Air integrated computer and tec diving

[Divetech99]

Using AI in Tec Diving does work. Here's my config.

Left post: Analog SPG and backup 2nd stage.
Right post: Long hose, LPI and Suunto Transmitter.

Right wrist/arm: Suunto D9 and Petrel

I find that using AI makes checking Backgas remaining as fast and easy as flicking your right wrist. Yes, I cross check air remaining with the Analog SPG but let's face it, when you have two deco bottles slung on your left side, it takes a few moments and some effort (albeit small yet effort nonetheless) to unclip your analog SPG and read it. And reclip it back. With AI, I just flick my right wrist to read remaining air and Air time. Also, AI gives a more accurate and conservative read of remaining gas. Meaning AI gives a lower reading than the Analog SPG. Plus it also allows you to download your air usage for topside analysis of certain points of the dive. Since the analog SPG is on the left post and the AI is on the right post, you also have SPG redundancy in the event you have to shut down your left post. It's a great setup for Tec.

 

[DevonDiver]

Again... the difference between 'could' and 'should'.

Nobody argues x, y or z doesn't "work"..... but it violates certain principles in technical diving. Those principles were written in the blood of pioneers.

To publicly state that something is "great", when it violates key tech principles is either on the basis of vast research... or vast ego.

Personally, I like to trial new approaches and options. The emphasis is on the word "trial". Even if it "works", there's no conclusive proof it's safer. Proving safety take a larger sample size and longer time.

Approaches should be proven safe before they're publicly recommended or vouched for. Opinions are different from recommendations. When people could die, there needs to be more personal responsibility taken for opinions and recommendations..... even on anonymous social media.

I increasingly see very 'recreational' mindsets evident in technical diving discussions. It's worrying. I can only conclude that it's a consequence of certain mainstream *recreational* diving agencies venturing into the technical market and offering fast-track IT and instructor courses to improve their market share. For a novice technical diver, the lessons are hypothetical.... but for instructors and ITs they should be known from practical experience.

There's a disconnect.... and it's increasingly evident.

 

[jboneng]

What is "allowed" is dependent on the agency and the instructor.
I personally does not use AI, I don't see any real benefits of having it. For me it adds cost and complications only to give me information that I already have.

My "tech" setup is like this:
Left: Backup regulator, mini analogue SPG, drysuit hose.
Right: Primary regulator (long hose), mini analogue SPG, LPI hose.
Arms: Petrel, analogue dive-watch, analogue depth gauge.

That said, if the training agency and instructor is OK with you using an AI computer, the next step is to weight the pro vs cons for your self and figure out what works for you.

 

[DevonDiver]

What is "allowed" is dependent on the agency and the instructor.... adds cost and complications only to give me information that I already have.

I'm familiar with the teaching of most agencies. Some are very specific on configuration (high standardisation), whilst others are more liberal.

Nonetheless, all tech certifying agencies do believe in a standardised approach to technical diving.... even if only guided by core principles.

Principles like: KISS, minimised failure points, life-support redundancy...

Adding failure points, or unnecessary redundancy, isn't done on a whim, or to save money, or because it's more convenient... or easier... because the PROVEN trade-off is against failure and complexity.... which means safety.

That said, if the training agency and instructor is OK with you using an AI computer, the next step is to weight the pro vs cons for your self and figure out what works for you.

Agencies teach principles and mindset.
Instructors show you how to apply principles and mindset.

The diver themselves chooses whether to follow what they've been taught afterwards. To short-cut and compromise, or not. Technical diving students are educated on the possible consequences of doing so...

In respect to who is "ok" with your potential choices.... don't forget that you won't be diving solo. It sucks if you're rejected from a dive team (and that happens...)

 

[doctormike]

I don't think it would be any more of a hose charlie-foxtrox than say a dual-bladder wing. In that case you've got a whole other inflator on the right side too, coming from the left post.

A bit of a side issue, but I don't see any point in a second inflator hose for a dual bladder wing.

I mostly dive in the Northeast, so my drysuit is my redundant buoyancy for tech diving. On a few occasions, I have done tech dives in warm water in a wetsuit. Although I did train to use an SMB as redundant buoyancy, this can be pretty tricky, especially if you have a deco obligation.

I use a dual bladder wing in that situation since it's a lot easier to finish deco with a backup bladder in the very rare case of wing failure. But I never use a second inflator hose - in that situation I would just orally inflate the wing using the second mouthpiece on the right side.

 

[James R]

I am not sure what additional failure point the transmitter really adds. For discussion, lets say I have a brass spg on my left post and a trx on the right post, if the trx fails, so what? My brass and glass would still work and the computer would still be working as well no mater how it is being used (gauge mode/dive mode/etc). A dead transmitter becomes a bulky port plug.

 

[Patoux01]

A dead transmitter becomes a bulky port plug.

Or a nice exhaust port for your tank...

 

[JohnnyC]

A bit of a side issue, but I don't see any point in a second inflator hose for a dual bladder wing.

I mostly dive in the Northeast, so my drysuit is my redundant buoyancy for tech diving. On a few occasions, I have done tech dives in warm water in a wetsuit. Although I did train to use an SMB as redundant buoyancy, this can be pretty tricky, especially if you have a deco obligation.

I use a dual bladder wing in that situation since it's a lot easier to finish deco with a backup bladder in the very rare case of wing failure. But I never use a second inflator hose - in that situation I would just orally inflate the wing using the second mouthpiece on the right side.

I don't see the point in having a dual bladder wing in the first place. As you said, drysuit is redundant buoyancy. If you have a wing failure AND a drysuit failure to the point where you cannot maintain buoyancy, I think the flying spaghetti monster is trying to tell you something..... It's not an issue for me because I don't undertake any decompression dive in a wetsuit. I just think there are a lot of compromises in the situation. I'm also aware that it is my own opinion, and others don't agree. I'm ok with that.

Also using an SMB as redundant buoyancy isn't really an issue (although I actually carry a lift bag specifically for that reason, only comes out if I were to lose both wing and drysuit). Like anything to do with technical diving, it takes practice and repetition. In my mind the people who are unwilling to cultivate those skills and the mindset to utilize those skills probably shouldn't be doing dives of a technical nature in the first place.

 

[tbone1004]

I am not sure what additional failure point the transmitter really adds. For discussion, lets say I have a brass spg on my left post and a trx on the right post, if the trx fails, so what? My brass and glass would still work and the computer would still be working as well no mater how it is being used (gauge mode/dive mode/etc). A dead transmitter becomes a bulky port plug.

a lot more than a port plug, there are ways for the gas to get out if the transmitter truly failed, there are seals in there that can give, no different than any other SPG. Only difference is you don't have the spool o-rings, so it becomes more like swapping a port plug for a button gauge

 

[doctormike]

I don't see the point in having a dual bladder wing in the first place. As you said, drysuit is redundant buoyancy. If you have a wing failure AND a drysuit failure to the point where you cannot maintain buoyancy, I think the flying spaghetti monster is trying to tell you something..... It's not an issue for me because I don't undertake any decompression dive in a wetsuit. I just think there are a lot of compromises in the situation. I'm also aware that it is my own opinion, and others don't agree. I'm ok with that.

Also using an SMB as redundant buoyancy isn't really an issue (although I actually carry a lift bag specifically for that reason, only comes out if I were to lose both wing and drysuit). Like anything to do with technical diving, it takes practice and repetition. In my mind the people who are unwilling to cultivate those skills and the mindset to utilize those skills probably shouldn't be doing dives of a technical nature in the first place.

I don't think that you read my post. I use the dual bladder wing when I'm doing tech diving in a wetsuit. If you don't personally do that, then I guess there would be no reason for you to consider a dual bladder wing.

I'm also not sure if you are implying that I shouldn't be doing technical diving because I'm "unwilling to cultivate skills and a mindset to utilize those skills". I said that given the choice between doing an ascent with staged deco stops using a wing or an SMB, I would choose a wing. This is because it's easier to hold stops with a wing than with an SMB, it's easier to precisely add or release gas from a wing than from an SMB, and since the wing is bolted to the backplate, you don't need an extra hand to manage it during the ascent. So practice and repetition aside, I think that a wing with a backup bladder is a better solution for a primary buoyancy device failure than an SMB.

Am I missing something here? I don't think that I understand your point...