Hosed or Hoseless, computer questions

[waterpirate]

IMHO diving with a BT and cut tables is clearly a " wax on, wax off " excersise. During that phase of training there are a lot of lessons to be learned that need to be " slow and steady, with good technique". Without those lessons and a firm grounding in the basics to build on, the punter will be flawed and inferior by design, not enhanced by electronic wizzardry.

I thank the internet for the free and unbridled exchange of things that only used to be passed from teacher to student. I also curse it for creating a mob of folks who can say the right thing, but execute nothing.
Eric

 

[mathauck0814]

In a technical context, flying a puter on a dive with an inncurred overhead is something that comes slowly over a lot of dives and maybe years, or maybe never. I dive with people who are comfortable with it, I am not. I NEVER get in the water without cut tables, even though I have a puter.
Eric

With the caveat that every one should be taught to cut and dive tables and spend quite some time doing so, I am absolutely one to "fly my computer" on technical dives. Reasoning goes something like: You cut your tables and take them with you. You ensure you have depth and timing devices on each and every diver. In a team of 3 divers, each with two Shearwater computers, if you're even reasonably disciplined and 5 out of 6 computers fail you can all decompress and surface on the last one. If all six fail or if both of yours fail and you are separated from the team, you have a fall back plan.

Now - how many of us really believe 5 of 6 Shearwaters will go down on a dive?

 

[Dr. Lecter]

In a technical context, flying a puter on a dive with an inncurred overhead is something that comes slowly over a lot of dives and maybe years, or maybe never. I dive with people who are comfortable with it, I am not. I NEVER get in the water without cut tables, even though I have a puter.

I usually prefer to split the baby: plan gas and cut tables around a specific square profile bottom time, and then fly the computers during the dive while never exceeding the depth or time limits on which the tables were based. If all goes well, I get a little less deco time from the computers; if all does not go well, I can fall back to the table without worrying about whether it's going to match what I did during the dive.

 

[NAM001]

Computers have thier place as does cell phones and automobiles do. On one hand the buggy drivers have not left the farm and found ways to realize that perhaps they could move more product or raise a barn with other than horse and rope. The cell phone users cant go to the store to buy milk without the phone cause they dont know how to plan properly before becoming store bound. Perhaps if they haed to walk to the store they would darn sure make sure they had everything on thier list so not to have to make 2 trips. I am a computer fan fut not so for the purpose of replacing the need to understand what i am doing. I use the computer to tell me to rethink some things cause there is dissagreement somewhere. Simplicity is always the best route. A good technical backup is not a bad thing. A computer is a tool, and as such it is worthless if you cant use it properly. For most divers, and i will be generous, they cant use anything on thier puters that is not on the default screen. It is a combination of an ndl alarm and depth gage with a computer link to allow reliving thier dive. Training can eleviate all of these needs except the depth gage and spg function's. Money wize you pass on the puter and go for gages. There are pros and cons to both sides of the computer issue. I would hate to see what the tech world would be like if its diving was centered on a wrist bound computer anymore than i would a depth gage that was 20-30 feet off at the deep end of the scale. understandable 3 gages in a team cant all be wrong. Wearing 2 depth gages or a gage and a puter allows an independant check for possible error. If i was to choose which method was most accurate when computing sac i would go for the computer every time. There is nothing wrong with reliving you dive either so long as you are doing for the right reasons. accent rate post evaluation, changing sac, ect. all clues that may be usefull for solving other problems. So long as thert are those that do not dive with standard gasses there will always be a place for puters.

 

[TSandM]

I just want to clarify that I didn't intend to say that one should use an OLED computer as a cheat during lights-out drills. I just learned that the amount of light they put out is significant if you are in NO light situations. Zero viz drills are, as AJ says, more to teach you to deal with a siltout than the dark. The likelihood of a team losing nine lights is just not measurable.

I don't see the big bash on transmitters, personally. The transmitter on the Vytech is essentially a big port plug. So long as it isn't oriented to experience impact, I see no way it adds a failure point. It's not RELIABLE, so one must have another gauge for pressure, but if somebody wants to see their pressure on their wrist, what's the big deal?

 

[eelnoraa]

Good analogy, but wrong comparison. In air travel, there is a very precise flight plan, origin, destination, route to take, expected flight time, expected weather, altitude ..... all was planned out, and with backup plan before even boarding. Do you think pilot should get trained to ride flight computers without flight plans??? Or do you think maybe all divers should start planning their dives?? And if a dive is planned well, why would anyone "need" anything more than a depth gauge and timer?? It is sure nice to have a fency computer tho.

Isn't this the 21st century? They use computers to fly the plane that we take to a tropical dive destination. Now we have dive computers that are capable of monitoring up to ten transmitters ( gases ) including trimix. I believe the training needs to catch up to the technology.

 

[waterpirate]

All well thought out responses. The major point still, is that you need to learn to crawl before you walk. After we learn to walk, run, fly, we have enough experiance to make sound decisions about the kind of diving we each do and we conduct those dives. The OP I think was asking in terms of learning to crawl.
Eric
p.s.
Team scenarios only work when there is more than 1 member on a given team. Team and solo have completely different protocols.

 

[Centrals]

I usually prefer to split the baby: plan gas and cut tables around a specific square profile bottom time, and then fly the computers during the dive while never exceeding the depth or time limits on which the tables were based. If all goes well, I get a little less deco time from the computers; if all does not go well, I can fall back to the table without worrying about whether it's going to match what I did during the dive.

There was a short period of time, 10yrs ago, that I had a tec computer. And I used it primarily as a back-up to the pre-cut plan. The computer always "cleared" first. So I sold the computer and dived ONLY with pre-cut plan ever since.
Some of my buddies have those fancy tec computers but we all agreed that pre-cut plan is the plan to follow. Plan the dive and dive the plan.

 

[DevonDiver]

if somebody wants to see their pressure on their wrist, what's the big deal?

For a start, you have to add another step to your gas switch procedure; changing transmitters on the computer. That's a shift to more complexity. That complexity arises at critical phases in the dive (gas switches). It brings further room for error and greater task loading.

As a technical diving 'principle', is it defensible to increase complexity for no tangible gains in capability?

 

[carlito35]

I'm guessing, again, that this is another post oblivious to this thread being in the 'Technical Diving Specialties' forum area... LOL

BTW... nothing eliminates human error, except effective training, disciplined mindset, application of proper procedures and focus. Even them, 'eliminates' is a strong word..

Nope acutely aware of the forum. Does not change my opinion that transmitters are perfectly capable. Remember I do dive with backups (actually two other devices monitoring air). What is your complaint about that whether technical or not? I get that many of you technical divers exclude computers and certainly transmitting computers. SO WHAT? I tend to follow logic not prevailing wisdom.

You seem to like the fallacy of argument ad hominem. You attack Beaver in another post above because he "shamelessly promotes" Scubapro. The fact he does or does not promote whatever is irrelevant to his argument. Ditto here--you attack my point by saying I am not taking into account technical diving when I am. You might be taken more seriously if you avoid ad hominems and just make your point.