's Okay, I'll take your opinion, too!NO BIG DEAL

It's all data, to be tempered with experience and education . . .
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
's Okay, I'll take your opinion, too!NO BIG DEAL
I see an issue in the production of "numbers" from a computer program. Let me try a simpler analogy:
The temperature is forecast to go from 95 to 100 over a two hour period. What is the probability of a heat injury, and how severe?
You simply cannot take that at face value, because there are so many more factors.
Conditions - glaring sun, or in shade, windy, breezy, still, dry heat, moist heat?
Person - skinny, fat, hydrated, not hydrated, fit, not fit, young, middle-aged, older, wearing a hat, not wearing a hat, clothing?
Activity - digging a ditch, lifting weight, lying down, barbecue, running, walking?
Health - organs, pulmonary, heart, etc.
Therefore, my statement that a SWAG based on input is what deco is. No computer, no planner *gives* safety - just some numbers that are sometimes based on empirical data that someone else manipulated into a model . . . but the model is "good" over a given range.
AJ, does your emphasis on probabilistic analysis make you a fan of the US Navy Medical Research Institute's (NMRI's) Maximum Likelihood Statistical Method model, then? The NMRI's tables were considerably more conservative than the Navy tables that existed at the time, had a 2.3% incidence of DCI, and were met by considerable resistance by the Navy divers. [Deco for Divers, 2nd Ed]
Thank you, I've read some of those and look forward to the others.It might. I haven't dived that particular model. Flat risk, especially user adjustable risk, is what I'd really like. At the moment, its not an option though, at least not for the general diving public (myself included). And to be clear, when I say "risk" I want a number with it. Not some arbitrary 'high' or 'low' thing.
Now to try and reiterate what I've been driving at for a while now:
For a dive at "x" feet for "y" minutes, a deco algorithm (VPM and Buhlmann) will produce a schedule with "z" risk.
If you keep "x" the same, but increase "y", "z" goes up. To me, thats bad. I wanna keep "z" the same, and ideally I'd like to be able to manipulate "z" be doing longer or shorter deco times.
It does exist. Its just not commercially available. Calibrated against controlled dives. User adjustable risk. The whole deal.Thank you, I've read some of those and look forward to the others.
From a pure risk analysis standpoint - I am NOT any kind of deco guru - I believe what you are asking for is not in the available realm of deco software as it is right now.
However, if one could collect all the data on dives and the actual DCI incidents, that would be a lovely project for a graduate software engineer to feed into an Artificial Intelligence engine. I do not, however, believe there will ever be a pure "Z" algorithm due to the many individual and personal factors that affect a diver.
It does exist. Its just not commercially available. Calibrated against controlled dives. User adjustable risk. The whole deal.
Me too! They could sell DOZENS!!Man, hope that changes soon.
I do the O2 time. If its too cold or current swept to do the O2 time I modify the plan to do the deco necessary or shorten the bottom time, or skip the dive.:lolabove:
C'mon - there are so many factors that go into all that! Would YOU make that decisions based on some numbers in a dive planner?
What are the diving conditions? Warm, icy, dark, current, stressful, wreck, working? So many factors beyond just the condition.