Why the dislike of air integrated computers?

[eelnoraa]

Most people dont dive alone so at worst you swim to your buddy and ascend safely.
If you cant do that, then you should not be diving.

Except if you buddy is diving by the ART, then there may or may not be enough gas to get both of you to the surface.

---------- Post added July 26th, 2015 at 01:42 AM ----------

I don't follow the logic here. Exactly what skill(s) is being lost due to AI? Divers are still checking their gauge and probably more so since it's so convenient.

Maybe I didn't word it properly. As long as the AI user know the limitation is AI, it is all good. Skill is NOT lost due to AI, but lost due to people don't think gas management is unnecessary because they have AI. Some responses above proved this.

---------- Post added July 26th, 2015 at 01:54 AM ----------

What limitation of your AI computer caused you to need to share air?

I have never said AI is the cause to need to share air. What I said was if you are diving by ART indicated by the computer, and if air share is needed when ART is approchaing zero, there may or may not enough air to get both diver to the surface with proper ascent profile. Because ART is only considering the diver him/herself. At ART=0, the diver can start ascent and read surface with the predetermine reserve gas. If there are two diving at elevated breathing rate, there may not be enough gas.

Some people know this, some don't. Some are willing to take the risk some don't. I don't. And I learned this limitation when I had to share gas with someone at safety stop. The share air incident was caused of poor gas planning of another diver, not even my buddy, just someone close by at safety stop. My gas remaining at the surface was well below the predetermined setting. It got me thinking what if I started the air share at 100ft.

 

[phoenix31tt]

How was the back up cam intended to save lives. It allowed drivers to see directly behind the car before engaging the reverse gear, prompted by deaths of small children who were tucked up close behind the vehicle. The same effect can be produced by actually looking behind the vehicle instead of being in a hurry, distracted and jumping in and going. That being said, the cam in that situation augments ordinary core skills ie. backing up. I suspect that the technology is used differently now though in that people don't bother looking behind and just drive by cam instead ie. eroding the core skill.

Looking behind a car does not allow you to see anything lower than the trunk/rare of a vehicle... A small child tucked up close can still be hit regardless... Which probably was the case in most accidents as people generally look behind (or at least in the rear view which gives the same fov relative to this discussion) before they drive. Having a rear camera is increase in safety and if you ask me allows for even more situational awareness because you have more information. Turning your head does not increase your attentiveness or awareness. If I had mirrors or display to cover full 360 of my driving environment in one place... I'd say that would make for easier better driving... Because currently to focus my attention on totally different area means I'm not seeing another. If I look back to reverse and I'm turning I'm not seeing where the front of my car is going etc. If I have a rare camera I see both...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---------- Post added July 26th, 2015 at 05:21 AM ----------

Except if you buddy is diving by the ART, then there may or may not be enough gas to get both of you to the surface.

---------- Post added July 26th, 2015 at 01:42 AM ----------



Maybe I didn't word it properly. As long as the AI user know the limitation is AI, it is all good. Skill is NOT lost due to AI, but lost due to people don't think gas management is unnecessary because they have AI. Some responses above proved this.

---------- Post added July 26th, 2015 at 01:54 AM ----------



I have never said AI is the cause to need to share air. What I said was if you are diving by ART indicated by the computer, and if air share is needed when ART is approchaing zero, there may or may not enough air to get both diver to the surface with proper ascent profile. Because ART is only considering the diver him/herself. At ART=0, the diver can start ascent and read surface with the predetermine reserve gas. If there are two diving at elevated breathing rate, there may not be enough gas.

Some people know this, some don't. Some are willing to take the risk some don't. I don't. And I learned this limitation when I had to share gas with someone at safety stop. The share air incident was caused of poor gas planning of another diver, not even my buddy, just someone close by at safety stop. My gas remaining at the surface was well below the predetermined setting. It got me thinking what if I started the air share at 100ft.

That is just improper use of technology and poor gas management in general...

I would go further to say it is worse with an spg because... With an spg you do your own mental ATR or just dive until you reach a specific psi... Neither of which would factor in air share unless you factor it in. Diving with AI or spg does not preclude gas management. Setting a reserve pressure for air share or something like that can/should be done with an AI...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

This thread has become very interesting. It seems there are two main reasons why some divers here do not like AI. In my view, some of these reasons are tangible like the reliability of the gear, but most are philosophical.

1. There are really only two reliability concerns: the signal can be dropped between transmitter and receiver, or battery failure of the transmitter (actual physical transmitter failures seem to be extremely low, almost on a par with SPG failures) Signal drops are, almost universally, very temporary with the computer picking up signal again in just a few seconds. Also, the anecdotal evidence seems to be that transmitters from the last 5 years or so really do not suffer much signal drop if they are mounted properly on the first stage. These have been addressed dozens of times and the loss of signal condern is best refuted by the hundreds of thousands (ormore) AI computers in use, and the lack of distinctt or reliable evidence they cause people to go OOA.

I If the transmitter is not mounted properly, or the battery dies, that is not an equipment problem, it is a diver problem.

2. Which brings me to the philosophical issues. First, is that it makes a diver "lazy" and so that diver won't keep proper track of their gas. You are saying that having your gas on your wrist at a glance makes you less aware? Or that you are more aware of gas when you do the grab-and-check of an spg? Sorry, this one does not compute. As a former old school and now AI diver, I can tell you that I am more aware of my gas status now. Especially when carrying a big camera or using a dpv, when the "grab and check" process is really, really inconvenient.

The second philosophical concern is a variety of things all lumped into the general idea that "divers don't know how to properly manage gas." What this has to do with a computer is beyond me. I presume that all divers know how to use their gear and understand what it is telling them. If they do not, that is not a "gear problem." In fact, if the outcry over lack of knowledge is true, then a computer's ATR function should actually increase, not decrease, diver safety.

So, some say "don't trust ATR". Well, if you don't, then just use the computer as a pressure gauge readout. That is its basic function after all. How you manage your gas is entirely up to you.

Some say "ATR doesn't account for two divers having to surface." And an SPG does? In fact (at least on my computer), turn pressure alerts can be manually set for whatever pressure you want based on you own calculations if you are a "rock bottom" diver (which I am not).

For NDL diving (not deco diving) I find that the ATR function would suffice for a quick ascent sharing air. A practical example, on my last dive, the ATR (for a surface reserve of 500) sent me up with 750. Means it calculated I needed 250 for a standard ascent and 3 minute safety stop. That also means I have 500 extra to share with a buddy if needed--which, if he needs 250, still leaves a 250 cushion. Even if we would be breathing more on a sharing ascent due to stress, under those circumstances we are doing a faster ascent and skipping the stop. So, I am satisfied that I can rely on the ATR to get us up, for no-deco diving.

One poster said AI leads divers to "push the limits." That is not an AI problem, it is a diver problem. See my example above, AI can be made as conservative as you want it to be (ie I could set my surface reserve for 750).

Again, it's knowing the gear and how to use it. For everyone who wants to do it "old school" that is great, but it is NOT an objection to AI technology.

I LIKE my AI computer (and still carry an spg)

I LIKE my back-up camera (and still look).

 

[eelnoraa]

I definitely appreciate the thoughtful explaination, especially on the pro AI side. I tried to have an open mind on things. My first dive computer was an AI, after some a few incident, I decided to move away from it. As tech advance, I think one of these days, there is a chance I may go back. I will definitely let you know when that happens

 

[The Chairman]

Guy,

You knocked it out of the park with that last post. That was an awesome synopsis of the perceived problems (myths) of the AI. When I am being the ersatz DPV and primary handler for an adaptive diver, I almost always have one hand occupied and sometimes both. Hoseless AI makes the dive a lot safer if not saner. I do have to remember to put the PDC on the inside of my right wrist for everything to work out, But it's mostly, just a casual glance at my PDC and then a lot more work to look at theirs. I've got plenty of sensors, so maybe I need to put one on their reg as well. It would make it easier and when you're dealing with trim, buoyancy, propulsion, situational awareness and gas management for two, that translates into increased safety.

In the end, it's simply a personal choice defined by your finances, your acceptance of technology and your various phobias or myths you accept as true. You don't need AI, but then do you really need an SPG? There are strategies for diving without one and I've used them. However for most, diving without an SPG of some sort is stupid. It's the way you were trained to dive.

 

[RJP]

I have never said AI is the cause to need to share air. What I said was if you are diving by ART indicated by the computer, and if air share is needed when ART is approchaing zero, there may or may not enough air to get both diver to the surface with proper ascent profile. Because ART is only considering the diver him/herself. At ART=0, the diver can start ascent and read surface with the predetermine reserve gas. If there are two diving at elevated breathing rate, there may not be enough gas.

That's not a limitation of AI... that's a limitation of intelligence and/or poor planning.

An SPG is even worse than AI in that respect since an SPG knows nothing of depth, time, breathing rate, gas reserve, safety stop requirements, ascent rate, etc.

 

[dmaziuk]

perhaps you'll never find yourself wishing that you were sufficiently equipped to handle something as simple as donating to an out of gas diver and knowing that you had enough resources to get to the surface without both of you running out of gas.

I don't know who you're arguing with or what thread you've been reading.

---------- Post added July 26th, 2015 at 03:26 PM ----------

1. There are really only two reliability concerns...

Extremely impractically, the signal can be jammed or spoofed.

 

[AfterDark]

Bottom line, divers MUST be comfortable and confident in the gear they use. I wouldn't call it life support gear, but I do bet my life on my gear every time I submerge.

Some people are comfortable with that bet when electrons are involved, others like myself are not. I don't have a back up cam but like some posted it does allow a driver to see places that can't be seen without it. AI can make no such claims, it does nothing but make otherwise obtainable data convenient to view at a price many times that of the other gear used for those purposes, watch, depth gage and spg. I don't buy or use gear that I can't use with confidence or that doesn't suit the type of diving I do. My experiences that developed this lack of confidence has been posted in this thread and do not need repeating.

 

[Nemrod]

What about something like the Hollis TX1? It can be purchased with or without the tx and also has a bungee case available. One could use this computer with or without even if you bought the tx. And if you buy it without at least in the short term it looks like you could purchase that separately as well.

I know the Petral is the darling of tech these days but it has no tx available and it is unfortunately a large and protruding device to wear on the wrist or arm. And, yes, I have put one on and that was my thought. Just without any in depth look at these, it seems the Hollis TX1 has a low profile, a clear display, can handle most recreational or technical gas mixes and has the possible advantage of having a tx available. Plus, I prefer the Nitrogen loading graph on it better than the Petrel.

N

 

[DaleC]

However for most, diving without an SPG of some sort is stupid. It's the way you were trained to dive.

Isn't that the same thing as saying diving with an AIC is some sort of stupid... because most people were not trained to use one?

That's not a limitation of AI... that's a limitation of intelligence and/or poor planning.
An SPG is even worse than AI in that respect since an SPG knows nothing of depth, time, breathing rate, gas reserve, safety stop requirements, ascent rate, etc.

That's an interesting point that I was sort of focusing on with the back up cams. The technology itself is neither good nor bad.

With an SPG you are the one who needs the skill to remain aware of depth, breathing rate, gas reserves etc... Hopefully you develop and retain that skill. If that's the case, then an AIC augments the skill you already have, and if you are intelligent you will continue to use both your base skills and the additional input from the AIC.

With AIC's the computer takes over the skills role.. and if you start off with an AIC you may never really develop that skillset. In that case the AIC replaces the skill. In good hands it is a convenience but in poor hands it allows someone to do bigger dives, riding gas limits and NDL's without having the requisite skills.

With that in mind I would say an SPG is the better tool for developing gas management skills. In the same way I would say the tables are a better tool for developing dive planning skills over a PDC. However, once you understand the relationships between depth and time by working through problems with the tables, a PDC is a better tool for executing dives.

Though I suppose some would object to that too.

I like that Guy explains the proper ways to use an AIC... if that were the status quo I would be happy (actually I'm happy right now but you know what I mean). However, I have seen people dive St130's and use the AIC to squeeze every last drop out of it on every dive they do. I actually stopped diving with them because it was so crazy. Of course, you could say it's a person issue but the AIC certainly allows them to act out their plan far better than an SPG.