While dive computers have evolved considerably, their
very complexity can lead to increased human errors in
interpreting and using them. Here is a recently published
case that shows the risk facing divers who don’t master the
technology.
Two years before the incident, a 33-year-old female
advanced diver learned, while being treated for decompression
sickness, that she had a patent foramen ovale (PFO), a
small hole in a chamber of the heart that increases the likelihood
of DCS. It was surgically closed successfully so she
returned to diving and purchased a Suunto Vytec computer,
with the view of adjusting its settings to make her decompression
management more conservative.
With the Vytec, she completed six dives, two a day, with
maximum depths ranging from 52 to 77 feet, total dive
times from 50 to 55 minutes, and with surface intervals
approximating 2.25 hours. On dive three, she went to 79
feet. The download of that dive from her Suunto Vytec
showed that the computer went into decompression mode
after 21 minutes; she and her dive buddy had ascended from
79 feet at 42 minutes into the dive, with total dive time of
53 minutes. During ascent, she had two rate warnings -- a
violation of depth ceiling, and a recording of the computer
being switched into compass mode.
Upon surfacing, she had taken incomplete decompression,
with the computer locked in the gauge mode (i.e., it displayed
depth/time information only) and displaying an error
message “Er.” She and her buddy were confused about this
because her buddy’s computer had cleared of any decompression
obligation on surfacing. None of the dive party
understood the relevance of the “Er” display. She attempted
to unlock the computer by hanging it on a shotline during
the surface interval. However, the computer remained in
gauge mode, so for her subsequent three dives she used a
Suunto Gecko computer which had not been used for diving
that week.
On the third diving day, two hours after her sixth dive,
she reported DCS symptoms and was taken to a hyperbaric
chamber. She initially appeared well but later that day she
had pain and weakness in her left arm and shoulder, and her walking and balance were unsteady. Despite three further
treatments, she lost more muscle control and was transferred
to another hospital for more treatments.
The Suunto Vytec can be operated in air, Nitrox or
gauge modes. There is a facility to switch gases, optional
wireless pressure transmission, extensive memory functions
and a built-in dive simulator. The Vytec employs an
adjustable, Suunto-modified reduced gradient bubble model
(RGBM). It is programmed with eight diver-adjustable settings
that can be altered to produce many levels of added
conservatism: three for altitude, three for personal conservatism
and either the full capacity of the RGBM (RGB 100) or
reduced power (RGB50}.
In this case, the download indicated that her computer
had been set to an A2 altitude (3200-6400 feet) and
remained at the default personal setting of PO. It was,
therefore, unsurprising that on the third dive the altered
Suunto Vytec had a higher decompression requirement
than the dive leader’s unmodified computer. The computer
had done what it had been programmed to do and
produced a more conservative dive profile. However, this
was either ignored, not understood, or the consequences of
alterations had been forgotten.
The potential to misunderstand outputs from some dive
computers, matched possibly by peer pressure, may be a
contributing factor in some decompression incidents. This
diver was well aware that her previous episodes of DCS, possibly
associated with a PFO, meant that to continue diving
she needed to dive more conservatively. This she attempted,
but then either ignored or forgot about the changed computer
settings. Both she and her dive buddy should have
been aware of the adjusted levels on the computer and modified
their dive practices accordingly. That she then swapped
to another unused dive computer with no residual nitrogen
loading and possibly no altered conservatism settings could
have contributed to her subsequent injury and could easily
have been avoided.
This case was taken from the article The Consequences of
Misinterpreting Dive Computers, by Martin DJ Sayer, Colin M
Wilson, Gerard Laden and Phillip Lonsdale. It was published in
Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine, the Journal of the South Pacific
Underwater Medicine Society, March 2008. Undercurrent accepts full
responsibility for any errors due to editing.