver more alert or that having a computer somehow makes a diver less alert is....well....nonsense.

I wasn't trying to insinuate that analog was superior to digital, it was the info they are looking at that I was referring to.

and they should have a pretty good idea of max attainable depth prior to entering the water. Your remarks actually make you a candidate for DCS if that's how you dive.

now you are a submarine? I venture to guess differently. Did I ever say I jump in the water having no dive plan?

No - if they have a computer they need to know the NDL time remaining. Max depth and time on a multilevel rec dive will tell them they are bent when they are not.

Again, did I say I jump in the water with no dive plan? There are other ways to calculate a multilevel dive without relying on a computer to tell you how much time you have left after the fact. Following the computer screen is not diving a predetermined dive plan and I was taught to plan my dive and dive my plan.

 

[simbrooks]

What exactly do you mean?

Although not speaking for Shaka, i think i know what he means and what TwoBitTxn was alluding to in the first line of post #10 - this subject has gone around and around, same arguements for and against - dead horse beaten once more, but maybe by some new whip holders and the old hands back in again.

I use my computer, during and after my dive i know my max depth to within a foot, BT to within a minute, have a good idea what my tabled NDL should be, even a good estimate on a repetative dive NDL after a decent SI (>1 hour) - but i do look to see what the computer says as well. However once i have done that set of dives for the day, when i come to log it a few days later, it is easier to zip through the computer log to get the pertinent details than my slate.

 

[TwoBitTxn]

My whole point is that they never look at the computer for the relevant data (max depth and time). They should know their max depth and time before they are within 15 feet of the surface or they me be a candidate for DCS.

People don't look at their computer when they have one. They don't look at their air guage. They don't look at their depth guage. They don't watch their bottom time.

It doesn't make a difference what kind of equipment an individual is diving. At least most computers have a somewhat audible alarm that goes off when it goes into deco. Now does the operator have any idea what it means? That's a different story.

TwoBit

 

[Scubakevdm]

They should know their max depth and time before they are within 15 feet of the surface or they me be a candidate for DCS.

How do you dive your plan if you don't know what your max depth was until you're at 15' on your ascent?

 

[Jason B]

scubakevdm, as a navy vet myself, I know that you know exactly what I was meaning when I wrote that statement.

Once I hit my max depth, I know my max depth for the remainder of the dive

why do you see the need to be so crass when posting on scubaboard?

 

[perpet1]

Again, did I say I jump in the water with no dive plan? There are other ways to calculate a multilevel dive without relying on a computer to tell you how much time you have left after the fact. Following the computer screen is not diving a predetermined dive plan and I was taught to plan my dive and dive my plan.

You know I see no point of this thread. Do you believe dive computers are unsafe? Your arguements lead me to believe this.

Dive computers have a demonstrated track record of safety for recreational divers. I think a dive computer is as safe as the person using it in that the person needs to know how to use it and what to do if something goes wrong. It is completly unrealistic for you to expect that a person using a computer will back it up with a table afterall they are diving a computer for the ease of it. I will agree with you that there are a lot of divers out there that have no understanding of the tables and use a computer because it is an easy way to avoid the concepts involved and this is bad.

This whole discussion changes if we are talking about tech diving but we are talking about recreational diving.

 

[Diver0001]

I wasn't trying to insinuate that analog was superior to digital, it was the info they are looking at that I was referring to.

....snip....

Oh I see.

In that case you're right about one thing.... Many computers present the NDL in the middle of the screen in much larger numbers than all of the other information. I have one that presents current depth in the middle of the screen and that could have a big influence on which information you remember best.

R..

 

[Jason B]

You know I see no point of this thread. Do you believe dive computers are unsafe? Your arguements lead me to believe this.

Again, I'm not bashing computers at all. I'm not trying to claim that analog is better (unless we start talking guitar effects, then analog rules supreme!).

Many computers present the NDL in the middle of the screen in much larger numbers than all of the other information

good point.

 

[miketsp]

If each diver in a buddy pair has a computer then I see no problem using computers to record dive time and max depth.

Although personally, when I dive with my wife, between us we have 2 dive computers, 1 dive watch (Citizen - showing max depth & dive time), one normal watch and at least one set of dive tables, most of which I can recite from memory - at least in the normal rec range.
I think even with a multiple failure we can get back up safely.

As for remembering the reading you took, the whole concept of modern ergonomic instrument design is that you don't have to remember the reading, you remember the trend, hence the use of red sectors, green sectors, bar graphs etc.

 

[pasley]

Then how do you plan out the second dive in a repetitive series?

Very easy and the same way you know, I look at my instruments. In my case, a computer which tells me precisely my bottom time (and I don't have to remember to start the clock either) and my max depth. Really not an issue. What is the point of committing this to memory? Answer IMHO none.

You will have taken in Nitrogen during your first dive. Without knowing how long you spent at what depths coupled with your surface interval, you'd be diving "blind" for your second dive.

Why does a computer diver not know this? I know exactly and with more precision than you do how long I was at depth. My computer will also assist me in my planning by factoring exactly how long I spent at every point and depth of my dive based upon samplings every 10 seconds. That will be way more accurate that the snap shots from my memory of the times I looked at my gauges every 5 minutes or so. So again there is no problem.

(Please don't say you let your computer "tell" you how long you have for your second or third repetitive dives........ you should understand at least the basics of repetitive dive planning)

Why not? Yes I understand the basics but why do it the hard way with technology is available? Do you write letters because you should know the basics of how to do it, or send e-mail when available? That is essentially your argument. I understand the benefits of modern technology that will not miss calculate something because I am tired or distracted, or just old and temporarily forget the correct procedure. The computer will do the computations with more precision than I ever could and consistently so. Yes, I know the basics and enough to know if the computer gives me a figure form left field because it has gone haywire. Technology is devised to make life simpler. Some choose to eschew some of it and other to eschew all of it and live an Amish existence, others do not. That does not make either wrong. Each does what is best for them.

You choose to manually do all the calculations based upon the data point you looked at during the dive and still remember. I choose to have a computer do the same thing based upon every 10 seconds of my last dive or dives. That is why they make Fords and Chevy's, to each their own.

Happy diving.