Time For Some Industry Standards for Dive Computer Alarms

[HowardE]

I'm actually a fire fighter in a major metropolitan area with 17 years experience. So much for the Librarian.

It's interesting to note that, just as in scuba diving, the majority of fire fighter deaths occur from heart/stress related issues; however, that hasn't stopped the fire service from trying to improve safety equipment and better fire operation tactics. I can't imagine the fire service adopting an attitude "no one can avoid death...we can't stop this". When it comes to better safety equipment, the leaders of the fire service embrace it.

What do you think the leading cause of death is for scuba divers?

 

[Divin'Papaw]

Comparing the fire fighters to recreational diving is a false comparison. It's comparing apples to horses. No one is going into a fire just for the fun of it to enjoy the view and see the pretty flames. It's a far more hostile environment than what recreational divers expose themselves to.

Now comparing the fire fighters to commercial divers is a bit closer to the mark. But commercial divers already utilize equipment and procedures on an entirely different level than recreational divers.

 

[debajo agua]

I see where you are coming from, but I don't care for the logic.

The basic safety tenet to diving is you shouldn't be distracted, you just don't realize this yet I think. As has been said by someone really brilliant on this thread already "If an alarm bell is your first warning you've let yourself get low on air, well, that means you have bigger problems."

Putting it in today's lingo - An alarm bell is your first warning you've let yourself get low on air = FAIL.

I spent some time thinking about this before I made this proposal on SB. This really isn't so much about the person who ran low on air, as much as it is about their buddy who didn't. In scuba diving, they teach us that if the @#$% hits the fan, the buddy is there to save the day. That puts the buddy in a position of rescuer. That's a lot to ask of somebody, especially, if it's due to someone else negligence. In an OOA situation, the rescuer now has approx. 1/2 the air supply they had before. The rescuer may well have been within their safety margin before the incident, now, their safety margin may very well have been compromised. This might not be a problem at 20', 30', 40' or even 50' but at 100'???

---------- Post added January 4th, 2013 at 12:07 PM ----------

What do you think the leading cause of death is for scuba divers?

I believe it's heart/stress related issues as well...

---------- Post added January 4th, 2013 at 12:11 PM ----------

Comparing the fire fighters to recreational diving is a false comparison. It's comparing apples to horses. No one is going into a fire just for the fun of it to enjoy the view and see the pretty flames. It's a far more hostile environment than what recreational divers expose themselves to.

Now comparing the fire fighters to commercial divers is a bit closer to the mark. But commercial divers already utilize equipment and procedures on an entirely different level than recreational divers.

Like Firefighters, OW divers are trained to be their buddies rescuer. The comparison between the two seems very significant to me.

 

[Damselfish]

While I personally don't use alarms, I can understand various reasons for having them available as a feature in a dive computer. And if someone wants to have them set, cool, but relying on them instead of being aware of what you're doing is a bad idea and I think you should at least not get to the point of them actually going off without realizing they were going to. But attempting to standardize them, I just don't see as a good or useful thing for so many reasons.

 

[BluewaterSail]

I spent some time thinking about this before I made this proposal on SB. This really isn't so much about the person who ran low on air, as much as it is about their buddy who didn't. In scuba diving, they teach us that if the @#$% hits the fan, the buddy is there to save the day. That puts the buddy in a position of rescuer. That's a lot to ask of somebody, especially, if it's due to someone else negligence. In an OOA situation, the rescuer now has approx. 1/2 the air supply they had before. The rescuer may well have been within their safety margin before the incident, now, their safety margin may very well have been compromised. This might not be a problem at 20', 30', 40' or even 50' but at 100'???

---------- Post added January 4th, 2013 at 12:07 PM ----------



.

What you refer to as "safety margin" I would call minimum gas. Your minimum gas should be what it would take to get you and your buddy to the surface. If you don't have that amount when you are at 100 feet, I would say that you either did not plan your gas correctly, or you did not dive your plan.

 

[Atticus]

I spent some time thinking about this before I made this proposal on SB. This really isn't so much about the person who ran low on air, as much as it is about their buddy who didn't. In scuba diving, they teach us that if the @#$% hits the fan, the buddy is there to save the day. That puts the buddy in a position of rescuer. That's a lot to ask of somebody, especially, if it's due to someone else negligence. In an OOA situation, the rescuer now has approx. 1/2 the air supply they had before. The rescuer may well have been within their safety margin before the incident, now, their safety margin may very well have been compromised. This might not be a problem at 20', 30', 40' or even 50' but at 100'???
...

Ah.. I think I see the problem. Take a look at rock bottom gas planning. You should always *plan* on your buddy declaring on OOA at the worst possible moment and have sufficient gas to handle the situation. If you deplete your own gas supply to the point where this causes a problem then you have already made a mistake.

For example, on a 100' dive with an aluminum 80 one should be leaving the bottom with about half of their tank remaining.

 

[pasley]

The problem is more eaisly solved by not diveing with equipment the operator is not familar with. Standardized signals only hlep if the operator bothers to read the manual and learn the signals in tehfirst place. The operator of the dive computer (probably the owner) should have read the manual and become familiar with the visual and tone signals of the dive computer BEFORE ever going on a dive with it. Problem solved, no more IDK signals. I teach in my classes that diving with a dive computer you have not read the manual on is dangerous. You may interpet information provided as you are in an emergency situation when none exist, or that you are not in an emergency when you are.

I once saw a diver very concerned (verge of panick) because they were at 700 PSI and the dive leader upon being told this was signaling OK, and calmly continuing to swim along the bottom repeatedly. Once on the surface the panikicy diver realized that they were not at 60 feet and swimming out to sea as they thought but at 15 feet completing the 3 minute safety stop as they swam in to shore and surfaced at 10 feet depth with plenty of air left. They misinterpeted their computer and thought they were in an emergency (60 feet heading out to sea) when they were not (10-15 feet swimming to shore) and failed to know where they were (trust me dive on navigation).

 

[Hatul]

Ten most dangerous words you will ever hear :

"Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help!"

I could have used someone like that on a few dives of mine. Is that like the diver's equivalent of AAA?

 

[616fun]

You know where I got this idea from? The Fire Service. You see, every firefighter in the country has a bell on their SCBA that goes off at 500 psi. They also have a PASS device which they can activate manually if they become trapped, OOA, lost, or entangled. You see, fire fighters also have a limited air source, just like you can't breath water, they can't breath smoke. And just like divers, they and their buddy need to know when it's time to leave. Someone, at some point said, "you know what be a good idea... if we had some sort of warning device that let's us and others know when we're in trouble." The NFPA adopted this and now it's a standard. Now, no matter where you go in this country as a firefighter you know when your own air-supply, or that of your buddy is low. It's easy to become distracted in a fire and it's easy to become distracted underwater. Where is the harm in having a backup alarm, especially, if everyone knows and understands what it means? The NFPA thought this was important enough they adopted it as a standard. Could it save a life? It couldn't hurt.

Fire fighters also are in zero visibility environment under significant stress. It is also managed by OSHA, so obviously they are trying to dummy proof it. Warnings I can see in this situation.

Their is no harm in an alarm as you state. There is also no benefit. It is not needed in recreational or technical diving. It will not safe lives as you predict. It will add cost to equipment for non value add functionality. You receive such harsh reactions because you're asking for government intervention in something that we do voluntarily for fun and experience an incredibly low statistical death rate.

 

[Divin'Papaw]

Like Firefighters, OW divers are trained to be their buddies rescuer. The comparison between the two seems very significant to me.

... and that's where the similarity ends. The two environments are WORLDS apart unless you're talking about commercial diving. If you don't see this, than I'm sorry, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. Bottom line is that you're comparing two COMPLETELY different things. What makes sense in fire fighting can easily be over-the-top and extreme to the nth degree in recreational diving.