Braunbehrens once bubbled...
I'll add a rebuttal to your rebuttal. Soon we'll be swimming in butts.
Just kidding, thought I'd elaborate on a few points:
I'll just preface this by saying that there is a difference between the way I dive and my advocacy of puddlestoming. I think puddlestomping is a valid paradigm for diving (not necessarily for me, although I will admit to a certain amount of puddlestomping, as most divers probably would if they didn't worry so much about others laughing at them - I don't care) and not everyone wants to become a serious diver.
Every single dive you do is a deco dive.
I hear this a lot but I'll add that staying within your NDLs, if you want to call that a deco dive, is a very *different* kind of deco dive than it is when you overstay your NDL's. JJ's point was about planning. When you're planning on overstaying your NDL's you need JJ's type of planning. Anything less is sloppy at best and potentially dangerous. Puddlestompers, however are made to be afraid of their deco limits. That's why NDL is often in the middle of the screen. A puddlestomper has enough information in knowing 2 bits of information. (1) Am I within NDL's? and (2) what is my pressure. You can make a million safe dives in the puddlestomp paradigm without ever looking at your depth or bottom time. Issues such as zigzag profiles and fast ascents are definite worries but in the future you'll see computers getting more clever to adjust the NDL's down when divers make deco-unfriendly profiles. YOu wait.
<snip>
Even rec divers can benefit from understanding how deco works, and how to properly ascend from any dive.
You'll get no argument from me on that. But the fact is that a lot of divers don't care aobut how deco works. And everyone is trained to make slow ascents. If puddlestompers followed their OW training to the letter their dives would be very safe. And frankly, we're talking about a marginal issue here as far as safety goes. 60% of fatal incidents involve buoyacny prpoblems and 30% OOA. Most undeserved hits can be attributed to fast ascents which is in turn either panic or buoyancy issues. The root problems are clear. Understanding deco is a marginal issue but getting buoyancy under control and watching guages better are big safety issues. If we want to make the world safer for puddlestompers then we'd focus on their problems. And frankly they're not laying awake at night worrying about having or not having a computer. A computer has become required gear in the puddlestomper paradigm and I'd submit that like it or not we're not going back.
That works fine, until you are on a liveaboard and doing 5 dives a day.
I'd be willing to venture a guess that more divers get whacked on these kinds of trips than from all other kinds of activities combined. I think it might be time to introduce the topic of computre useage and aggressive multiple profiles at the OW level. I don't think taking away the computer is a realistic option even if doing so might make these profiles safer.
Every diver will eventually want to plan a dive.
I'm not so convinced of that. To a true puddlestomper jumping in, riding the computer and aborting with 50 bar *is* a plan. Following the DM around so you don't get lost is part of the package.... What a puddlstomper needs more than planning skills are navigation skills so when they finish the dive they're about where they started. Just 2 days ago I made an hour long dive at a site where I had never been before. I navigated (and I'm good at it if I do say so myself). We swam about 600-700 meters in 3 metre visibility and we finished the dive after an hour just a few metres away from where we started. Beginners and many puddlestompers can't do that. If they could then the whole ride-the-computer-and-abort-at-50-bar type of planning wouldn't be such a big deal.
There is no problem as long as you don't have any reason to push things. However, when you go on that liveaboard trip, you'll want to maximize your diving. It's far better to know where to stand, than to push against some invisible line somwhere.
I agree with you on this point. I think aggressive multiple-profiles need some attention from the very beginning.
Until your computer fails, and you sit out for 2 days, or worse, your battery contacts have a poor connection and after 4 days of heavy diving your computer thinks it's the FIRST dive again. This actually happened to a buddy of mine, but because he's an exceptional diver he immediately noticed that the times the computer were giving him were unrealistic. Don't stake your health on some electronics surrounded by salt water.
OK, you put your finger on an interesting point. We tend to assume that the computer is infallible. It's good to have an idea of what's realistic or not. Some people got bent because of the older Alandins too because they didn't have feeling for what was right. I don't have an easy answer for this in puddlestomper world. Personally I've been diving for 19 years and I've done a lot of diving on the tables so I might notice something like that but for the "blind reliance" crowd with no experience on tables this could potentially problematic. It's also a marginal issue if compared to the incident stats but for the one who gets whacked I guess that doesn't matter.
Yes, no one needs a computer that can do helium. However, anyone diving below 80 fsw or so should definitely dive Helium. Just my opinion, you understand.
Ok. We'll have to agree to disagree about this. I don't have a big problem with the 40 metre limit on air.
Yeah, until they get in trouble somehow and end up having 8 minutes of deco showing on the computer. More likely than not they'll race for the first stop that the computer indicates, which is at 20 fsw. Now that's REAL healthy.
Not doing it could be worse. Computers generate bad deco profiles but at least they give the puddlestomper in problems something that's better than nothing, namely a ceiling. A puddlestomper will, by definition, always go unplanned into deco. I've nevre seen computer user plan for this contingency. We used to do it every time we got in the water before we had computers but somehow the computer makes people think that this isn't necessary any more.
That's really funny, I almost drenched my monitor! Actually, most computers that I know of display the NDL time in much larger numbers than the dive time, so I'd have to say JJ is right on this one
Well.... my computer might not be typical but the current depth is front and centre on my screen. however; even if that's not the case, the puddlestomper's main goal is to avoid the NDL so putting the NDL in the middle of the screen isn't such a bad idea if you ask me. As I said above a true puddlestomper only needs to know pressure and NDL (countdown to zero).
Plenty of divers use nitrox. Air is great though, it gets me to the dive site. I put it in my tires.
LOL.
The difference is that if you listen to JJ you will have more fun, you will dive more, and you will have less fear in the water. It's not about forcing everyone to become a cave diver. It's about common sense.
Why on earth would you have more fun? I'll agree with you that if you want to become a serious diver and if you want to progress beyond underwatre tourism that you need to develop some skills. Primary among them in my mind are buoyancy control, alertness and navigation. This discussion seems to revolve around alertness. Where we agree is that a diver needs to develop it if they want to progress as a diver. We disagree about the roll the computer plays in this. I can follow that you say computer make divres lazy and unalert (I dove with tables for many years too and I can definitely see the difference). My point is that alertness can be trained by divers who use a computer and given the benifits of computers we are never going to get rid of them so we'd better find a way to make it work within the puddlestomper paradigm.
For example, being horizontal in the water makes more sense than being vertical. Why? Well, when you are diving you want to minimze up and down movement, while encouraging forward movement. When you are vertical in the water, it's really easy to go up and down, there is no resistance. Going forward, however, offers lots of surface area for the water to push against. Being horizontal in the water isn't just about silting out a cave or not....it's EASIER!
uhhh... yeah. but I don't quite understand what this had to do with the evils of computers. I agree with you but being a puddlestomper by no means mandates bad posture in the water.
Using a long hose on your primary, and dontating it in case of trouble, is the same thing again. Yes, it's very useful in a cave, when you have a restriction and have to go single file, blah blah blah. But guess what, when you're out of air it's much nicer to have a nice long 7 ft hose that you KNOW has got a working reg on it offered to you, as opposed to a 30" hose with a piece of &$^$ at the end that is probably full of sand. It doesn't matter if you're in a cave or not.
I agree. The longhose and necklaced octo is one of the few things about DIR that I wish would become standard.
Knowing how to clear your mask is very important in a cave, but next time you buddy up with a moron and he kicks the mask right off your face, you'll be glad you learned that skill.
Everyone learns this skill. You don't have to be DIR to know how to clear a flooded mask. You're not giving credit where credit is due.
PS No offense, everyone can dive the way they want to, I really don't care. But the arguments for diving the way JJ outlines are solid. Ignore them if you like.
Of course they are but I responded to a post about the evils of the computer. My point is (and it always is when i talk about puddlestompers) is that there are several valid paradigms for diving and puddlestomping isn't subject to the same logic as extreme caving. Puddlestompres are also not independent, secure and skillful divers by JJ's measure either but they don't want to be, they don't have to be and they aren't going to be. Some people just want it to be a simple as possible so they can have some fun. Their horizon is limited but who cares? I don't understand why people make such a problem out of this.
R..
computer useage in DIR ? ?
- Thread starter jeffyjak
- 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
Charlie99
Contributor
- Messages
- 7,966
- Reaction score
- 169
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
The "brain is much better computer than the one on your wrist" ranks right up there for trite sayings with "air is for tires". Your brain only gets decent results if you have a good algorithm, and so far I haven't seen the anti-computer guys offer any reasonable one. The closest is Uncle Pugs, but that is unreasonably conservative for my diving style.
Please give a general description of your dive planning while on a live aboard, or otherwise doing 5 dives a day.
TIA,
Charlie
What's obvious is that computers are much better at calculating multilevel profiles on the fly than your brain. He does have a point that having a computer is not a substitute for thinking about what you're doing.
R..
P.S. He uses a computer too. He just does it on the PC and copies the results onto a slate for reference under water. You lose something in flexibility but you gain something in predicability and if I believe him then (highly) diciplined plan-your-dive-and-dive-your-plan diving is more fun than riding the computer. The fact that this is an apples-and-oranges comparison is conveniently ignored much of the time.
Charlie99
Contributor
- Messages
- 7,966
- Reaction score
- 169
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
If the statement "one should understand what one's computer is doing", then I agree. Computers are bad; Computers rot yer brain; You shouldn't use a computer are all statements that I disagree with in the context of recreational NDL diving.
This whole computer issue is yet another one of these cases of misapplication of tech diving style to rec diving. Other common misapplications I've seen are "jacket BCs are dangerous", and "Air is for tires". At least on this forum I haven't yet seen the "you are an idiot if you use a yoke rather than DIN". While one may argue advantages of BP/wings, nitrox, DIN valves, helium at 80', it is NOT true that those impose unacceptable risks in rec NDL diving.
I don't think DIR divers are so narc'd at 80' that the additional info on the computer (NDL) will confuse them. Simply pick a computer that, like most, displays NDL, runtime, and current depth on the main display.
What I don't understand is how the additonal information and the ability to compare your mental on-the-fly calculations with those of a computer increases risk. You learn by experience. Doing a dive, being aware of your profile, and comparing it with what the computer says is an excellent way to learn.
The context of my statement is recreational NDL diving, where gas planning is simply starting your return and ascent with sufficent margin.
Any DIR diver is welcome to explain how they handle multi-dive multi-level calculations on a liveaboard. "Take a DIR-F class" is not an appropriate answer.
Charlie
Braunbehrens
Guest
- Messages
- 514
- Reaction score
- 0
Sorry, Charlie, but I'm not going to do deco lessons on the 'net. Just doesn't make sense.
You want to use a computer, air, yoke, etc, etc, fine. I have no problem with it.
As for what skills are necessary and taught...when I took my padi classes we knealt on the sand, removed and replaced the mask. I hear that the current standard calls for simply flooding and clearing the mask, still while kneeling in the sand.
Is this really appropriate?
As for safety, diving is about as safe as riding a motorcycle, according to some figures I've seen. I think it could be much safer if a little more attention was paid to what is taught.
The question is not "can you dive with a computer, air, etc. etc.". Undoubtedly you can, and people have been doing it for a long time. The point is that all this stuff increases your risk, so why do it?
Are computers here to stay...well, you guys might well be right on that.
BTW, I do NOT write a plan onto a slate or anything like that. I carry a simple set of tables that take 2 pages in my wetnotes and cover ALL my diving, and ALL my gasses. I know when I'm coming up against serious (as opposed to minimum) deco, and if that happens I simply check my wetnotes at the first stop and figure out what I need to do.
I completely agree that the computer issue is less important than some of the other issues, like the long hose (possibly the most important), in water trim, buoyancy control etc. I also agree that the computer issue is largely a lost cause.
You want to use a computer, air, yoke, etc, etc, fine. I have no problem with it.
As for what skills are necessary and taught...when I took my padi classes we knealt on the sand, removed and replaced the mask. I hear that the current standard calls for simply flooding and clearing the mask, still while kneeling in the sand.
Is this really appropriate?
As for safety, diving is about as safe as riding a motorcycle, according to some figures I've seen. I think it could be much safer if a little more attention was paid to what is taught.
The question is not "can you dive with a computer, air, etc. etc.". Undoubtedly you can, and people have been doing it for a long time. The point is that all this stuff increases your risk, so why do it?
Are computers here to stay...well, you guys might well be right on that.
BTW, I do NOT write a plan onto a slate or anything like that. I carry a simple set of tables that take 2 pages in my wetnotes and cover ALL my diving, and ALL my gasses. I know when I'm coming up against serious (as opposed to minimum) deco, and if that happens I simply check my wetnotes at the first stop and figure out what I need to do.
I completely agree that the computer issue is less important than some of the other issues, like the long hose (possibly the most important), in water trim, buoyancy control etc. I also agree that the computer issue is largely a lost cause.
Braunbehrens
Guest
- Messages
- 514
- Reaction score
- 0
Rotourner, don't take this the wrong way, but no. I don't think it's appropriate for me to give out info that someoene could use to get in real trouble if they misunderstood it.
I can tell you basically what is behind it.
1) A proper understanding of deco. This includes deep stops, air breaks, and so on.
2) A set of tables
3) Some analysis of what a deco program will tell you and what the tables say.
4) Some rules of thumb to modifiy the tables so they "fit" 1 and 3.
5) Experimenting in the water. If you don't feel good after diving (tired, etc.) then you probably need more deco. Adjust 4 to suit.
6) Be here now. Be aware of what is going on, what depth you are at, how long you've been at this depth, what your gas consumption is etc. etc.
I just thougth of a good analogy. Imagine a hiker, going off for a long trek. He walks without paying any attention to how much water he needs, where he's going, if he's on a hill or in a valley, but once he's reached his limit, he grabs his GPS, and heads home.
The other hiker is making sure he has enough water, pays attention to whether he is on a hill or in a valley, and checks his direction using available information from his surroundings. He knows how many hills he has to climb to get back, how much water he has, and how long it will take him. He doesn't NEED GPS, he has more fun, and he is much safer.
I can tell you basically what is behind it.
1) A proper understanding of deco. This includes deep stops, air breaks, and so on.
2) A set of tables
3) Some analysis of what a deco program will tell you and what the tables say.
4) Some rules of thumb to modifiy the tables so they "fit" 1 and 3.
5) Experimenting in the water. If you don't feel good after diving (tired, etc.) then you probably need more deco. Adjust 4 to suit.
6) Be here now. Be aware of what is going on, what depth you are at, how long you've been at this depth, what your gas consumption is etc. etc.
I just thougth of a good analogy. Imagine a hiker, going off for a long trek. He walks without paying any attention to how much water he needs, where he's going, if he's on a hill or in a valley, but once he's reached his limit, he grabs his GPS, and heads home.
The other hiker is making sure he has enough water, pays attention to whether he is on a hill or in a valley, and checks his direction using available information from his surroundings. He knows how many hills he has to climb to get back, how much water he has, and how long it will take him. He doesn't NEED GPS, he has more fun, and he is much safer.
- Messages
- 3,138
- Reaction score
- 4
I suggest that you don't bring up a topic that you can't explain. Doing so makes it sound like you don't know what you're talking about.
You seem to be perfectly fine with explaining in painful detail other things that "someone could use to get in real trouble if they misunderstood it."
Maybe you shouldn't talk about those things either.
Sorry...I just get real tired of that excuse when this topic is brought up. Everything we talk about here carries the risk of being misunderstood. So explain it well and then leave behind an "intended only for the purpose of discussion and not meant to be used as instuction" message.
I'm beginning to wonder just how much "more fun and safe" your method can be when it's so complicated that you can't even explain it... and then hide behind that lame excuse we've heard again and again.
Come to think of it..."more fun and safe" is getting old! You need some newer and snappier catch phrases.
SA
I've argued this a lot on this board. Yes, they say you don't need a computer. But...if you ask why they say take a DIRF. But...they don't teach much of it in DIRF and some haven't been tought anything on it in DIRF. What they mean is they don't need a computer I guess.
I sometimes dive with a guy who is GUE tech 2 and cave 2. He doesn't have two pages of wet notes that cover all his diving. He runs the deco software, glances at it and goes diving without writting anything down. NOTHING!
I've gotten better at it and for some dives don't write anything down either. For other dives I write down a couple of schedules. I have not simplified it to the point that I can write two pages of wet notes to cover all my diving. I can, though, write two pages that will cover most of my diving.
I think what Braunbehrens is trying to tell you guys is that if you know what kind of deco you want to do and how it fits the profiles and gasses you dive that you don't need a computer to do it. Pay attention to what he writes. He repeatedly points out that deco isn't the exact science some think it is. I think he is right.
Read the points he listed above. Much of it is taking an educated guess based on decompression knowlege and past experience. It does work. There is no single magic GUR formula that can be learned in a day that frees you from the computer for all time.
By all means Paul correct me it I'm wrong.
My point has always been that the average recreational diver isn't going to do it. They won't spend the time to learn the deco methods. DIRF won't teach you and not every one wants to go to cave 2 and tech 2.
I sometimes dive with a guy who is GUE tech 2 and cave 2. He doesn't have two pages of wet notes that cover all his diving. He runs the deco software, glances at it and goes diving without writting anything down. NOTHING!
I've gotten better at it and for some dives don't write anything down either. For other dives I write down a couple of schedules. I have not simplified it to the point that I can write two pages of wet notes to cover all my diving. I can, though, write two pages that will cover most of my diving.
I think what Braunbehrens is trying to tell you guys is that if you know what kind of deco you want to do and how it fits the profiles and gasses you dive that you don't need a computer to do it. Pay attention to what he writes. He repeatedly points out that deco isn't the exact science some think it is. I think he is right.
Read the points he listed above. Much of it is taking an educated guess based on decompression knowlege and past experience. It does work. There is no single magic GUR formula that can be learned in a day that frees you from the computer for all time.
By all means Paul correct me it I'm wrong.
My point has always been that the average recreational diver isn't going to do it. They won't spend the time to learn the deco methods. DIRF won't teach you and not every one wants to go to cave 2 and tech 2.
Similar threads
