The Chairman
Chairman of the Board
Me too.
Should Shearwater add Air Integration to its computers?
- Thread starter boulderjohn
- Start date
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
WarrenZ
The Ultimate Bad Example
Probably Dance Monkeys Dance.
Pete,
you are the most FIGJAMs person in the known and unknown universe (including the moon)!
Just kidding
Alberto (aka AM, aka eDiver)
you are the most FIGJAMs person in the known and unknown universe (including the moon)!
Just kidding
Alberto (aka AM, aka eDiver)
OP
When I think of the PADI tech curriculum at the moment, I have in mind what I perceive to be 3 key parts in the Trimix curriculum:
1. A focus on the helium penalty, the extra amount of deco time required when using helium mixes and why that extra time is required.
2. The importance of planning with deep stops. Students are required to add deep stops to their planning.
3. The importance of keeping current with changing thinking on deco theory and changes in technology. Don't stay mired in the thinking of the past.
Let's take a look at those three points:
1. Recent research indicates that there is no helium penalty. The thinking behind that is apparently dead wrong.
2. Recent research indicates that our love affair with deep stops should end. They appear to do more harm than good.
3. Luckily this one is still true, for it allows me to tell my students without embarrassment that much of the stuff they are reading about #1 and #2 now appears to be wrong. That curriculum was on the cutting edge when it was written, but it is now out of date, which means I can use it as an example of why we need to stay up to date with our knowledge, and why we need to make sure we do not stay wedded to ideas from the past.
I used to train with an agency that said, although not in so many words, "The computers that were being made in 1993 were not good enough to be used reliably, and our wonderful leader said then that we should not use them. Therefore it has been written in blood that computers will never, ever, ever be good enough to be used in diving."
Things change. Technology changes. Our understanding of physiology changes. We have to have minds open to a constant reevaluation of our resources and their potential uses.
I personally do not use air integration, but that is mostly because I don't feel a need for it. I do not, however, see it as some sort of evil spawn of the devil. Forbidding its use is not something written in blood as far as I am concerned.
DevonDiver
N/A
John, that's very true. It doesn't change the overlaying principles that guide technical diving though. For overhead, it wouldn't change Shek Exley's principles (A Blueprint for Survival) either.
I'll expand on that concept, for the sake of others...
Obviously... this applies to technical diving and no assumption is made that recreational divers need to or should, apply these principles. The mindset for technical diving is different, as the entire approach to diving is different. Many non-technical divers fail to appreciate this and assume it is elitism.
Specifically for technical diving, the outlying principles exist in training of every agency. PADI describe them at "Six Principles for Surviving a Tec Dive". I think these can be considered as an acid test; when new technology, protocols and procedures come along.
As an example, relating those principles to AI, from a technical diver mindset:
The Principle of Secondary Life Support.
Gas information is not considered life support in technical diving. Gas is planned accurately in advance and loss of this information causes an aborted dive. Gas information is not replicated (redundancy: i.e. AI with an SPG back-up) because that introduces failure points for no life support benefit.
The Principle of Gas Reserve.
Unaffected by AI. However, it is worth bearing in mind that AI computer functions would need to allow the technical diver to specify their own parameters for gas reserve warnings and alerts - 1/3rds, 1/6ths etc. It would also need to enable team gas matching for turnpoints.
The Principle of Self Sufficiency.
Unaffected by AI. The gas plan is the primary method for ensuring that the diver can safely and, without needing support, survive to the surface. That said... in the digital age, we might be prudent to consider "self sufficiency" in respect to the diver versus the computer, not just in the team context. Can the tech diver complete the dive independently without computer support?
The Principle of Depth.
The main issues here are narcosis and consumption. With regards to AI, there are pros and cons to information display. On one hand, data overload is not a good situation for the narc'd diver. On the other hand, digital systems can provide warnings and safeguards that can help prevent mistakes. I think this mostly depends on the UI and display. Recreational diving 'data junkies' might not appreciate the issue of task loading, significant narcosis and the limited ability to absorb information. In respect to consumption, the technical diver should have their gas planning squared away long before hitting the water. There is little need for a 'gas time' display or real-time SAC rate... as these should be known factors before the dive is attempted. Providing that information via AI computer should never take away from the need to complete extensive pre-dive planning, based on the diver having an accurate understanding of the variables involved.
The Principle of Simplicity (KISS principle).
This is a major principle concerning AI. Recreational divers will view AI as a means to introduce simplicity to their dive. Technical divers are liable to see it from the opposite perspective; as they have numerous protocols and procedures to follow that AI would complicate. Sync issues, battery life, refresh rates etc are something that SPG equipped technical divers don't need to worry about. Co-ordinating gasses/cylinders to transmitters to computer selections are also something technical divers don't need to worry about. Using AI for bottom gas, but SPGs for deco gas, etc etc (stuff mentioned on the thread) is more complicated than having a single procedure (i.e. checking SPGs on cylinders). Going back to the beginning of this post, become a technical diver and "..suddenly you’ll discover you understand."
The Principle of Procedure and Discipline.
This is also a major principle concerning AI. As mentioned before, technical divers have a methodology that includes many formal protocols and procedures. AI would necessitate deviance from them. In the worst case scenario, AI can lead to a temptation to circumvent those protocols and procedures... a 'normalization of deviance' can be set into motion that ultimately can cause incidents and injuries. This, obviously, is determined by the individual diver and their level of discipline. However, the issue of complacency and corner-cutting is a well understood human weakness. Temptation is easier to resist if it doesn't exist in the first place. Recreational divers routinely skip planning and 'fly their computers'...and it is generally consequence-less. AI must never be a temptation for technical divers to skip formal gas planning and developing the means and knowledge to survive technical dives if their computer failed.
I'll expand on that concept, for the sake of others...
Obviously... this applies to technical diving and no assumption is made that recreational divers need to or should, apply these principles. The mindset for technical diving is different, as the entire approach to diving is different. Many non-technical divers fail to appreciate this and assume it is elitism.
Specifically for technical diving, the outlying principles exist in training of every agency. PADI describe them at "Six Principles for Surviving a Tec Dive". I think these can be considered as an acid test; when new technology, protocols and procedures come along.
As an example, relating those principles to AI, from a technical diver mindset:
The Principle of Secondary Life Support.
Gas information is not considered life support in technical diving. Gas is planned accurately in advance and loss of this information causes an aborted dive. Gas information is not replicated (redundancy: i.e. AI with an SPG back-up) because that introduces failure points for no life support benefit.
The Principle of Gas Reserve.
Unaffected by AI. However, it is worth bearing in mind that AI computer functions would need to allow the technical diver to specify their own parameters for gas reserve warnings and alerts - 1/3rds, 1/6ths etc. It would also need to enable team gas matching for turnpoints.
The Principle of Self Sufficiency.
Unaffected by AI. The gas plan is the primary method for ensuring that the diver can safely and, without needing support, survive to the surface. That said... in the digital age, we might be prudent to consider "self sufficiency" in respect to the diver versus the computer, not just in the team context. Can the tech diver complete the dive independently without computer support?
The Principle of Depth.
The main issues here are narcosis and consumption. With regards to AI, there are pros and cons to information display. On one hand, data overload is not a good situation for the narc'd diver. On the other hand, digital systems can provide warnings and safeguards that can help prevent mistakes. I think this mostly depends on the UI and display. Recreational diving 'data junkies' might not appreciate the issue of task loading, significant narcosis and the limited ability to absorb information. In respect to consumption, the technical diver should have their gas planning squared away long before hitting the water. There is little need for a 'gas time' display or real-time SAC rate... as these should be known factors before the dive is attempted. Providing that information via AI computer should never take away from the need to complete extensive pre-dive planning, based on the diver having an accurate understanding of the variables involved.
The Principle of Simplicity (KISS principle).
This is a major principle concerning AI. Recreational divers will view AI as a means to introduce simplicity to their dive. Technical divers are liable to see it from the opposite perspective; as they have numerous protocols and procedures to follow that AI would complicate. Sync issues, battery life, refresh rates etc are something that SPG equipped technical divers don't need to worry about. Co-ordinating gasses/cylinders to transmitters to computer selections are also something technical divers don't need to worry about. Using AI for bottom gas, but SPGs for deco gas, etc etc (stuff mentioned on the thread) is more complicated than having a single procedure (i.e. checking SPGs on cylinders). Going back to the beginning of this post, become a technical diver and "..suddenly you’ll discover you understand."
The Principle of Procedure and Discipline.
This is also a major principle concerning AI. As mentioned before, technical divers have a methodology that includes many formal protocols and procedures. AI would necessitate deviance from them. In the worst case scenario, AI can lead to a temptation to circumvent those protocols and procedures... a 'normalization of deviance' can be set into motion that ultimately can cause incidents and injuries. This, obviously, is determined by the individual diver and their level of discipline. However, the issue of complacency and corner-cutting is a well understood human weakness. Temptation is easier to resist if it doesn't exist in the first place. Recreational divers routinely skip planning and 'fly their computers'...and it is generally consequence-less. AI must never be a temptation for technical divers to skip formal gas planning and developing the means and knowledge to survive technical dives if their computer failed.
Andy, the only issue I have with your post is that you make it sound like someone is trying to force AI upon all technical divers.
That is simply not the case. Use AI if/when it suits you, use SPGs if/when necessary. My point from the beginning is: if I could have a computer that does both well, yay I'm happy!
What you and Stuart said earlier about photography in my view is correct: it does take a lot from your mental bandwidth. The automatization happens with regards to handling camera and strobes which is a ridiculously hard to master skill set. Try adding to that all tech skills and protocols and you're in for a high risk activity. Still doable, but I don't think it's for many. At this point, I definitely can't do both well (who am I fooling, still can't do either well actually)
That is simply not the case. Use AI if/when it suits you, use SPGs if/when necessary. My point from the beginning is: if I could have a computer that does both well, yay I'm happy!
What you and Stuart said earlier about photography in my view is correct: it does take a lot from your mental bandwidth. The automatization happens with regards to handling camera and strobes which is a ridiculously hard to master skill set. Try adding to that all tech skills and protocols and you're in for a high risk activity. Still doable, but I don't think it's for many. At this point, I definitely can't do both well (who am I fooling, still can't do either well actually
)
DevonDiver
N/A
I think the original purposes of my posts have gotten lost in the spiral of this debate. Here's how I interpret the track of the debate...
Original Question: Should Shearwater add air integration to its computers?
1. Shearwater currently only make dedicated technical diving instruments.
2. Technical divers have not embraced/generally reject AI as a community.
Original Answer: No, Shearwater should not add air integration to its technical diving instruments.
Objection Raised: Many recreational divers buy Shearwater computers.
Objection Answered: Shearwater currently make technical instruments for technical divers. Recreational divers have other manufacturer options. Technical divers would not prefer AI functionality added if it increased complexity, failures or cost. Adding functions to cater for recreational diver whims would mean Shearwater computers ceased to be dedicated technical diving instruments.
Objection Raised: Recreational divers have a right to buy Shearwater computers and Shearwater should add the features and functions that recreational divers demand.
Objection Answered: If Shearwater wished to change its market position to capitalize on turnover from the recreational diving market, then they could dilute their technical diving instruments further to achieve that aim. This might negatively influence their existing domination of the niche technical diving market. Or they could make dedicated recreational diving instruments. This might lead to a large expansion, which might negatively influence their prestigious reputation for quality and customer service.
Side Issue Raised: Why don't technical divers want AI? Why is technical diving intransigent to technological developments?
Side Issue Answered: An explanation of technical diving considerations and core principles.
Secondary Side Issue Raised: Technical divers are all elitist and/or stuck in their ways.
Secondary Side Issue Answered: An explanation of technical diving considerations and core principles.
AJ
Contributor
I don't think that's what they worry about. Their concern is that adding AI to the SW DC's means downgrading stability and introducing issues while they see no advantage in the added technology. If SW would implement AI without any chance on problems arising, I don't see tech's will be against integrating AI.
Totally agree, just not at the cost of reliability in any way! As long as AI is optional there's no problem as far as I'am concerned. But there lies the problem: how will we know if there are'nt any problems introduced with AI? SW has earned a reputation for stable tech oriented computers. If only a very few stability issues would arise with the introduction of AI, they would loose their reputation real quick. So there's a chance they will expand their rec sales, but they could loose their reputation with and sales to the tech customers for ever.
The Chairman
Chairman of the Board
Andy, you've brought all of this up before. Your argumentum per deluvium doesn't change a thing. Your first claim that it adds a failure point is based on a flawed premise. When it comes to leaks: Wireless transmitters just don't leak. What's the real failure point here? We exchange one o-ring for another on a plug if you're adding it as redundancy and you're losing the failure points of a hose and spool if you replace the SPG. Next we'll hear about how they attract Jaguar Sharks and Cthulu. Lot's of "You're gonna die" but not much reality. If neglected, SPGs leak all the damn time. The tech diver doesn't need to be concerned with myths about what can really go wrong. They need to concentrate on reality. Science over BS: where are all these leaking transmitters? How many divers have they injured or killed? It's not much of an analysis if you're making all this crap up. How much of your teaching is based on paranoia about such myths?
I could go on and on with each of your failed assertions. You boldly assert that Tech Divers don't want this. Wow. Can you show us the data? Oh hell, no one around you is gonna say anything positive because then they will be labeled as not having the mind of a Tech Diver. You've simply extrapolated that since you are the best tech diver any one could meet that all tech divers feel this way. As a tech diver, I certainly don't. Science over BS. This was a misleading vividness.
Then you say that recreational divers feel they have a 'right' to buy Shearwater etc. etc. Again, where is the data for this? Every diver has the right to buy whatever PDC suits them. It may not be Shearwater if it doesn't suit them. Science over BS. This was nothing but a red herring.
I like Shearwater products. They are easy enough to use and provide great information. I've dove them before and am certain I will be diving them again. Moreover, I trust the Shearwater folk to do things right. In that regard, I trust that any feature they add to their product line would be just as tested and have the same quality. Personally, this tech diver would love to see AI become a feature. I don't buy into all the hyperventilated paranoid nonsense and myths that some feel necessary to describe this. I certainly hope that Shearwater isn't bullied into not providing wireless AI because of a few.
I could go on and on with each of your failed assertions. You boldly assert that Tech Divers don't want this. Wow. Can you show us the data? Oh hell, no one around you is gonna say anything positive because then they will be labeled as not having the mind of a Tech Diver. You've simply extrapolated that since you are the best tech diver any one could meet that all tech divers feel this way. As a tech diver, I certainly don't. Science over BS. This was a misleading vividness.
Then you say that recreational divers feel they have a 'right' to buy Shearwater etc. etc. Again, where is the data for this? Every diver has the right to buy whatever PDC suits them. It may not be Shearwater if it doesn't suit them. Science over BS. This was nothing but a red herring.
I like Shearwater products. They are easy enough to use and provide great information. I've dove them before and am certain I will be diving them again. Moreover, I trust the Shearwater folk to do things right. In that regard, I trust that any feature they add to their product line would be just as tested and have the same quality. Personally, this tech diver would love to see AI become a feature. I don't buy into all the hyperventilated paranoid nonsense and myths that some feel necessary to describe this. I certainly hope that Shearwater isn't bullied into not providing wireless AI because of a few.
CuzzA
Wetwork for Hire
No doubt. We've discussed what we would like to see out of the "future" of WAI in my thread. Perhaps we should approach this discussion as more of a challenge to SW to take a good technology and make it great. One thing I don't believe has been mentioned is if they designed a WAI system that was truly proven to be superior to all others they could license it to other DC manufacturers. Perhaps set the standard and just sell universal transmitters to everyone. $$$$$
If they're as good as everyone says they are on SB, they could do it and "Do It Right".
Similar threads
