This post is likely to start a flame war, but my intent is to solicit opinions.
Why do some scuba divers hate some scuba innovations that can give rise to a higher degree of safety?
Example: the air-integrated computer with audible warning when you pass your user-determined "reserve gas" pressure.
Many SB members feel that a good 'ol brass 'n glass SPG is all you need. Fine. A few have made jokes about the cacophonous symphony that accompanies a class of new divers completing their OW certs when their computers warn them about various issues. Point taken.
Of course you should manage your gas. Of course your buddy should be near at hand. Of course you should learn to use your computer. Of course you should learn to dive without a computer. But why do some hate computers, or at least a perceived over-reliance on them in this case?
For example, a pilot should know to watch the altitude gauge. Also, pilots of aircraft with retractable landing gear should know to extend said landing gear prior to landing. I am not a pilot, but I am sure that warning systems exist in aircraft to alert pilots to low altitude and retracted landing gear, irrespective of how good the pilot is.
What makes scuba different?
As suggested, I have re-read the original post.
I have never known any scuba diver to
hate any scuba innovation that can give rise to a higher degree of safety. Your question assumes there are scuba divers who
hate scuba innovations that can give rise to a higher degree of safety. If your questions starts with a bad assumption I can either ignore you or I can let you know that I believe your question has a bad assumption in it. I did the latter.
Next you give an example of a scuba innovation that can give rise to a higher degree of safety. I don't believe your example is an example of a scuba innovation that can give rise to a higher degree of safety. I attempted to explain to you why I don't think your example is a scuba innovation that can give rise to a higher degree of safety.
You also brought up the idea of a
perceived over-reliance on computers
in this case. I gave one of many examples of divers who have fail to monitor their pressure gauge. In a large group of vacation divers, 80% of the divers didn't seem to be checking their gauges. I have known I wanted to be an instructor for years. Over the past five years I have been observing my fellow divers so I can learn from what they do (right and wrong).
When I dive with people who agree with me that audible alarms are a gimmick I can ask them at any moment how much gas they have and they tell me without looking at their computer. I know them well enough to know they are always checking their gauges. This is why they don't need to check their gauges when I ask for a pressure check. They just checked their computer.
When I watch the people on vacation many have no idea how much air they have left. I go on vacation with my wife and she does not dive. So I always get paired with another single diver. Many of them don't manage their air supply. They basically aren't following what they are taught. Many of the have major careers that has nothing what so ever with scuba diving. Scuba diving is a escape and relax. Many have made it very clear to me in conversations that like having a DM take them diving so they don't have to think about were they are or how to get back to the boat (ignore basic nav skills), they like SpareAir in case they run out of air; they don't trust their buddy, the equipment they are using or that they can do a CESA. Trusting technology makes them feel safe. They have too much on their mind so learning and using tables is too much of a bother. Just buy a computer and it will do all the thinking for you. Get a computer with audible alarms and you don't even have to look at the thing. I've had people tell me this.
Is all of this proof that audible alarms are a bad thing? No, this is only my personal experience. There are tens of thousands of divers out there and I've met maybe 500 of them. The fact that other people on here seem to feel the same way as me makes me feel that maybe this using technology to replace proper training is more prevalent than I had previously believed.
I would say that a downstream regulator was a scuba innovation. An upstream regulator would fail if the first stage started to free flow resulting in instant loss of air. The downstream regulator would allow the air to continue to flow. I find this to be a safety innovation because you as a diver do not need to do anything to make it function.
Anything which
can be used to replace proper training runs the risk of people using it to replace proper training. A safety innovation is something which will save your life. I gave an example of a seatbelt in my previous post. I have
never known someone to drive worse because they were wearing a seatbelt. I believe this is due to marketing. All cars have seatbelts. People don't buy a car because it has a seatbelt.
When I purchased my computer I liked the idea of an audible alarm. I remember looking at models which had vibrate as well. I compared it to my PDA. I don't like checking my PDA every few minutes. The alarm was disruptive when I was in a meeting. The vibrate seemed great because it meant I didn't need to check my PDA every few minutes. I was thinking along the same lines when shopping for a dive computer. When I actually started diving with it I had been diving for 5 years with tables only and could not break the habit of checking my gauge (computer) every few minutes (more frequently on deep dives). I found that the alarm would go off and I know why. After a while I didn't even look and finally I just turned the alarms off.
Are their people who use audible alarms to supplement their existing training? Maybe. My personal experience tells me that there are enough people who use it to replace their existing training that make me skeptical of it.
If you want to give me a
real scuba innovation I'd be more than happy to answer your question. I suspect you will find that everyone here when present with a
real scuba innovation will not hate it.
