Why do some agencies recommend using a bottom timer instead of a computer

[tbone1004]

@Dan_P you guys are ridiculous. The idea that a computer can fail, so you do deco in your head is bullsh!t when you are using a bloody computer as a bottom timer just running in gauge mode. What are you afraid of failing? That a computer, which by design does math, can all of a sudden forget how to do math? yeah right

 

[Dan_P]

@Dan_P you guys are ridiculous. The idea that a computer can fail, so you do deco in your head is bullsh!t when you are using a bloody computer as a bottom timer just running in gauge mode. What are you afraid of failing? That a computer, which by design does math, can all of a sudden forget how to do math? yeah right

I'm not about computers failing. Absolutely, that can happen, but you'd need to go through a small armada of failures for that to be the probem, unless everybody in the team is using the same hardware/software. In either case, that's not within my range of motivations.
I'm about engaging decompression questions and choices, growing and adapting my approach as I develop, avoiding dependency on anyone or anything, staying athought continuously, and developing divers to do the same.
I don't have a problem with the use of computers, I just feel that ratio deco is also a good way to dive/develop and personally prefer that one by far, for the pros and cons that it has.

 

[barth]

@Dan_P you guys are ridiculous. The idea that a computer can fail, so you do deco in your head is bullsh!t when you are using a bloody computer as a bottom timer just running in gauge mode. What are you afraid of failing? That a computer, which by design does math, can all of a sudden forget how to do math? yeah right

It is not ridiculous, it can happen. When my gekko was in error it was just showing time, depth and temperature.

I did deco by myself that dive and also the next dive because my gekko was 48h in error.

 

[dmaziuk]

When you bend your computer and want to dive during its 48-hour "get unbent" lockout... RatioDeco to the Rescue! We "it" people have legends about this sort of computer use: Fun E Humor - Joke and Humour Archive

 

[barth]

 

[Dan_P]

If one hasn't the training to differentiate computer error from decompression obligation, and hasn't the training to comfortably drop the computer, then it can't be safely done (Example A).
If one has the training to differentiate computer error from decompression obligation, and has the training to comfortably drop the computer, then it can be safely done (Example B).

Example A: an insignificant computer error may mean 2-3 days dry.
Example B: an insignificant computer error means nothing.

More importantly;

Example A: a significant computer error may mean getting bent.
Example B: a significant computer error means nothing.

 

[Diver0001]

Sure, there's the "it's about the instructor, not the agency"-excuse.... but that really only holds true for agencies that do a pretty poor job of assuring a consistently high level of training quality, doesn't it.

Well.... I don't think there is any agency out there with a consistently high level of training quality. I appreciate that you want to root for the home team but I've personally witnessed a GUE instructor making a bit of a fiasco out of a DIR-F course, of all things. He was objectively a good diver but as a teacher you couldn't see anything in the way he conducted that course that made him worthy of the term "instructor".

What I don't understand is holding on to a 20-30 year old paradigm when the technology has improved so much. The use of a bottom timer and related procedures stems from a time when there were literally no adequate technical computers available. That has changed.

An inability to learn and adapt to a changing context is the hallmark of a paradigm lock. A paradigm lock can only end one of two ways. (1) the teachings become increasingly irrelevant over time, as is happening here and/or (2) among believers it gets elevated to a state of religion -- religion, in this context, meaning holding on through "faith" to that which is indefensible given modern knowledge.

The point that you have to know what you're doing even if you have a computer is valid but suggesting in any way, shape, or form, that using a computer is mutually exclusive to knowing what you're doing is completely and utterly absurd.

R..

 

[Dan_P]

Well.... I don't think there is any agency out there with a consistently high level of training quality. I appreciate that you want to root for the home team but I've personally witnessed a GUE instructor making a bit of a fiasco out of a DIR-F course, of all things. He was objectively a good diver but as a teacher you couldn't see anything in the way he conducted that course that made him worthy of the term "instructor".

What I don't understand is holding on to a 20-30 year old paradigm when the technology has improved so much. The use of a bottom timer and related procedures stems from a time when there were literally no adequate technical computers available. That has changed.

An inability to learn and adapt to a changing context is the hallmark of a paradigm lock. A paradigm lock can only end one of two ways. (1) the teachings become increasingly irrelevant over time, as is happening here and/or (2) among believers it gets elevated to a state of religion -- religion, in this context, meaning holding on through "faith" to that which is indefensible given modern knowledge.

The point that you have to know what you're doing even if you have a computer is valid but suggesting in any way, shape, or form, that using a computer is mutually exclusive to knowing what you're doing is completely and utterly absurd.

R..

I'm surprised any time I hear about a GUE-course flopping, going by blue team's reputation.
But I'll be honest:
I can't really weigh in on it as I've never done a GUE-course.
Even so, I personally believe there's probably/arguably a vast difference in scale/scope of deviations across agencies such as GUE, and more mainstream ones.

That said, as much as I personally appreciate all the "by divers, for divers"-agencies, I feel that's a good topic for another day.

As for the use of bottom timers/ratio deco.
Sure, it may well have been developed originally in a time where, and/or, because there were no strong computer options available. I've mentioned it before, but that's really nothing to do with my motivations for using it;

"I'm about engaging decompression questions and choices, growing and adapting my approach as I develop, avoiding dependency on anyone or anything, staying athought continuously, and developing divers to do the same."

I find ratio deco to be a very practical and effective tool in that regard.
There's nothing religious about that.
But hey, dive and let dive.

 

[Diver0001]

I find ratio deco to be a very practical and effective tool in that regard.
There's nothing religious about that.
But hey, dive and let dive.

It should be noted for the record in case anyone reads this and naively thinks that you're speaking the truth, that ratio deco is NOT an effective tool if you consider "effective" to mean that it gives you the optimum chance of avoiding DCS.

Perhaps you have a different definition of "effective" but to me if we're talking about deco algorithms then what other measure of "effective" could we possibly be talking about?

Other algorithms have been verified (including by AG himself in his botched attempt to "prove" the superiority of RD) to be more "effective" at protecting the diver from DCS.

Diving with a computer is not only more convenient but it is also safer than ratio deco. I think we need to make that clear.

I fully understand that you choose to use it because you have "faith" in ratio deco despite the facts (my point about paradigm lock and religion above) and I'm happy to "dive and let dive" when it concerns a diver of your experience who makes a choice. However, less experienced divers will be reading this thread and they need to be made aware that what you are saying here is misleading if we accept that the word "effective" means "effective at protecting the diver from DCS".

R..

 

[Jack Hammer]

It is not ridiculous, it can happen. When my gekko was in error it was just showing time, depth and temperature.

I did deco by myself that dive and also the next dive because my gekko was 48h in error.

A Suunto Gekko is totally inappropriate as a decompresion technical dive computer. It's perfectly fine as a bottom timer. I would highly reccomend to anyone performing and relying on a Gekko to tell them their deco schedule to seriously seek out proper training.

btw, I've had a Gekko for over 10 years and still use it as a backup bottom timer.