Computer issues - would you still dive it?

[kanonfodr]

I think there are two schools of thought from the tech minded and the rec minded. On a tec run we carry contingencies, backup computer & slates. On a recreational dive a backup computer isn't as popular for most divers and the taught procedure is to end the dive with a safety stop and off-gas completely before diving again either with a new computer or via tables.

As for trusting your dive computer...If you don't trust Oceanic, SP, Diverite, ect. what are you breathing off of?

HOG, of course

It's not that I don't trust Oceanic or SP, but batteries fail far more often than basic principles of physics (IOW analog gages) and my Casio has done everything both of my computers have done, plus some extra stuff yet it's still going strong whereas I've had both computers fail on me during a dive. And I also keep an NDL in my head as well so if/when either or both computers fail I can surface safely, switch to my analog gage, and do the next dive.

I think you're taking things a bit too far...

Hey, for those dive buddies who just need a lesson

Peace,
Greg

 

[lowviz]

I think there are two schools of thought from the tech minded and the rec minded. On a tec run we carry contingencies, backup computer & slates. On a recreational dive a backup computer isn't as popular for most divers and the taught procedure is to end the dive with a safety stop and off-gas completely before diving again either with a new computer or via tables..............

Nicely stated.

As we all know, a rec diver can be overtaken by events and end up in the tec world completely unprepared.

This is why I so often suggest taking 'Decompression Procedures' early on in training. The course does not require that you make even one deco dive, actually suggests that you don't unless 'tec' is your thing. Add a few gas management concepts and you will be much better prepared to find your way back home without too much upset...

Back when I was rec-only, my crutch was knowing I could do an omitted stop procedure on 30 cuft of air. -just count out the few short deeper stops in my head and finish the long shallow one with my SPG. Practiced it a few times in a quarry, kinda boring -just like I hoped the real thing would be. Never happened.

 

[DiveNav]

I think you're taking things a bit too far...

Nice

What is it? And where is it?

 

[Bubbletrubble]

What is it? And where is it?

Sundial by Foots. Atlantis Sculpture Park. Cayman Brac.

 

[waterpirate]

I had a "puck" failure a few years ago and simply switched to timer/tables. The whole x1 thing can be summed up in a couple words, "it is the first". To be the first open platform for underwater usage was huge. It could have been assumed that they would have some bugs and issues. The x1 was aimed at the tech market, people who knew what they were doing regardless of what the puter said, people who knew that it was not quite right. There are people who have to have it first and people who buy when it has the bugs worked out, simply a choice.
Eric

 

[Jax]

Understanding that most 'advanced' (this is the advanced forum) would know what to do if their computer dies . . .

. . . my question was more about "why would you dive a computer that has / had a 'glitch'?" In the computer engineering world, we drop-kick the device back to the vendor. Yet people keep saying here that they'll 'reload the firmware' or 'reset the device' like it was a computer on their desk.

I don't get it it.

If a computer fails in medical testing / monitoring, it's not used again until it has a full checkout by a properly trained person. If an aircraft has a 'glitch', it's down until the computer is replaced with a fully-checked-out module.

While I understand having a "dive table plan" in my head, why take something I wouldn't trust?

 

[Cave Diver]

. . . my question was more about "why would you dive a computer that has / had a 'glitch'?"

I read your initial question a bit differently, and responded based on my experience with one of my computers. When the battery gets low, even before the indicator shows it to be, it starts giving erratic readings.

It doesn't bother me when that happens because I know the most probably cause, and the fix and I don't rely on the computer anyway. My gauges are just there as a confirmation of what I already know. When I look at them during a dive, I already have a pretty good idea of what my depth, my time and my deco status is.

In light of your later clarification about a glitch that exists at all times, I would return it it for repair, replacement or refund.

 

[RTee]

Well, yes, I understand backup computers . . .

What I do not understand is . . . why would you continue using a life support gadget that has proven it has a glitch?

For those of you that do continue using them, I mean.

I am reading about the Xen that has a 'small firmware problem' where it loses time . . . but it 'will get fixed in the next firmware revision.'

What I like about my Uwatecs, is that when there is a problem, they quit. Period. Display 'Err' or nothing at all. That is considered "fail-safe", meaning safe was defined as "not working" so if there is a failure, you do not have to wonder if you can trust your computer -- you know you can't, and you cannot use it.

While others are happily using their computer with delayed start-ups or erroneous depth readings or it goes diving by itself . . . .

For me, there is no way in the world I would use a computer that went 'wonky' without it going back to the manufacturer for a complete checkout.

Aren't you - who continue use - concerned that there may be other issues; that maybe what the calculations are may not be accurate? Especially the one with the computer gaining time . . . time is used in so many functions in dive computing, how can you trust what the 'puter is saying?

Can someone help me with that?

Jax,

I never had such problem with mine except those that I induced like diving nitrox with the computer set-up for air, etc. In those cases, I revert to tables and cross check with my diving buddy. My computer is also wet active. At times, I have been caught going through my pre-dive routine then not diving immediately and the computer goes back to sleep mode. However, it does wake-up as soon as I hit the water because I have it configured at such.

A friend of mine had that hppened to him twice except his console has no wet activation meaning that once he entered the water and went down, his screens remained blank...including remaining gas. Forced to go back up to the surface and restart his console.

I never solely rely on my diving computer when I dive. As a matter of fact, there were no computer when I first got qualified therefore I can always work around the issue if something happened to it or it started to act funny. I always dive with a watch, independant depth gauge and SPG and I am very familiar with the tables of the gas I am diving with.

In the very near future I will be conducting my Adv Nitrox/deco procs dives. To support such an endeavour, I will be acquiring a second and more advanced diving computer and will be cutting dive tables from dive planning software that will accompany me on my dives.

 

[fjpatrum]

Understanding that most 'advanced' (this is the advanced forum) would know what to do if their computer dies . . .

. . . my question was more about "why would you dive a computer that has / had a 'glitch'?" In the computer engineering world, we drop-kick the device back to the vendor. Yet people keep saying here that they'll 'reload the firmware' or 'reset the device' like it was a computer on their desk.

I don't get it it.

If a computer fails in medical testing / monitoring, it's not used again until it has a full checkout by a properly trained person. If an aircraft has a 'glitch', it's down until the computer is replaced with a fully-checked-out module.

While I understand having a "dive table plan" in my head, why take something I wouldn't trust?

Well, in most cases, if you "drop kick the device back to the vendor" all they're going to do is reload the firmware or reset the device. Why not save the time and effort of sending it to them if you can do it yourself? It basically is a computer on your desk, and can be treated the same way. Yes it's designed for a different environment but the same rules apply for troubleshooting and repair. "Verification testing" may be more rigorous (or not) depending upon manufacturer, but the reality is they will do exactly those two things or send you a new model that may or may not have the same "glitch".

If, on the other hand, the firmware has known bugs, I simply wouldn't use it as my "one and only" method of tracking my dive. I might still use it, but I'd definitely have it as a backup only.

Each person has a certain level of risk tolerance and this is just one of those things that falls into that kind of category... is it worth the risk? Is there even any "real" risk, in my opinion?

 

[rhwestfall]

If my computer had a history of "issues", I would not hesitate putting it in "Paperweight Mode"......

I don't rely on them, so if it isn't correct, why even have it along? Humor maybe? Nope!