What to do if your computer dies

[Searcaigh]

What BDSC said. If the guy is in his 60' and has over 2000 dives I am sure that he knows his own limits let alone any computer he would be wearing. I had a computer crap out on me last year but kept on keeping on with my watch and air pressure gauge. No problemo.

Should that not be your watch and Depth gauge

Changing computers so often is not a good plan as it does not take into account previous dives, definately not a good idea.

This thread has definately got me thinking about bringing along a second computer though.

 

[Jax]

Reciently while doing a week of diving the "vandenburg" one of our group had his computer die. since we had simiular profiles we knew he had satisfied his computer. I gave him my redundant computer to use for our secound dive (I dive 2 computers) well to make a long story short ...the next day he used a different computer from the dive shop and the next day after that he used yet another computer from yet another dive shop. inspite of my warnings to stay with us(dive a simular profile) he chose to dive the full limit of the computers. I have elected not to ever dive with him based on his ignoring our repeated warnings . he is in his mid to late 60's and has logged well over 2000 dives. Am I wrong? BTW our profiles were 100 to 130 feet for all dives

Q: Did you elect "to not ever dive with him again" because he ignored your warnings? Because he wouldn't dive the way you thought he should?

Or was it because you see him as a danger? What danger?


At what point does the diver not have the right to make his own decisions about the way he dove? How would anyone know that a diver who "is in his mid to late 60's and has logged well over 2000 dives" did not take his N2 loading into affect in his mind?

Now, if that dive did come down with Decompression Illness, it could have affected YOUR dives . . . the boat would have to take him in, etc. And of course, you have the right to choose any buddy you wished. I just don't see where a seasoned diver, making decisions for himself, would lead to a decision to not ever dive with him again.

 

[fire_diver]

Anyone is free to dive whatever profile they like. If a buddy of mine is making dives I feel are irresponsible, or dangerous, that means they are deviating from whatever dive plan we had agreed to. That makes them a danger to themselves and me, and will never dive with me again.

 

[knowone]

1. 
   

The Ex U.S.S. Vandenberg is the depth gauge.

 

[TSandM]

I can understand making a risk assessment and deciding that someone's behavior is going to put them at enough risk of injury that you don't want to be involved in the dive where it happens. Although I stand ready to do my best to rescue my teammates, I sincerely hope that our mutual diving behavior will avoid the necessity to do that.

Someone using a new computer every day and maxing out the limits on each computer for each dive is almost certainly raising his risk of DCS beyond the calculated probability for any of the models in any of the computers. How MUCH he is raising it would require knowing the profiles and running them through a probabilistic model like the one Duke has. He doesn't know how high his risk is, and neither does the OP, so each is making a gut-level decision. I would suspect that someone with 2000 dives probably has a good-sized personal data set on which to base his behavior, but given the very low incidence of DCS in recreational diving (and the acceptable probabilities for the models in use) you have to roll the dice a lot of times to come up snake eyes.

 

[DBailey]

Reciently while doing a week of diving the "vandenburg" one of our group had his computer die. since we had simiular profiles we knew he had satisfied his computer. I gave him my redundant computer to use for our secound dive (I dive 2 computers) well to make a long story short ...the next day he used a different computer from the dive shop and the next day after that he used yet another computer from yet another dive shop. inspite of my warnings to stay with us(dive a simular profile) he chose to dive the full limit of the computers. I have elected not to ever dive with him based on his ignoring our repeated warnings . he is in his mid to late 60's and has logged well over 2000 dives. Am I wrong? BTW our profiles were 100 to 130 feet for all dives

My training is that every diver is responsible to take part in the dive planning, but each diver monitors the dive plan individually while underwater. Without a computer or watch and depth gauge, I am wondering how this person was monitoring their dive plan.

Regarding the swapping of computers. I have little concern for getting a different computer at the start of each day of diving. If you are talking about 18 hours of surface interval between the last dive from the previous day and the first dive on the next day, then I think you are safe. Heck, even diving the very conservative tables, you start cleaing all pressure groups after six (6) hours of a surface interval. Yes, I would prefer to have the same computer, but in this case, I think it is ok.

Swapping computers are shorter intervals is just messing with fire in my opinion.

 

[Cave Diver]

I gave him my redundant computer to use for our secound dive (I dive 2 computers) well to make a long story short ...the next day he used a different computer from the dive shop and the next day after that he used yet another computer from yet another dive shop. inspite of my warnings to stay with us(dive a simular profile) he chose to dive the full limit of the computers. I have elected not to ever dive with him based on his ignoring our repeated warnings . he is in his mid to late 60's and has logged well over 2000 dives. Am I wrong? BTW our profiles were 100 to 130 feet for all dives

No, I don't think you're wrong. In your opinion he is an unsafe diver and you made a choice not to dive with someone you consider unsafe. Whether he actually is being unsafe or not is debatable, but to determine that we would need a lot more information regarding how he was doing his planning.

Regardless, if he's diving beyond your comfort level there is nothing to say that you have to continue to dive with him. To me, the fact you say he ignored (which I take to mean he refused to discuss his planning as well) your warnings would be enough reason for me not to dive with them.

 

[Kilili]

I cannot condone his actions. Not something I would do. It's risky.

On the other hand, you were acting as a self-appointed "scuba cop" and I cannot condone that either. I would find that offensive.

You can make a suggestion. If he's not receptive, don't push the point.

 

[rhwestfall]

That is why I wear a watch and own/use tables (even though I have a compter too). Computer information (to me) is accessory/validation to using my tables for:

1. a proper pre-dive plan (validates what my computer is telling me)
2. the data I record on my dive with analog instruments (psi/time in, time at depth(s), psi/time out as a minimum)
3. the information I log post dive all relating to SI outgassing
4. Determination of status for next dive/day.... (again validates what the computer is telling me)

So, if my computer craps out, I have a real clue as to what is my condition, and I can continue diving that day, and days to come. If i remember correctly, that was part of our basic training...

"Seasoned" doesn't always mean "intelligent", and some times is really only equated to "lucky".....

 

[drbill]

I once had an internal computer battery die while on an extended deco stop. The manual for the computer stated that even when the remaining battery life reached 0% there was still enough in it to dive. Mine went out at 38% and I found out later this was common for that model.

When it happened, I called off any diving for several days to reset my internal nitrogen clock. I dive mostly solo so there was no one who was diving even close to similar profiles.

Ever since then I've dived with a backup computer. The manufacturer gave me a great deal on a new one, although given the serious safety error in their manual I think they should have given it to me for free. If I were a litigious person, I would have had a great case for a lawsuit.

Yes, I think the individual showed relatively little common sense given what has been stated.