Why the dislike of air integrated computers?

[The Chairman]

I don't know that I would rank you with them, Guy. In fact, few if any in this thread are really die hard, "we did it better back in the day" instructors. All things should evolve. Stupid and dangerous should be eased out to make way for smart and safe. The worse assumption to make is that it's best to keep doing the same old things over and over without any validation or critique. My best class is always my next one.

 

[DaleC]

Pete, I would agree with the sentiment that stupid and dangerous should be eased out in favour of smart and safe but that can be a subtle line to draw.

Some would see using a J valve as the former and AI as the latter yet it's not so black and white. To dive a J valve well there is a philosophy of conservatism and accompanying skill set that goes along with the hardware. The first thing I learned was to cap dives with time limits and profiles that pretty well ensure safety regardless of anticipated mechanical operation.

What I hear repeatedly, and see with my fellow divers IRL, is less emphasis on conservatism and more reliance on correct readouts now that modern monitoring devices are prevalent. The trend seems to be pushing NDL's and gas consumption to the limit, every dive; using the "safer" technology to eliminate conservatism.

Not everyone does that, and I'm all doomsday about modern gear, but sometimes advances bring along unintended consequences.

 

[boulderjohn]

The worse assumption to make is that it's best to keep doing the same old things over and over without any validation or critique. My best class is always my next one.

Not everyone does that, and I'm all doomsday about modern gear, but sometimes advances bring along unintended consequences.

Every potential change has to be evaluated with an open mind. What gets in the way of an honest evaluation is a clinging to a couple of clichés:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
"A gear solution to a skills problem"

In the first case, the statement has an underlying belief that what we are doing now is perfect and cannot possibly be improved. Apply that mentality to aviation and we would still be lying on a double wing apparatus flying 100 feet on the beach at Kitty Hawk.

In the second case, everything we use in scuba is a gear solution to a skill problem. Why use fins, for example? If a new gear idea improves the diving situation enough to warrant its use, either through convenience or safety, what is the harm in using it?

 

[DaleC]

I think, when we advance technology, we have to also consider the effect on skill it may produce.

Car technology is a good example. One problem they tried to fix was not being able to see behind the car when backing up, so they adopted back up camera's/sensors. Ok in itself, but now there are people who don't even look behind when they back up, they just trust the camera. The technology actually erodes the requisite skill.

That's how I see gas monitoring. When I use a J valve I need to adopt a skillset/behavioral pattern that allows for safe diving. I have a plan A, plan B, plan C. I would agree that the hardware is less accurate than when I use an SPG (or if I used a functioning AIC). But what I hear, and see, is people dropping, or not even being aware of, safe behavioral patterns because they now believe the technology is "safer".

These days I fear repetitive diving close to the NDL's and cutting reserves to the edge at depth far more than I do a failing J valve. The only failure that really has is accidental tripping and I check lever position about as often as I check my SPG. Even if it failed completely, and I go OOA, my profile has me in the shallows at the proper time and I have the skill to do a short direct ascent or CESA.

But I do concede that philosophy is diver specific and users on both sides of the equation can or can't adopt it.

 

[dmaziuk]

Since I am my buddy's redundant eyes and brain, I'll be taking a look at their gas supply a few times during the dive. I usually do this first when I've gone through 500psi. If they use more, then they are the limiting diver. If I use more, than I am the limiting diver. I'll usually recheck @ 1500psi and then when I think when they've hit their turn pressure. I expect them to do the same for me. So far, through thousands of dives, neither my buddy or I have gone OOA doing this.

Thanks, when I get an insta-buddy I'll remember to do that. So far I've been diving with my better half all the time so we both know who's what and we only do the "half-tank let's turn around and head for the shallows" checking. Now; we used to check more often. (You could say we've grown complacent.)


But that's not my point, my point is there's dive planning and there's disaster recovery planning. I don't plan my dives as disasters because I don't think I'd enjoy that kind of diving. So I think "what if you have to share air when you don't have enough to come up safely" is a straw man argument. If that happens you have a disaster on your hands and need to switch to emergency procedures. Nobody's saying you don't need emergency skills, it's just that your DC's and SPG's normal readouts during your regular dive are not about that.

 

[The Chairman]

Car technology is a good example. One problem they tried to fix was not being able to see behind the car when backing up, so they adopted back up camera's/sensors. Ok in itself, but now there are people who don't even look behind when they back up, they just trust the camera. The technology actually erodes the requisite skill.

This is too funny. Why shouldn't they 'just trust the camera'? The view from the camera is probably better and wider than what they get by twisting their neck. What's not to trust? Either way, they are looking behind them and the convenience of it means that they are probably looking more often. I own a Sprinter and don't have a rear view mirror. One of the first things I added was a back up camera and it's a life saver.

 

[Patoux01]

This is too funny. Why shouldn't they 'just trust the camera'?

I believe about 50% of the people wouldn't realize the picture stopped moving should that happen for some reason (software crash).

 

[KevinNM]

I don't remember any real gas planning in any regular PADI class, other than some superficial stuff in the deep class. There was some discussion and exercises in the self-sufficient diver course. But that was completely blown away by the gas planning in GUE Fundamentals.

 

[The Chairman]

I believe about 50% of the people wouldn't realize the picture stopped moving should that happen for some reason (software crash).

According to the National Safety Council, backing up accounts for less than %1 of our driving and a full %25 of our accidents. About half of the victims are children who are often below the trunk line or in another blind spot. Most back up cams are set to be about the height of the license plate. Have you ever heard of someone hitting something using a back up cam that froze?

 

[phoenix31tt]

Another age old argument in the IT field... Things that used to be hard and complicated 10 years ago is now easier than ever so the old tech guys think the newer ones know nothing...

But companies are spending less time fixing and deploying things and can focuse on their core business faster...

Evolving technology has made things easier and safer... It doesn't mean that people nowadays are less skilled... What it means is that the skills develop in other things or areas...

The principles don't have to change though and that's what I think is most important


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk