opinions on air integrated computers?

[gcbryan]

If a diver cannot even add 2 + 2, I don't give them great odds at getting through that one.

I'm not in favor of divers diving in an environment where they are so impaired they can't add 2+2. Do you have a different opinion?

 

[idocsteve]

I'm not in favor of divers diving in an environment where they are so impaired they can't add 2+2. Do you have a different opinion?

Play Tennis instead?

 

[Doc Harry]

Yeah, that was bad. I was doing a cave dive to 150 on EAN24. Previously I had been to 140 feet and hadn't noticed any significant impairment. I think maybe our very rapid descent to 150 is what did it. I was trying to compute my actual turnaround time. I think the computation was something like 1/2 * (20-4) = 8 and I couldn't do it. So we left early. No more deep diving until I get certified in Trimix.

Another time there was the dark narcosis - 100 feet in a deep, dark lake in 4-foot viz. We lost sight of the wall and turned to the compass to get back to the wall. But I was too narc'd to understand the numbers on the compass dial, so we ascended in open water.

The darkness seems to really accentuate narcosis for me.

I don't think a computer would be useful in these situations. Better to not get into these situations in the first place. If you are relying on a beeping computer to keep you out of trouble, perhaps you're in over your head? And perhaps you're using a computer in a manner for which it was not intended?

BTW, so far I've managed to get through all of my cave and deco dives without using a computer.

 

[gcbryan]

Narcosis is interesting for sure. I've had a pretty easy go in that regard but when I get deeper I really limit how hard I'm working. Around here more likely than not it's either a wall or a fairly sharp drop off of some kind. I never mix current and depth.

The first time I went to 140 fsw I had to do quite a bit of swimming and I stopped and turned at the planned depth and looked at my compass to navigate back. I knew what it was and how it worked but there was a hesitation of a second or two whereas normally there wouldn't be.

Darkness and poor viz does have some affect (on me) but half of my diving is at night so I'm used to that and I'm used to somewhat limited viz as well. More than anything else I think that anything you aren't used to has a greater effect with narcosis along with CO2 buildup.

I find it much easier to handle deeper depths when I gradually build up to them.

I do generally refer to a computer but it's not necessary and I'm mainly looking at just the time and depth. I can't imagine that a beeping computer is going to do much for anyone if their mind isn't engaged however.

I find these discussions at bit unusual. How often in general do you find people arguing for ignorance? Maybe the rallying cry for the AI position should be "I don't know nothing about no nothing"

 

[Guy Alcala]

Narcosis is interesting for sure. I've had a pretty easy go in that regard but when I get deeper I really limit how hard I'm working. Around here more likely than not it's either a wall or a fairly sharp drop off of some kind. I never mix current and depth.

The first time I went to 140 fsw I had to do quite a bit of swimming and I stopped and turned at the planned depth and looked at my compass to navigate back. I knew what it was and how it worked but there was a hesitation of a second or two whereas normally there wouldn't be.

Darkness and poor viz does have some affect (on me) but half of my diving is at night so I'm used to that and I'm used to somewhat limited viz as well. More than anything else I think that anything you aren't used to has a greater effect with narcosis along with CO2 buildup.

I've been lucky so far as well. I don't know whether I'm just less susceptible to narcosis than many, or if the fact that almost all of my diving is done in cold water with limited vis is part of it, or that I'm used to dealing with stressful situations in the backcountry, or that I usually descend slowly owing to difficulty in clearing, or that I'm more empirical evidence for the correctness of the Mount/Milner experiment, or whether all of these combined play a part. All I know is that I've never suffered from significant narcosis (or even noticeable narcosis) except in one case, and that involved a dive to my max. depth to date (138fsw) where I could detect a very slight decrease in manual dexterity/coordination.

I'm sure there will be some combination of depth/conditions at which I will experience major narcosis as described by others in this thread, but it hasn't happened to me yet, and I'd like to know what my personal limit (for one day, anyway) is.

Guy

 

[Belce]

Have yet to see a valid reason for not using an air intergrated wireless dive computer as a recreational diver.

 

[*dave*]

Have yet to see a valid reason for not using an air intergrated wireless dive computer as a recreational diver.

Have yet to see a valid reason for using an air integrated wireless dive computer as a recreational diver.

Although I don't use a computer in the traditional sense, I feel they are an important tool for most recreational divers and critical for their safety, especially for occasional divers. AI is a fun feature, but if you need it to safely execute a dive, you should probably be diving under supervision.

Car buyer: Hi, I need a car with one of those gas mileage computers.
Car seller: I have lots of great cars, but only a few with that feature. Why do you need it?
Car buyer: So I know how far I can go before running out of gas.
Car seller: Can't you just look at the gas gauge?
Car buyer: That's too complicated.
Car seller: Okay, so how often do you run out of gas?
Car buyer: Never.
Car seller: Have you considered an ejection seat?

 

[fnfalman]

Have yet to see a valid reason for using an air integrated wireless dive computer as a recreational diver.

Although I don't use a computer in the traditional sense, I feel they are an important tool for most recreational divers and critical for their safety, especially for occasional divers. AI is a fun feature, but if you need it to safely execute a dive, you should probably be diving under supervision.

Why is an AI computer not have a valid reason for the rec diver but a regular dive computer does?

Why is a dive computer critical for safety?

Were we not taught how to use dive tables and perform square profile dive plans in our basic OW class?

Computers are nice to have but far from necessary. If one thinks that one HAVE to HAVE a computer to dive safely then either go back to school or hire a DM/Instructor to hold one's hand.

Car buyer: Hi, I need a car with one of those gas mileage computers.
Car seller: I have lots of great cars, but only a few with that feature. Why do you need it?
Car buyer: So I know how far I can go before running out of gas.
Car seller: Can't you just look at the gas gauge?
Car buyer: That's too complicated.
Car seller: Okay, so how often do you run out of gas?
Car buyer: Never.
Car seller: Have you considered an ejection seat?

Why do you even need a gas gauge? A light that goes up when the tank is near empty will do just fine. Or better yet, put a petcock valve on the line so that when the engine stuttering, all you have to do is manually switch the petcock valve open and you get access to your reserve. You should already know how much gas is in the reserve and how far it can get you. Why bother with a failure point like gas gauge?

 

[fnfalman]

Have yet to see a valid reason for not using an air intergrated wireless dive computer as a recreational diver.

If you're well trained, highly experienced diver, you don't need anything but a tank, exposure suit (if dictated by water temperature), analog depth gauge, analog compass, a timing piece and some slates with your dive plan written on them. You don't even need an SPG when you equip your tank with a J-valve. You don't even need a BC if you were to weight yourself correct.

Heck, vintage divers do it all the time.

Computers, any sort of computers, are far from necessary.

Yet somehow the regular computer users kept telling us that AI computers are unnecessary but the regular computer is necessary.

 

[idocsteve]

Have yet to see a valid reason for using an air integrated wireless dive computer as a recreational diver.

Although I don't use a computer in the traditional sense, I feel they are an important tool for most recreational divers and critical for their safety, especially for occasional divers. AI is a fun feature, but if you need it to safely execute a dive, you should probably be diving under supervision.

Car buyer: Hi, I need a car with one of those gas mileage computers.
Car seller: I have lots of great cars, but only a few with that feature. Why do you need it?
Car buyer: So I know how far I can go before running out of gas.
Car seller: Can't you just look at the gas gauge?
Car buyer: That's too complicated.
Car seller: Okay, so how often do you run out of gas?
Car buyer: Never.
Car seller: Have you considered an ejection seat?

We're back to comparing driving a car to diving.

Diving is recreational (at least for most of us)... and to use a piece of technology that will do more of the work for us, so we can enjoy the diving that much more, is a good thing. A VERY good thing.

No one needs a dive computer, let alone an AI computer.

However an AI computer will allow a diver to maximize bottom time and free them up from the relatively mundane task of doing mathematical calculations when they could be looking at the pretty fish.

In the case of a careless or narc'd diver, the built in audio and visual alarms just might shake them back to reality if they haven't been paying attention to their gas supply.

Think of a recent thread here on this board, the unfortunate young fellow who didn't monitor his gas while diving the Spiegel Grove. He glanced at his gauge when he was down to around 200 psi at 130 feet and made a dash for the surface.

An AI computer might have warned him of low gas at the 700 psi mark, or whatever the default or user selected setting might have been, giving him ample time for a safe ascent.