Why does SDI insist on teaching only Dive Computers?

[Steve02]

And my career is in digital medical imaging, replacing nasty, archaic, analog, chemical-soup film systems and installing among other things computer-aided diagnosing systems that pre-scan MRI and digital mammo images for problem areas - helping the reading physicians see things early on that they might never have noticed before.

Technological progress is great.

Well, I wonder why they even train physicians to read those scans then anyway - If a computer software program will do it.

I agree that computers are nice, and a lot of people really rely on them. However, I do feel a lot more comfortable just being able to plan out my dives ahead of time, even if I might not stick exactly to my plan.

I am engineer, so yes I do understand the value that computers add to our everyday lives. But I also understand the need to know how and why the computer is giving me the results that it is.

My $0.02.

Steve

 

[FritzCat66]

Well, I wonder why they even train physicians to read those scans then anyway - If a computer software program will do it.

Things are moving that direction faster than most people realize. In large part because the systems learn from the human physicians - every diagnosis the system missed, every false positive, becomes fodder for the database, a tweak to the AI.

The first gaming computers lost to chess grandmasters, and it took a long time and many evolutions, but then eventually the AI bested the humans. The same will happen with computer-interpreted diagnoses. I've already seen huge leaps in progress in my field since I was installing the first generation in the 90's.

This is a good thing, a wonderful thing.

And already a large percentage of the interpretations made by the human physicians are no longer being transcribed, but rather fed through a voice-recognition engine - which again took a while to evolve (believe me, I've had to uninstall a few), but are now more accepted than not.

However, I do feel a lot more comfortable just being able to plan out my dives ahead of time, even if I might not stick exactly to my plan.

My computer already allows me to plan a dive, and "walk" through it. But I'll concede that function just isn't quite "there" yet. I think features like this will evolve to be even more flexible, useful, and powerful.

I am engineer, so yes I do understand the value that computers add to our everyday lives. But I also understand the need to know how and why the computer is giving me the results that it is.

Agreed, one should understand the limits of whatever technology one is using, whether it's a computer or a sextant. Or even a simple compass, a lesson I learned when failing my navigation checkout dives due to being too close to an old wreck that was skewing my readings.

Also agreed that someone must understand how and why the digital system functions - but that throws the technological knowledge required back to the physical and physiological theories behind the tables, not the tables themselves, which are already just a crude compromise.

The hardware and software engineers always have to know the science and technology - and I've worked side-by-side with engineers my entire career and have great respect for them.

A GPS has to calculate position based on minute timing and phase differentials between satellite signals, for example. But I don't want to do those calculations myself, I'll leave it to them - let them do what they're trained to do, and trust the device, also knowing its limitations. Likewise, I don't have to know how to calculate safe times using the modified Haldanean algorithms in my PDC, but I trust the technology and the engineers, and am also aware of the computer's limitations, what it can and can't do (like predict my future changes in depth).

But when it comes to performance in the field, I know my personal wetware CPU is affected by narcosis - even before I am aware of the effects. But the silicon CPU in my computer is not. So I also know which one I tend to trust more at depth.

>*< Fritz

 

[DiveNav]

Hi KJackson60,
next week we are releasing a new version of our dive simulator that includes an advanced Dive Computer - Nitrox capable.

Whit this new version You will also be able to plan one or more Nitrox virtual dives and see in 3D -while you dive - how the various combination of gas mixes / dive times / dive depths / surface intervals will affect your Nitrogen and O2 loadings.

We call this: "Learning while Playing"

Enjoy it.

 

[Steve02]

A GPS has to calculate position based on minute timing and phase differentials between satellite signals, for example. But I don't want to do those calculations myself, I'll leave it to them - let them do what they're trained to do, and trust the device, also knowing its limitations.

I think we may be saying the exact same thing. I have a GPS too, and the limit of my knowledge of their operation is about what you described above. However, I don't care how they work either becuase if it does crap out then I know how to read a map.

I guess my point is, while computers are great, great tools I don't want to have to rely on them soley.

And I agree, at a deep depth, where narcosis could effect judgement then I too would whole heartedly want to trust the computer moreso than myself.

 

[CompuDude]

Apparently SDI believes divers should never have to actually think about diving.

The horror.

I agree that the GPS analogy is excellent... just not in the way FritzCat intended. It's one thing to teach divers to use a GPS, it's another thing to teach them that a GPS is the only solution, and that if it dies, you're screwed... rather than teaching them how to read a map as a backup. Same with tables. Computers are great, but if I'm on a trip to dive, as long as I have a depth gauge and a watch, I can dive tables if I don't have access to a computer (loss, damage, whatever).

 

[uncleavi]

If you don't want to learn to dive with a computer, your best bet is to go to Lancaster PA and learn to dive with the Plain folk and stay away from the wicked ways of the English.

 

[uncleavi]

I changed my mind, if you don't want to learn with a Computer, pick another agency.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

Why is it that when I did TDI advance nitrox and deco proceedures we did tables and now with regular ndl recreational stuff they have to use a computer. Shouldn't it be the other way around being that the tech stuff is more critical?

When I took PADI nitrox they gave us a 32% table, a 36% table, and an equivilent air depth table that you could calculate any nitrox mixture up to 40% in combo with an air table. On the EAD table they also had an PPO2 saturation table on the back.

How do you program a typical computer to allow for deep stops without penalizing you thinking you're taking on more gas when in fact according to DAN's study, offgassing begins with deep stops and is much more effective than just going straight up to 15 feet like the computer tells you to do to avoid being locked out.

So does this mean that this computer idea is going to spread and they're going to have school children just use a calculator from the get go and they see no need to teach them basic arithmatic anymore? I guess they figure using your brain is archaic. Or is it that tables and theory take to much time and their profit margin goes down.

 

[Rick Inman]

...next week we are releasing a new version of our dive simulator ...

We call this: "Learning while Playing"

No, we call this, "Spam".

 

[FritzCat66]

... It's one thing to teach drivers to use a GPS, it's another thing to teach them that a GPS is the only solution, and that if it dies, you're screwed... rather than teaching them how to read a map as a backup. Same with tables. Computers are great, but if I'm on a trip to dive, as long as I have a depth gauge and a watch, I can dive tables if I don't have access to a computer (loss, damage, whatever).

Doesn't fly: The problem with that analogy is the gear required even to use the tables. Unlike with the map, which requires no other gear to use, to use tables you've got other pieces of equipment that can break. In other words, to truly fit the GPS-to-map analogy, you would need to be able to go from computer-to-tables without any other equipment, but that's not the case: tables are useless without TWO other pieces of equipment: a depth gauge and a timer (plus the tables themselves makes three: they can't really break but can certainly be lost).

Since that's the case, with tables you're just pushing around which piece of equipment you're dependent upon, and that leads to the whole redundancy argument. If that's the case, I think the KISS principle applies, and one should just wear a second, backup computer rather than switching between two completely different methods (computer vs. tables).

Also, if on a trip diving with a computer and that fails, switching to tables without knowing what your N2 and O2 saturation levels are would be difficult. I guess a 24-hour rest, but even that doesn't guarantee pulmonary O2 levels are reset. Again with KISS: get one good computer and dive it. If you really want redundancy, get a backup computer and wear it all the time.

Either way, toss the tables or put them in a museum with the sextant - good call, SDI.

>*< Fritz