uwatec lawsuit

[Braunbehrens]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/25/MN309974.DTL

 

[detroit diver]

For those that are unaware of this suit, it has to go under the category

Why you don't rely on computers for diving"

Flame on.

 

[wreckchick]

Well, I certainly don't check my computer for time to fly info. It's 24 hours for me no matter what the computer thinks. I wholeheartedly agree that you should do a sanity check on what the computer is telling you. I know that if I do a dive to 100' for 20 minutes, then have a 1/2 hour surface interval, a dive to 80' for 30 minutes isn't going to work.

The reality is that lots of people do use computers for dive planning and that a KNOWN defect in the algorithm should NOT be covered up and leaving it in operation puts a whole bunch of people at unnecessary risk for DCS. It's negligent behavior. The computer behaved flawlessly, I'm sure, but the programming was faulty. A computer, any computer, including the one you're on right now is only as smart as its stupidest componant. Computers don't make mistakes, people do.

Rachel

 

[detroit diver]

biscuit7 once bubbled...
Well, I certainly don't check my computer for time to fly info. It's 24 hours for me no matter what the computer thinks. I wholeheartedly agree that you should do a sanity check on what the computer is telling you. I know that if I do a dive to 100' for 20 minutes, then have a 1/2 hour surface interval, a dive to 80' for 30 minutes isn't going to work.

The reality is that lots of people do use computers for dive planning and that a KNOWN defect in the algorithm should NOT be covered up and leaving it in operation puts a whole bunch of people at unnecessary risk for DCS. It's negligent behavior. The computer behaved flawlessly, I'm sure, but the programming was faulty. A computer, any computer, including the one you're on right now is only as smart as its stupidest componant. Computers don't make mistakes, people do.

Rachel

In this case, the people making the mistakes were both the programmers and the computer company owners. The computer did not behave flawlessly. The users of the computer assumed that it did, though. Just like what happens thousands of times every day. Blind acceptance because it's a computer.

How many other algorithms in current computers are defective that are not known? Or are being covered up?

 

[wreckchick]

My point was not that the computer wasn't diplaying incorrect information, it was, but that computers don't know the difference between what it "right" and what is "wrong", only that they have a set of mathematical principles to work off of and they handle those with 100% accuracy. Using a computer with a solid, reliable algorithm is very safe.

As to what other computers might have problems? We won't know until people do or don't end up bent and suing the manufacturers.

For the guys that flew in a airplane after less than 8 hours of diving? What were they thinking anyway? That's bad decision making right off the top.

R

 

[detroit diver]

biscuit7 once bubbled...
My point was not that the computer wasn't diplaying incorrect information, it was, but that computers don't know the difference between what it "right" and what is "wrong", only that they have a set of mathematical principles to work off of and they handle those with 100% accuracy. Using a computer with a solid, reliable algorithm is very safe.

As to what other computers might have problems? We won't know until people do or don't end up bent and suing the manufacturers.

For the guys that flew in a airplane after less than 8 hours of diving? What were they thinking anyway? That's bad decision making right off the top.

R

I understood your point. But the one I was making was that MOST people rely TOTALLY on their computers and shut off their brain. The computer tells them to fly after 8 hours, and they do so. The computer tells them that theY can dive to 80 ft for 45 min after a 1/2 hour SIT, and they do so. If the computer is correct, they have a reasonable (but not total) chance to come out okay.

If not, they wind up bent, or worse. For relying on a computer.

There have been many threads about computers vs no computers. The facts and info behind this lawsuit gives one some reason to ask again-what if the computer is just plain wrong? Uwatec sat on their hands for years without telling anyone for fear of losing sales. This is a major player in the dive comuter business. How many people got bent because of that? More importantly, how many people are getting bent now because of some unknown defect in existing computers? Imagine this same scenario if Suunto were to come out with the same (or similar) problem (and I'm not suggesting that they would).

Would that change the way you look at computers viz a viz diving?

 

[wreckchick]

There are convincing arguements on both sides of the computer vs. no computer debate. I think that both sides can agree that it is the diver that should be held responsible for double-checking any dive plan regardless of where it originates.

I would not dive a complicated plan based soley on a computer's "up to date" information, but the basic outline of a rec dive is pretty straightforward when looking at a dive computer, or the tables, or the wheel. There should be a modicum of common sense used when diving within rec tables be they cardboard or computer based. Pushing any limit from a table or a computer is a bad idea.

On a related note, how many technical dives are planned using software?

R

 

[detroit diver]

biscuit7 once bubbled...
There are convincing arguements on both sides of the computer vs. no computer debate. I think that both sides can agree that it is the diver that should be held responsible for double-checking any dive plan regardless of where it originates.

I would not dive a complicated plan based soley on a computer's "up to date" information, but the basic outline of a rec dive is pretty straightforward when looking at a dive computer, or the tables, or the wheel. There should be a modicum of common sense used when diving within rec tables be they cardboard or computer based. Pushing any limit from a table or a computer is a bad idea.

On a related note, how many technical dives are planned using software?

R

Obviously, I don't have the answer, but I would guess most of them would be.

BTW, none of the dives mentioned in the suit were of a technical or complicated nature. They relied on the computer to tell them when the SIT was over and when to fly/not fly. For those that hadn't read the article, the computer error was in the fact that the program mistakenly assumed the SIT was conducted on EANX instead of air (when the computer was in EANX mode). That would have reduced the nitrogen levels in the diver's system and lowered the SIT and no-fly time. In reality, when the divers did their SIT on air, this was not the case and they got seriously bent with permanent damage.

 

[navy85]

This article was front page in the Chron today, so I am sure the lawsuit will get some visibility.

From what I gleaned from the article, it appears that the programming was changed in later models (the recall only impacted 392 Aladins in the U.S. and the draft recall notice was for computers manufactured prior to Dec 95) - did anyone else have this same thought?

Here's another vote against blind allegiance to computers - do a sanity check and don't tempt fate by trying to go to close to the limits.

 

[wreckchick]

I read the article and I understand the implications, but there was a lack of common sense that these divers displayed by believing the computers that obviously showed times that were way out of line with what would be considered reasonable.

It may be that they looked at the computer as some sort of miracle device that could save them a whole lot of down time, I think that divers today do, or should, take the computer with some wariness to guard against that very thing.

I feel for the divers involved and I think that it's horrible what happened to them and that Uwatec should have been more forthcoming about the flaws in the programming. I don't think that it's an example as to why people shouldn't use them at all, but use them with a solid dose of common sense.

R