Air integrated vs. SPG, a small study

[ArcticDiver]

well, I was on a boat a couple of weekends ago and surfaced to hear moans of "zero psi man, zero darned psi" as a disgruntled AI user had had to surface immediately on descending as some battery in some bizarre component of his air integration had gone south and his "SPG" was telling him he had no gas left.

AI is great! I have been diving AI and a analog SPG for a few years now. Both are reliable and are mutual backups.

Seems to me the height of irrationality to fly to a dive destination in a fly-by-wire, computer controlled airplane and then object to using a computer as one element of executing a dive. Sure machines break. I've seen both SPGs and other gauges break as well as computers. But, in a pinch I'll take the computer as most reliable. Plus, when it does break you know it. Unlike a SPG that may over time gradually start producing erroneous readings.

Gee whiz; ships, planes, boats, cars, power plants, medical equipment and lots of other serious stuff is computer controlled. Our lives rely on them every day. Dive computers are no different.

 

[limeyx]

AI is great! I have been diving AI and a analog SPG for a few years now. Both are reliable and are mutual backups.

Seems to me the height of irrationality to fly to a dive destination in a fly-by-wire, computer controlled airplane and then object to using a computer as one element of executing a dive. Sure machines break. I've seen both SPGs and other gauges break as well as computers. But, in a pinch I'll take the computer as most reliable. Plus, when it does break you know it. Unlike a SPG that may over time gradually start producing erroneous readings.

Gee whiz; ships, planes, boats, cars, power plants, medical equipment and lots of other serious stuff is computer controlled. Our lives rely on them every day. Dive computers are no different.

Heh, I dont use a dive computer either

(and oddly, I am a software engineer -- either that means I am just a cynic, or I know something most people don't know about how software is created)

 

[ArcticDiver]

Heh, I dont use a dive computer either

(and oddly, I am a software engineer -- either that means I am just a cynic, or I know something most people don't know about how software is created)

Or, it means you aren't a very good software engineer and you are fearful the people who did the dive computer aren't either? A possible, but unlikely, reason I suppose.

Or, it means you have made a personal preference choice to do things in a more simple way. Something like Hams using Morse, or people who walk from Alaska to the States, or people who kayak from Seattle to Haines. Or, when I decide to hand axe a tree instead of using the gas axe.

Or, you could be poor and just not be able to afford one?

No matter, if the decision not to use a submersible dive computer is based on personal preference there is no problem whatsoever with that choice. However, if the choice is based on irrationality then the person's cerebral capability is called into question.

Or, you could be a web fisherman trolling for a catch? If so you got me.

 

[lamont]

Seems to me the height of irrationality to fly to a dive destination in a fly-by-wire, computer controlled airplane and then object to using a computer as one element of executing a dive. Sure machines break. I've seen both SPGs and other gauges break as well as computers. But, in a pinch I'll take the computer as most reliable. Plus, when it does break you know it. Unlike a SPG that may over time gradually start producing erroneous readings.

I don't like computers because they include entirely arbitrary "punishment" algorithms that I don't agree with, they don't default to 32% or 30/30 like my diving does, they can't be modified underwater if you make incorrect settings up top, and for decompression diving they don't generate schedules anything like what I think is correct.

They also don't fail in a binary fashion. Sometimes the depth gauge starts to skew off, sometimes the NDL times start to skew off. None of them are guaranteed to fail in a detectable fashion becuase that level of engineering does not go into them.

 

[limeyx]

Or, it means you aren't a very good software engineer and you are fearful the people who did the dive computer aren't either? A possible, but unlikely, reason I suppose.

Or, it means you have made a personal preference choice to do things in a more simple way. Something like Hams using Morse, or people who walk from Alaska to the States, or people who kayak from Seattle to Haines. Or, when I decide to hand axe a tree instead of using the gas axe.

Or, you could be poor and just not be able to afford one?

No matter, if the decision not to use a submersible dive computer is based on personal preference there is no problem whatsoever with that choice. However, if the choice is based on irrationality then the person's cerebral capability is called into question.

Or, you could be a web fisherman trolling for a catch? If so you got me.

Heh, hopefully #1 is not true -- especially since software I wrote/managed is used to test pretty much every Cisco router that they sell -- wouldn't want the internet to come to a grinding halt!

It's more like #2.

 

[ArcticDiver]

limeyx: Hmmmm...that's why we've been having those troubles, eh

Seriously: Personal preference is a great reason.

 

[limeyx]

limeyx: Hmmmm...that's why we've been having those troubles, eh

Seriously: Personal preference is a great reason.

heh, quite possibly (fortunately I dont work for that company any more -- now I'm building satellites)