Dive Computer RGBM Accidents

I´ve hear from a source that I´m not very confident that there are accidents happening with dive computers that uses the RGBM. Can anyone confirm or not?

There are some computers that you can use RGBM 50% or 100% that might be it that is causing this?

RP_Diver:

I´ve hear from a source that I´m not very confident that there are accidents happening with dive computers that uses the RGBM. Can anyone confirm or not?

There are some computers that you can use RGBM 50% or 100% that might be it that is causing this?

Click to expand...

There are accidents happening with all kind of dive computers. That's the way it is - All deco planning/ calculations/tables are based on a mathematical model trying to model what's going on in your body. They're not 100 % accurate.

The Suunto RGBM 50 and RGBM100 models are two different models, incorporating slightly different deco theory. The RGBM50 is not half of RGBM100 - Just a slightly less conservative model, that's all..

I think the RGBM issue you might have heard of was when it was used on some stupidly deep diving (150m +) where it's simply providing too short deco time in the shallows. But then again, research has shown that on dives deeper than 120 meters, one in three divers get bent - So we simply don't know enough about seriously deep diving yet to accurately calculate safe deco schedules for this.

I don't think you need to worry about your computer's accuracy within recreational limits - It will be as accurate as any of the computers out there.

E

Before I bought my last computer, I tried to find any statistics or studies that showed EVIDENCE of any increased risk of DCS for various computer algorithms when used for recreational diving. To my knowledge, there is none. You can bet your bottom dollar that if there were, that company's lawyers would be nervous and it's competitors would be plastering this evidence anywhere they could; t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc.

There are lots of variables that seem to affect probability of DCS much more than variances within computer models, like dehydration, personal health and fitness, age, diver error, (like fast ascents) age, genetic disposition, etc. Until dive computers can track these variables and incorporate them into their models, I suspect they all will present roughly the same incidence of DCS.

espenskogen:

There are accidents happening with all kind of dive computers. That's the way it is - All deco planning/ calculations/tables are based on a mathematical model trying to model what's going on in your body. They're not 100 % accurate.

The Suunto RGBM 50 and RGBM100 models are two different models, incorporating slightly different deco theory. The RGBM50 is not half of RGBM100 - Just a slightly less conservative model, that's all..

I think the RGBM issue you might have heard of was when it was used on some stupidly deep diving (150m +) where it's simply providing too short deco time in the shallows. But then again, research has shown that on dives deeper than 120 meters, one in three divers get bent - So we simply don't know enough about seriously deep diving yet to accurately calculate safe deco schedules for this.

I don't think you need to worry about your computer's accuracy within recreational limits - It will be as accurate as any of the computers out there.

E

Click to expand...

There are some lawsuits pending, they involve the Abyss implementation of RGBM (not particulary well done).. This was a desktop program.. The dives also were deeper than the model limit of 180m..

ANDI did an expedition in 2004 to Indonesia, we used ANDI GAP (with some modifications to be more agressive than what we sell) and the Hydrospace explorer.. We did 14 consecutive days of diving (6 bottom divers plus deep support divers) with depths to 153m with no problems at all.. We ran relatively agressive profiles and our run times were significantly shorter than generated by non RGBM models.

I have been using the Hydrospace explorer (still the only true implementation of RGBM) since its inception and have followed its profiles for hundreds of dives below 60m, with
a large sampling of dives deeper than 100m

All the other computers that claim RGBM don;t generate true RGBM profiles, They are really dissolved gas models with RGBM limiting factors foled over the model.. This makes the computers much more conservative than a standard buhlman model on repetitive dives.