Is have an AI feature on dive watch better?

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

You don't think having a Gas Time Remaining calculation done for you, that you can see in real time, is a "real benefit"? I do. Not everyone needs it. But, there are a lot of features on many dive computers that I think are a benefit, but that not everyone has a use for.

Why is it a problem to not want to go back to using an SPG? I don't want to go back to using an SPG. I have several extra transmitters as backups, so that I (hopefully) won't have to go back to an SPG. What is wrong with that?

In Steve Lewis' book, The Six Skills, he has a whole chapter on Trim. In their, he defines trim at its highest level of performance to include having a neat, tidy, uncluttered rig. You don't take anything in the water that you don't need.

I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of not taking anything in the water that you don't need.

If you are doing recreational (sport) dives and you have AI, then you do not need an SPG (but you MIGHT need a better, more reliable AI...). Further, anyone should be able to recognize that, minor as it is, having a hose coming off your first stage running down to a clip on your waist belt, or around to a clip on your chest, is an entanglement hazard. When you don't have AI, it's a necessary evil, as it were. So necessary and, for so long, with no other real option that our community accepts it without question (generally). But, if you think you could get hung up on something by having a little bungee cord on your wing, then surely you could get hung up on a hose that is 24 or 26" long (or longer) and runs from tank valve down behind your arm?

My first tech instructor called me out in class once for saying, during a presentation of a dive plan, "I didn't do XYZ because I was just being lazy and I thought it was not necessary for this exercise." He said that not doing something because I was being lazy is the worst thing he ever heard me say, as a diver.

I truly think the notions of entanglement hazards, streamlining, and failure points as they are often stated on SB are way over-blown. I agree in principle with the notion that one should leave behind what they do not need for the dive, but folks typically do not articulate that as their reason for getting rid of hose, they typically site being more streamlined....and secondarily they seem to site the need to be more streamlined is because entanglement hazards....it is hard to take these concerns seriously when the basic shape of dive equipment has not changed much in decades. If one was seriously concerned about entanglement hazards and streamlining they would be looking at mounting fairings around the tank valve and 1st stage to make them less snag prone. The issue is not that folks are making personal choices but they seem to make statements about gear configurations from an almost dogmatic standpoint and the statements seem to make sense....until you probe the depths of these statement (no pun intended), and like I said previously folks will point to certain things as "failure points" while actively ignoring similar aspects of their kit or diving in general because it would be inconvenient to them if they did. For instance, the notion that having an spg and transmitter adds an unnecessary failure point that somehow increases risk and is best avoided, argued by a diver who engages in cave/wreck penetration for leisure. If one is so risk adverse that they consider it too risky to have that SPG hose with all those failure prone o-rings and the entanglement hazard of the extra hose then I would think that one would assess overhead penetration diving as too risky in general as well...but that would be inconvenient.

I am not against the notion of folks choosing the type of diving they want to enjoy, and I am also all for folks figuring out the gear they want to use and how to configure it...what bothers me though is the fear laden personal propaganda proffered up regularly as sound advice.

-Z
 
For instance, the notion that having an spg and transmitter adds an unnecessary failure point that somehow increases risk and is best avoided, argued by a diver who engages in cave/wreck penetration for leisure. If one is so risk adverse that they consider it too risky to have that SPG hose with all those failure prone o-rings and the entanglement hazard of the extra hose then I would think that one would assess overhead penetration diving as too risky in general as well...but that would be inconvenient.

I have been riding motorcycle for 35 years - at times in a semi-professional capacity. I always wear a full-face helmet, jacket, gloves, boots, and riding pants.

Your argument sounds a lot like the people who say "I don't need a helmet", or even "I'll wear a helmet, but I don't need boots or riding pants." And, "if you are that worried about crashing, maybe you just shouldn't ride."

My response is, "if you are so unconcerned with failure points and entanglement hazards, why not do your wreck penetrations with a single tank, only one computer, all your gear hanging off you like a Christmas tree, etc.?"

Personally, I will keep doing things like wreck penetrations - and doing what I can to make those dives as safe as I can. Even to the point of eliminating unnecessary equipment solely because it has a 0.01% chance of failure but is also not needed.
 
I have been riding motorcycle for 35 years - at times in a semi-professional capacity. I always wear a full-face helmet, jacket, gloves, boots, and riding pants.

Your argument sounds a lot like the people who say "I don't need a helmet", or even "I'll wear a helmet, but I don't need boots or riding pants." And, "if you are that worried about crashing, maybe you just shouldn't ride."

My response is, "if you are so unconcerned with failure points and entanglement hazards, why not do your wreck penetrations with a single tank, only one computer, all your gear hanging off you like a Christmas tree, etc.?"

Personally, I will keep doing things like wreck penetrations - and doing what I can to make those dives as safe as I can. Even to the point of eliminating unnecessary equipment solely because it has a 0.01% chance of failure but is also not needed.

I too have been riding motorcycles for many years. Love my VTX. What you seem to be inferring is not what I am implying....I agree there are risks, and I agree there are things that can be done to mitigate risks....but I think that the amount of risk is often overblown and calculated only based on one's feelings without much evidence.

Lets put it in a better context, take this hypothetical situation: ....ones spend lots of money on motorcycle gear to be prepared for the chance of taking a slide...good...this is good risk management. They preach that one should always wear a full face helmet, leather riding suit with armor in strategic locations, and special protective boots...their conversations tend to center around dressing from a safety standpoint....all good and sound.....but then that same person chooses to exceed the speed limit on a regular basis and barrel down winding roads leaving caution to the wind, because they think its fun...applying prudence in their riding style would be inconvenient to their experiencing fun.

There is an incongruency there, and it is born out of the advice that the rider proffers that is inconsistent with their actions.

This same trend exists among divers. Some not only chase to eliminate that 0.01% chance of failure...that is not the problem...the problem is conveying through statement or omission that what is really 0.01% chance of failure is 99.9% chance of failure.

I will state that I think the analogy that you tried to draw between my statements and helmet use is a bit specious. I think a more accurate analogy would be those that preach that louder pipes save lives, which I sort of agree with but it is often used to rationalize the choice of outrageously and obnoxiously loud exhaust systems.

Keep the shiny side up.

-Z
 
Lets put it in a better context, take this hypothetical situation: ....ones spend lots of money on motorcycle gear to be prepared for the chance of taking a slide...good...this is good risk management. They preach that one should always wear a full face helmet, leather riding suit with armor in strategic locations, and special protective boots...their conversations tend to center around dressing from a safety standpoint....all good and sound.....but then that same person chooses to exceed the speed limit on a regular basis and barrel down winding roads leaving caution to the wind, because they think its fun...applying prudence in their riding style would be inconvenient to their experiencing fun.

This is where we are parting ways. As with wreck penetrations, going faster than the speed limit is (for some) the whole point. Yes, it is (stipulated that) it is more dangerous.

The argument that, rather than take EVERY reasonable precaution (even one that only addresses a 0.01% probability), one should simply not engage in the activity is, well, it's simply not helpful. At least, not the people who are GOING to engage in the activity and are seeking the best safety precautions they can take.

Talking about this hypothetical person and saying that they are talking about a 0.01% scenario and talking about it as if it's a 99% scenario is leaving out something that I think is important.

We are not saying that the particular thing has a 99% chance of happening, and if you take it that way, you are missing the point. We are saying that we should take every reasonable precaution that we can, while engaging in our chosen activity. There is not a 99% chance that something will fail during a dive or that you will crash during a high speed ride in the twisties. But, there IS a greater than 0.01% chance that SOMETHING will happen. And the potential results are bad enough that we should mitigate even the 0.01% things - if we reasonably can.

The importance is not in eliminating the one 0.01% thing. The importance is in preparing properly for as many things as you can. The importance is in rigorously going through the process. Taking care of as many details as you can. Mitigating every potential problem - even the 0.01% ones - that you reasonably can (while still actually doing the activity).
 
This is where we are parting ways. As with wreck penetrations, going faster than the speed limit is (for some) the whole point. Yes, it is (stipulated that) it is more dangerous.

The argument that, rather than take EVERY reasonable precaution (even one that only addresses a 0.01% probability), one should simply not engage in the activity is, well, it's simply not helpful. At least, not the people who are GOING to engage in the activity and are seeking the best safety precautions they can take.

Talking about this hypothetical person and saying that they are talking about a 0.01% scenario and talking about it as if it's a 99% scenario is leaving out something that I think is important.

We are not saying that the particular thing has a 99% chance of happening, and if you take it that way, you are missing the point. We are saying that we should take every reasonable precaution that we can, while engaging in our chosen activity. There is not a 99% chance that something will fail during a dive or that you will crash during a high speed ride in the twisties. But, there IS a greater than 0.01% chance that SOMETHING will happen. And the potential results are bad enough that we should mitigate even the 0.01% things - if we reasonably can.

The importance is not in eliminating the one 0.01% thing. The importance is in preparing properly for as many things as you can. The importance is in rigorously going through the process. Taking care of as many details as you can. Mitigating every potential problem - even the 0.01% ones - that you reasonably can (while still actually doing the activity).

I will agree to disagree...I believe the notion of failure points is overblown and hyperbole. You believe that it worthwhile to eliminate that .01% risk...that is fine with me. My purpose in life is not to change your mind, especially on the subject of an ingrained belief such as personally accepted doctrine regarding safety.

Dive and let dive.

Cheers,
-Zef
 
I will agree to disagree...I believe the notion of failure points is overblown and hyperbole. You believe that it worthwhile to eliminate that .01% risk...that is fine with me. My purpose in life is not to change your mind, especially on the subject of an ingrained belief such as personally accepted doctrine regarding safety.

You have to optimize the cost/benefit of risk mitigation vs cost/benefit of failure recovery. I.e. it's way overblown if you can just swim up, but if you have to recover right there or drown: not as much.
 
If you are doing recreational (sport) dives and you have AI, then you do not need an SPG (but you MIGHT need a better, more reliable AI...). Further, anyone should be able to recognize that, minor as it is, having a hose coming off your first stage running down to a clip on your waist belt, or around to a clip on your chest, is an entanglement hazard.

Perdix AI user here, and I have a 2" brass/glass gauge clipped to my hip D ring off a 24" hose. I've given lots of thought to your quote above since I made the switch to AI.

A 24" (might be 22" not sure) hose is very streamlined but I agree with you, a piece of shipwreck could get threaded in between causing a hangup.

I've considered removing my gauge for recreational diving. Alternatively opting for a button gauge that I could have checked in a pinch if I suspect something is wrong.
 
Perdix AI user here, and I have a 2" brass/glass gauge clipped to my hip D ring off a 24" hose. I've given lots of thought to your quote above since I made the switch to AI.

A 24" (might be 22" not sure) hose is very streamlined but I agree with you, a piece of shipwreck could get threaded in between causing a hangup.

I've considered removing my gauge for recreational diving. Alternatively opting for a button gauge that I could have checked in a pinch if I suspect something is wrong.

I had a button gauge on my 1st stages for a while. My thought was that it let me quickly put my reg set on a tank and verify that the tank is, basically, full - without having to dig out my computer, turn it on, etc..

Then, I was prepping my doubles for some wreck penetration diving and a very well-respected and experienced tech instructor from one of the "DIR agencies" was looking over my rig and asked about the button gauges on my 1st stages. I explained my reasoning. He asked "do you think that button gauge could get caught on something?" I understood his point, decided he was right and took them off my doubles regs.

Then I thought to myself "if AI only is acceptable and sufficient for my technical wreck penetration diving, why do I need a button gauge on my recreational single tank reg set?" And so I took the button gauge off that reg, too.

I've posted this before, but I also feel like having no button gauge has the added benefit that, when I assemble my rig (say, just after boarding a boat and getting ready to get underway) I am now forced to dig out my computer and turn it on to verify that I have a full tank. That ensures that I HAVE my computer (didn't forget it in my truck) and that it is working and that my AI is working. Just checking a button gauge would not do that.
 
My experience from leading dives is that the majority of divers with only SPGs rarely check the SPG while those with wrist mounted (or similar) dive computers with AI are well aware of their air.

In my pre-dive briefing I routinely tell the divers to let me know when they get to half tank (or sometimes even before, usually @ 110 or 120 bar) so I can gauge where we are and make sure they will have enough gas to complete the dive. AI divers are usually on the money an let me know. SPG divers rarely do and I have to ask them, or worse they tell me they only have 50 bar left.

Of course, this is a generalisation and there will be exceptions but I trust AI divers more.
 
AI, Necessary, probably not. If you have the money it’s sweet to have. Only change what you purchased if AI is important for the diving you do and you are unhappy with your MK1.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom