Posted by Wayne on January 15, 2001 at 23:09:06:
In Reply to: Re: DIR on the West Coast posted by AADIVER on January 15, 2001 at 15:01:26:
Frank said: "The reason DIR advocates non-reliance on computers is for the same reason mariners shouldn't rely exclusively on electronics: be able to navigate manually with sextant and almanac."
I recently had a little problem at sea (25 gallons of unleaded gas sloshing around the bilge in the engine spaces). I decided that the engine should be shut off along with most electrical items aboard. I left the navigation stuff on!
I had gone 30 NM in dense fog and at the time of the event, I was less than 1/4 mile from the planned course. I had been using a magnetic compass and had steered around a few kelp patches (not using the electronic stuff while underway). When the Fire folk came to rescue me, I was pleased to have the exact longitude and latitude available for them!
Did I need the electronic navagation gizmo? No. I could have told my approximate position. Had I continued for the next 50 miles I could have found LA harbor without the electronics. But my ability to navagate without the electronics does not make me want to rip it out of the boat by its antenna!
I use a computer and dive tables. If the computer fails I can revert to tables, but I will probably lose available bottom time (depends on the dive profile which is controlled by the activity being done). I think that the elimination of the computer for typical California recreational diving does not make any more sense than refusing to have a GPS unit cluttering up the boat.
I think this is that macho thing that I hate so much. It is the 'I am better and more pure than you because I only use dive tables and calculate on the fly' attitude that frustrates me.
Can I recalculate multilevel dives while underwater? Yes. Do I think it is better than the computer? Absolutely not. Maybe if I was doing a specific mission to a specific depth it might make more sense, but I almost never dive that way.
Wayne
Still DJF