Do you think computers encourage risky diving in new/ young divers?

[AfterDark]

@AfterDark

You are a VERY experienced diver. I'm pretty sure you know your air supply and how long you have. In other words you knew that you could do the multi level without running out of air.

I've heard people saying well my computer will get me my deco obligations so I'll just follow it. These are just out of AOW probably less than 25 dives.

That's what I call risky.

Well I guess that's where the AI comes in, to tell the inexperienced if they have the gas remaining to complete the dive with accidental deco or if they are going to choose between drowning or DCS. No more surprise OOA the diver knows before the dive is over if they are.
Gota ya love technology?!

 

[Jcp2]

I think for many new divers, NDL is primarily thought of as the dark square at the bottom of each column of table one of the dive table.

Most new divers have never had a table in their possession to make that connection.

 

[AfterDark]

So in a way yes. Without the computer they would have to plan the dives out.

That assumes they know how to plan a dive. I will guaranty there are AOW divers that couldn't plan a dive on their best day.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Here's the problem. He learned to dive before the computer era. He was taught to use tables, which do not have that option. Computers were not part of the curriculum then. People thought (and many still think) that we should drill students on a process they will never use in real life and barely mention the one they will use instead.

I record my classroom sessions for my own review. Maybe one of these days I should post the video for feedback on this topic. After much abuse and ridicule, I might get some useful feedback on how to improve teaching tables/NDL/computers (Shearwaters).

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

That assumes they know how to plan a dive. I will guarantee you that most AOW divers that couldn't plan a dive on their best day.

FIFY

 

[Scraps]

Just to clarify:

I did not mean to imply that new divers are unfamiliar with the concept of NDL. What I was trying to say is that the tasks associated with just getting through the dive claim so much of their band width that they often don’t consider how their profile affects their NDL during the dive.

That’s why I don’t think computers encourage risky behavior as described in the OP.

 

[Bigbella]

I wouldn't say that computers "encouraged" risky behavior; but when we first started using them, circa 1991, a bit more "faith" was put into them, than I have observed nowadays, with almost any type of consumer electronics, diving or otherwise. I can tell you now, that no one back then was bandying about the merits of Haldane over Bühlmann models or vice versa -- the way that divers nowadays will thumb their noses at some computer's modeling; or its perceived lack thereof. A good number of divers that I knew -- all of whom still can feel their extremities -- frequently tended to push and exceed that non-decompression envelope, because the algorithm allowed for it; provided safety stops -- even though most were more than reticent to do the same with tables.

Once that initial novelty was over, most of those that I knew, became a bit more conservative; and many have even gone back to the SPG route; and, now, Bühlmann only comes up in Trivial Pursuit . . .

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I honestly don't think it makes much of a difference. They don't understand when diving with tables to understand depth and time and keeping track of their SPG, they don't understand what their DC will tell them. It has to do with the quality of instruction and the students maintaining their knowledge to not forget.

I am sure that there are still examples of people freaking out over seeing the NDL time remaining as John pointed out, but it still comes down to inadequate training. Someone freaking out over their NDL remaining time is not paying attention to their DC. They probably wouldn't be paying attention to their watch, depth gauge, and SPG.

 

[EFX]

So in a way yes. Without the computer they would have to plan the dives out.

That assumes they know how to plan a dive. I will guaranty there are AOW divers that couldn't plan a dive on their best day.

Yup, and there are some AOW divers that can plan dives as good as any technical diver. So what! You're arguing from a logical position called the missing middle. My first sentence supplied the other half of that logical construct. Exceptions don't prove anything. In fact, if anything, they disprove common misconceptions. The missing middle is that the vast majority of AOW or recreational divers can plan dives. But, the issue is what constitutes a plan?

I can tell you from my own experience as a recreational diver who's come up through the ranks (I'm a master diver now) that most of the dives I planned with occasional buddies consisted of: (1) who's going to lead the dive, and (2) where are we going (i.e. which end of the quarry, how deep do you want to go, or what do you want to see)? My buddies and I knew enough to watch our SPG's and surface with 500 psi. This idea that we should plan dives down to the tiniest detail is simply the result of higher trained divers projecting their own biases toward rec divers in out-of-context scenarios. Now, the dives I'm talking about are typical rec dives that don't include overhead environments or tasks that depend on minimum bottom times. For those dives some minimum gas planning and more detailed planning should be done.

Some posters in this thread have argued that beginning divers should know more about the inner workings of their PDC's. While I agree that some extra knowledge is helpful I would emphasize it is not necessary. What is essential is understanding what the display of the PDC is telling you. This argument for knowledge that goes beyond a minimum amount of knowledge required for safe rec dives reminds me of this analogy:

Most, if not all of you, reading this drive a car. How many of you look at the dashboard of your car? I would bet dollars to donuts you know what the gauges and idiot lights tell you. But, do you understand the inner workings of your engine to appreciate what those instruments are telling you? Automotive engineers do. So, the argument directed against new or inexperienced divers to learn the theory behind their PDC to be a safe diver is like an automotive engineer telling you you don't understand your car well enough to drive it safely.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Some posters in this thread have argued that beginning divers should know more about the inner workings of their PDC's. While I agree that some extra knowledge is helpful I would emphasize it is not necessary. What is essential is understanding what the display of the PDC is telling you.

I think people, myself at least, are advocating that new divers understand the very basics of NDL: the amount of nitrogen the body is absorbing is affected by pressure. Go up, and your body absorbs more slowly. Go down, more quickly. (yes that is a crude oversimplication, but I think it suffices). Tie that into the NDL time remaining (or a bar), and they basically have what they need to know to dive more safely.