Blindly trust computers?
- Thread starter PfcAJ
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
seeker242
Contributor
EireDiver606
Contributor
I think this topic is greatly too long and reminds us of how much people overthink things.
Just looking over this thread. The issue isn't blindly trusting a computer, it's blindly trusting a depth gauge. The computer part of the product worked fine - it calculated N2 loading based on the inputs it had. If you dive air but enter EAN 36 into your DC, it's not a computer failure if you get bent, and it's not because you don't know your tables.
If the problem was faulty pressure transducers that gave you an moderately inaccurate depth reading, no amount of table familiarity or understanding of decompression theory would help. And the comments about what to do when your computer stops working are irrelevant - it would look like it was working fine.
If you do dive with two computers and one of them is moderately inaccurate, then how do you know which one is correct? So that's one argument for two depth gauges (or two computers) - if there is a significant difference, you should abort the dive. But still, the vast majority of divers dive with only one computer, and most old school table divers probably don't carry two depth gauges. Yeah, if you dive tables and dive a known site with a known bottom depth and square tables, you won't have this problem. But that's not really relevant to this discussion.
You might know that a certain wreck is at a certain depth as a sanity check, but with a mass market product like this, some divers are going to be relying on their computer for a depth reading - which means that they will have inaccurate N2 loading information and an inaccurate NDL.
If I'm at 110 FSW on air, and my computer is calculating N2 loading based on a sensor that says it is at 80 FSW, I have a statistically greater chance of getting bent. If Suunto knew that this was a problem and didn't do a recall, that seems like liability to me.
If the problem was faulty pressure transducers that gave you an moderately inaccurate depth reading, no amount of table familiarity or understanding of decompression theory would help. And the comments about what to do when your computer stops working are irrelevant - it would look like it was working fine.
If you do dive with two computers and one of them is moderately inaccurate, then how do you know which one is correct? So that's one argument for two depth gauges (or two computers) - if there is a significant difference, you should abort the dive. But still, the vast majority of divers dive with only one computer, and most old school table divers probably don't carry two depth gauges. Yeah, if you dive tables and dive a known site with a known bottom depth and square tables, you won't have this problem. But that's not really relevant to this discussion.
You might know that a certain wreck is at a certain depth as a sanity check, but with a mass market product like this, some divers are going to be relying on their computer for a depth reading - which means that they will have inaccurate N2 loading information and an inaccurate NDL.
If I'm at 110 FSW on air, and my computer is calculating N2 loading based on a sensor that says it is at 80 FSW, I have a statistically greater chance of getting bent. If Suunto knew that this was a problem and didn't do a recall, that seems like liability to me.
The answer to ‘Blindly <insert anything> ?’ is probably no regardless of the topicNo, diving with a computer is not a problem. However, that is not the subject of the thread. The subject of the thread is blindly trusting a computer, hence the title "Blindly trust computers"
I think the best answer with most things is - work out what can go wrong and come up with a contingency. I don't "blindly" follow my computer (I always have a pretty good idea of where I am in my dive with regards to both air & NDL). I also know before I dive roughly how long the dive is likely to be (NDL or air limited).The answer to ‘Blindly <insert anything> ?’ is probably no regardless of the topic
For me (AI Perdix), should it fail I am immediately thumbing the dive and either using my buddy to guide my ascent rate or using my bubbles as a gauge. If I were doing deco especially extended deco (which I am not trained or equipped for), I would have two computers and sufficient gas to allow for any issues.
StefinSB
Contributor
I'd much prefer to be called floridian than Californian... Florida isn't bad as long as you stay away from south Georgia (Orlando and north) and New York (lake Okeechobee south) and cray cray ville (the keys)
But back to the topic at hand...
Everything we use while diving computers, compasses, BCD, regulators et has a risk associated with it. Some risk is much lower but each individual must plan for and litigate the risks in the best possible manner. Whether that means multiple pieces of gear or using the simplest setup with the least points of failure.
I'm pretty sure you meant "mitigate" the risks, but the way that you typed it is much funnier and probably more accurate!
Similar threads
