Eon Steel dive computer

[KenGordon]

Since you can go the manufacturer's documentation and see that it runs a proprietary deco algorithm and will actually lock the user out if it's unhappy, it hardly seems necessary to take one on a dive before writing it off.

It is good to see someone be so open minded.

I have a student who needs a computer suitable for occasional accelerated deco dives. It turns out there are a couple of quite cheap ones available (£150 or so) that don't seem to get a mention on SB or on Andy's list.

 

[KenGordon]

1. No. Part of being a technical diver should include the ability to read for yourself.

2. Hell no. What if a student shows up with a clearly unsafe configuration? Like a single first stage and no extra second stage for any course?

3. Yes, I think this is a good idea. Not necessarily before accepting them as a student but have a discussion about these things prior to beginning the course.

Why does a student need an instructor at all? There are plenty of books which explain the principles of diving. Maybe just an agency manual and off to jump in the sea will do? It would save all that annoying criticism of gear choices at least.

 

[kensuf]

Why does a student need an instructor at all? There are plenty of books which explain the principles of diving. Maybe just an agency manual and off to jump in the sea will do? It would save all that annoying criticism of gear choices at least.

You should read the question and keep in mind the context that answer #1 was written. Here's the question that #1 answers:

First, is an instructor TEC or otherwise, obligated to teach a student how to use any computer that the student shows up with in any course?

 

[Carl_F]

This raises three interesting questions.

First, is an instructor TEC or otherwise, obligated to teach a student how to use any computer that the student shows up with in any course?

Second, is the same instructor required to let the student use any equipment that the student wants to?

Third, should the instructor ask in advance to see what equipment the student wants to use before accepting them as a student?

Sounds like hyperbole. Of the two AN/DP-equivalent courses I'm familiar with the respective agencies have minimum standards for equipment configuration and "any equipment the student wants to" use is not consistent with that. Also, one agency does not require a computer at all. The other agency requires a multi-gas computer. So not sure the point.

 

[100days-a-year]

Suunto makes awesome computers suitable for multi gas,extended deco and deep dives.As long as the diver is old,fat,out of shape,drinks a 12 pack of PBR on the way to the site,smokes Camel non-filters,has a PFO and is in general a contrary narcissist who got all his decompression knowledge prior to actual training via the WWW.

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

Suunto makes awesome computers suitable for multi gas,extended deco and deep dives.As long as the diver is old,fat,out of shape,drinks a 12 pack of PBR on the way to the site,smokes Camel non-filters,has a PFO and is in general a contrary narcissist who got all his decompression knowledge prior to actual training via the WWW.

LOL

 

[DevonDiver]

If the Eon Steel supports multiple gases and Trimix, and has planning software with an algorithm that matches the computer, why would you not let an an/dp or trimix student use one if they want?.

There may be other divers on the team, using compatible algorithms (i.e. Buhlmann) ...and one guy has a completely different algorithm which would present a different deco schedule...

Then that diver would have to conform to the needs and practices of the greater team.

The diver would also have to present a full backup plan... again, consistent with the team, that'd include gas consumption and stops. There actual ascent profile would need to match what'd been planned. If it didn't, it would be inconsistent and unacceptable.

 

[tridacna]

There may be other divers on the team, using compatible algorithms (i.e. Buhlmann) ...and one guy has a completely different algorithm which would present a different deco schedule...

Then that diver would have to conform to the needs and practices of the greater team.

The diver would also have to present a full backup plan... again, consistent with the team, that'd include gas consumption and stops. There actual ascent profile would need to match what'd been planned. If it didn't, it would be inconsistent and unacceptable.

So what do you do when there are multiple divers with multiple algorithms that are not all Buhlmann?

 

[Remy B.]

You agree to a common Dive profiles in the planning of the dive, you don't necessarily need that all divers have DC with same Algorithms, I don't have the money to buy a Ratio or a Shearwater or other DC that have Algorithms suitable for Deco dives, I use bottom timers and a slate with the plan with was previously agreed upon the planning.

 

[DevonDiver]

You agree to a common Dive profiles in the planning of the dive, you don't necessarily need that all divers have DC with same Algorithms, I don't have the money to buy a Ratio or a Shearwater or other DC that have Algorithms suitable for Deco dives, I use bottom timers and a slate with the plan with was previously agreed upon the planning.

This is true.... but when diving common profiles... all those expensive computers get turned to gauge mode... or replaced with a cheap UWATEC bottom timer.

Dives become more limited in scope, and contingency planning becomes much more complex... +5 depth, +5 time, +5 depth & time, incremental bailout/abort plans, lost gas plans etc etc etc.. you could fill your wetnotes with plan derivatives for a single dive.

That said, most common tech computers have the option to use Buhlmann, or some close derivative of it; either as the sole model or an option. It shouldn't have to happen so much nowadays...

Who buys a tech computer so that they can dive pre-cut tables??

It's the computers with secretive, unpredictable, models that throw spanners into the works.

And where will that 'common deco schedule' come from?