Why the dislike of air integrated computers?

[The Chairman]

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?

But it's just an electronic SPG. The numbers are the same: only more convenient.

With that in mind I would say an SPG is the better tool for developing gas management skills.

How? They are both SPGs, n'est pas? One's mechanical and one's electronic. They provide the very same data if you check them. I don't even think tables are a better tool to learn decompression either. All those letters get in the way of the student actually understanding gasses flowing in and out. Programs like v-Planner cut the learning curve by two thirds and students can actually play with various mixes and deco gasses.

 

[Ana]

Well I'd experienced something this week related to AI that somehow surprised me. For the last 7 or 8 years (actually don't remember exactly) I've been using a data mask, which of course makes a wonderful use of IA.

At the end of Tuesday's dive it gave me the "time for batteries" blinking, ok Wednesday the mask gets a new battery, I had the O ring and new set of screws ready since I try to order spares before I need them. Turn the thing on, and display acts funny, agrrrr I know what this means, my husbands did the same also after many many years and we had to send it for yadah yadah to Oceanic.

Ok send the thing back and pick one of what I call my dummy masks, dust off the old versa computer and add the pressure gauge to the first stage, no big deal I guess. Oh no, HUGE DEAL, stupidly huge PITA all that following dive I'm watching the gauges, almost obsessive watching instead of watching the reef, I missed all kinds of things because it turns out I have gotten used to look at air supply and current depth about once every 10 to 15 sec, because it only takes a slight move of the eye and there it is, I have my current data at a frequency that I never imagined I was doing. The following few days of dives I've actually stopped myself from looking more that every few minutes, today I did ok, saw an old turtle and a few cuttlefish but still ..... having that data being processed in my head was nice, I can't wait to have the mask back.

For work I throw equipment in the ocean that cost more than my gear, my boat and my house together, always rely solely on wireless communications for its location; to think this is new technology is not reasonable. Don't want to use it? fine, but I get the feeling that it doesn't fail more often than a mask strap or the zip tie that holds the mouth piece, as long as it is maintained.

 

[phoenix31tt]

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.

I would certainly not agree with this... tables are ridiculously inadequate for planning dives at it is a hindrance to most. I didn't have a problem with it but i'm almost sure that it's the hardest part of the theory for a lot of divers. Basic decompression theory is easy to understand... get to the tables... it's all over... planning the first dive is super easy, repetitive dives are where most people are screwed.

Either way, people using spg's don't necessarily develop the skills you are talking about, a lot of people actually just ride the spg not taking into consideration they breathed down their tank 20% faster than normal etc, it doesn't teach them to remain aware of depth, breathing rate, gas reserves etc. It's JUST a tool of measure, how you use it determines the skills you develop. Worse if they were thought to 'ascend at 500psi'. Proper training is proper training, and proper practice is proper practice... if you were trained properly and practice properly, it doesn't matter which method you use to track your gas, you will develop the necessary skill.

Actually working out the calculation in your head vs the computer working it out for you doesn't change the fact that you are aware of your breathing rate etc etc etc. Also, from what i've seen so far it seems that having the information an AI provides actually makes the user more aware of their breathing patterns etc

 

[DaleC]

Pheonix, that's like saying learning to do arithmetic is inadequate since calculators came on the scene. We all seem to sense the need to learn how to work through the problem there, before ceding control to the machine, so why not here.

I also learned the return to the boat with 500psi rule. However, I found it to be goofy as a tool and learned how to calculate rock bottom reserve values. Would I have ever done that if I had an AIC that simply told me when and where to go right away?

But it's just an electronic SPG. The numbers are the same: only more convenient.

It's not the wireless SPG feature I'm concerned about. I agree that they both do the same thing and on a recreational dive one can always abort if there is a failure (which I think would be rare in either case). In that regard my only objection would be personal in that I am a cheapskate and the mechanical is good enough for me. I accept other peoples personal choices may be different and place no greater value on mine, argument wise.

The features I am talking about are the PSI/time remaining.

Whether one uses the tables or an SPG, you are forced to think about the dive ahead of time. This generates a system of dive planning in which divers and buddies think and talk about the goals, time limits, turn pressures, gas reserves etc... or at least they should. This is a pretty good exercise for new divers because it forces them to think about the dive and the factors that effect it.

If one uses an AIC, there can be a tendency to begin relying on the computer to do that thinking for you, especially if you start early. Again, yes this a person problem, not a technology problem, but the AIC is a very good way to circumvent that process and still feel safe. Not so easy if you just use an SPG because it is pretty obvious you have no plan whereas, the AIC offers a plan without the thinking. My experience again, is with divers who use AIC's and have no pre dive planning discussions because they have gotten so used to simply riding the computer and following what it says, instead of what we used to talk and agree upon.

It's the same argument that could be made against doing too many "trust me" DM dives, wherein the DM does all the dive planning and thinking. The diver feels safe, follows a safe profile, but develops no real understanding or skill in dive planning.

Some of you are arguing that there is no issue; I suspect you may be instructors or dive professionals with a strong core skill set of dive planning and in that case I agree. But consider the new diver with an AIC. When you suggest they take a step back and stop relying on it to develop those skills themselves, they may very well say "Why? I have an AIC that does that for me". Now try to offer a rebuttal to someone who just spent $1000 exactly for a device that had those features. You'll be in the same position I am in this thread.

 

[dmoore19]

A dive computer read out is a representation of the tables. The tables are a representation of the same thing, printed out on a piece of paper. The tables were generated by a computer. They represent the same thing in different formats.

 

[phoenix31tt]

Phoenix, that's like saying learning to do arithmetic is inadequate since calculators came on the scene. We all seem to sense the need to learn how to work through the problem there, before ceding control to the machine, so why not here.

i'm saying you learn how to do that in school.. it's a training thing... in life you use the calculator. So it's back to AI or SPG... doesn't matter in the real world if gas management is not thought at training or emphasized during practice. I wouldn't expect you to do up your income statement or balance sheet working everything out, i'd expect you to just put it in an excel sheet. Notice i said they are inadequate for planning a dive, not that its unnecessary for deco training.

I also learned the return to the boat with 500psi rule. However, I found it to be goofy as a tool and learned how to calculate rock bottom reserve values. Would I have ever done that if I had an AIC that simply told me when and where to go right away?

I think, and maybe you can agree to this, that you are more the exception to the rule... so am I... the majority of scuba divers would just dive with the 500psi rule (or whatever the diver master/charter sets). Having AI, apparently, actually gets people to look at ATR and adjust their diving to suit and notice trends etc.

The guys that want to learn about this stuff, will learn about it regardless of what a computer tells them. My computer tells me everything i need to know about deco as far as recreational diving goes, still doesn't stop me from doing further reading and research on decompression theory an different algorithms and considerations for deco diving etc.

It's not the wireless SPG feature I'm concerned about. I agree that they both do the same thing and on a recreational dive one can always abort if there is a failure (which I think would be rare in either case). In that regard my only objection would be personal in that I am a cheapskate and the mechanical is good enough for me. I accept other peoples personal choices may be different and place no greater value on mine, argument wise.

don't get me wrong, if you had seen my first few posts my listed issues with AI were of course the cost, the hassle (for the ones that didn't sync, but based on contributions in this thread i've realized that maybe that's the minority) and it's bad if AI users just relied on an alarm (which doesn't seem to be the norm)

The features I am talking about are the PSI/time remaining.

Whether one uses the tables or an SPG, you are forced to think about the dive ahead of time. This generates a system of dive planning in which divers and buddies think and talk about the goals, time limits, turn pressures, gas reserves etc... or at least they should. This is a pretty good exercise for new divers because it forces them to think about the dive and the factors that effect it.

If one uses an AIC, there can be a tendency to begin relying on the computer to do that thinking for you, especially if you start early. Again, yes this a person problem, not a technology problem, but the AIC is a very good way to circumvent that process and still feel safe. Not so easy if you just use an SPG because it is pretty obvious you have no plan whereas, the AIC offers a plan without the thinking. My experience again, is with divers who use AIC's and have no pre dive planning discussions because they have gotten so used to simply riding the computer and following what it says, instead of what we used to talk and agree upon.

and the point i'm making is, people do not do gas management with an spg, at least not the majority. Think about it... you go on a charter all they tell you is guys 100ft for about 30 mins, make sure to signal at half tank/1500psi and surface with 500psi. That's about as far as gas management goes thus far. It goes back to training and mentality and a willingness to know/do better. I'd rather have more divers doing dives where the computer actually tells them how much time they have remaining, with reserve and safety stop. It's safer, its easier and more people would do it. Few people seek out gas management training or do further research on it when just diving with an SPG. AI seems to foster it, and in the worse case if it doesn't foster it, it at least makes for safer diving.

It's the same argument that could be made against doing too many "trust me" DM dives, wherein the DM does all the dive planning and thinking.

and you've hit the nail on the head... the answer isn't "don't dive with DM's in order to not do trust me dives"... or that "diving with DM's encourage trust me dives"... the answer is a mentality/training thing, some people just don't plan dives and as such rely on a DM to plan the dive, not having him there doesn't mean they would learn to plan dives on their own... Chances are they would just splash, dive a depth they are comfortable with, and surface with 500psi

Some of you are aguing there is no issue but I suspect you may be instructors or dive professionals with a strong core skill set of dive planning.

i think we all agree that there is an issue with gas management from the OW/AOW level. That's why many have cited it's a good thing it's being introduced now. However i would not agree that AI encourages poor dive planning or gas management... it's the training of the diver that does that

 

[Kharon]

Pheonix, that's like saying learning to do arithmetic is inadequate since calculators came on the scene. We all seem to sense the need to learn how to work through the problem there, before ceding control to the machine, so why not here.

Yep. I did software engineering for somewhere around 40 years. Do I trust the machine to think for me. Yeah right - absolutely not. Do I take advantage of making the machine do the work for me - you bet your bippy.

... If one uses an AIC, there can be a tendency to begin relying on the computer to do that thinking for you, especially if you start early. Again, yes this a person problem, not a technology problem, but the AIC is a very good way to circumvent that process and still feel safe. Not so easy if you just use an SPG because it is pretty obvious you have no plan whereas, the AIC offers a plan without the thinking. My experience again, is with divers who use AIC's and have no pre dive planning discussions because they have gotten so used to simply riding the computer and following what it says, instead of what we used to talk and agree upon....

It's just as easy to not pre-plan and dive the SPG. I've had "buddies" and DM's say when someone hits 1000psi we turn around. Personally I never look at the "how much time do I have left at this SAC rate at this depth". I know what I'm doing, what my skills and parameters are, and I know what my dive objectives are. The AI just makes it "one stop shopping" - all the info in one place. I don't have to check my computer for depth, etc. and a seperate gauge for air pressure.

Oh yes - I have a splitter on my HP port and still have an SPG just in case. Should the AI wireless fail (never has happened) I can continue my dive as planned.

Some of you are arguing that there is no issue; I suspect you may be instructors or dive professionals with a strong core skill set of dive planning and in that case I agree. But consider the new diver with an AIC. When you suggest they take a step back and stop relying on it to develop those skills themselves, they may very well say "Why? I have an AIC that does that for me". Now try to offer a rebuttal to someone who just spent $1000 exactly for a device that had those features. You'll be in the same position I am in this thread.

+1. I think that the industry should be honest and firmly inform every newly certified diver that their C-Card is only a learners permit. You don't know everything and you certainly haven't mastered everything. In stepwise order you have to practice and master each skill you were introduced to, one at a time - buoyancy, trim, dive planning, navigation, etc. in order to be a safe/successful diver.

AI is a convienence not a crutch. But it's a damn nice convienence.

 

[DaleC]

I certainly don't think AIC are going away so I am happy with a discussion that brings up these sorts of points and discusses the pros and cons of using them. I think the main thrust, from my personal life experience, is that the period of thinking through the steps of a process is important in understanding how the system works. I have generally found manual systems favour this thinking over say, automatic system. It doesn't mean I disfavour automatic systems altogether.

Off to work... on my bicycle with friction shifters

 

[boulderjohn]

Whether one uses the tables or an SPG, you are forced to think about the dive ahead of time. This generates a system of dive planning in which divers and buddies think and talk about the goals, time limits, turn pressures, gas reserves etc... or at least they should. This is a pretty good exercise for new divers because it forces them to think about the dive and the factors that effect it.

Is it your experience that what you are describing as being "forced" upon people is actually happening on recreational dives? I have seen precious little evidence of it being done on those dives, so I question the degree to which people are being forced to do it.

I I have generally found manual systems favour this thinking over say, automatic system. It doesn't mean I disfavour automatic systems altogether.

I don't believe this is necessarily true.

I was an English teacher when word processing programs with spell check were introduced. Many of my colleagues were aghast and predicted that it would be harmful to learning spelling skills. I was not so sure, and I turned out to be right. With potentially incorrect words underlined so that students had to think about whether or not they were spelled correctly, spelling ability actually improved through the use of spell check.

Similarly, back when I used an AI computer, every time I looked at it I was reminded to think about my breathing rate and how it was dependent upon depth. I think that helped me learn to take air cosumption into account in my diving.

As I have said before, in my own diving I have decided I don't want AI anymore, for reasons already stated. Simply put, it is not what I want in my personal diving right now. That does not mean that it is not a good thing for other people in their personal diving, and I think some of the reasons people are coming up with for it being bad for everyone are real reaches.

 

[dmaziuk]

Is it your experience that what you are describing as being "forced" upon people is actually happening on recreational dives? I have seen precious little evidence of it being done on those dives, so I question the degree to which people are being forced to do it.

You can force a diver to the table...

---------- Post added July 27th, 2015 at 12:47 PM ----------

It's just as easy to not pre-plan and dive the SPG. I've had "buddies" and DM's say when someone hits 1000psi we turn around.

I suspect there was a bit more to that, like they also told you how deep you were going and that turning around involved going up into the shallow part of the dive. I wouldn't call that "not pre-planning", it's just a not very detailed plan -- presumably for an easy dive that doesn't really require meticulous planning down to the tiniest detail.