PADI tables finally going away?

[DiveNav]

........ That being said, I would DEARLY love to attend a dive computer class with a segment devoted to my specific model of computer. I do OK as it is, but am certain I'm not wringing every bit of utility from it. Are any training coordinators listening?

Actually those type of classes are now becoming available as several agencies (PADI, SSI and NASE) have now "Specialty Courses" for model-specific dive computers.
Check with your dive store if they offer those specialties.

Alberto (aka eDiver)

 

[boulderjohn]

Actually those type of classes are now becoming available as several agencies (PADI, SSI and NASE) have now "Specialty Courses" for model-specific dive computers.
Check with your dive store if they offer those specialties.

Alberto (aka eDiver)

For the life of me I could never figure out why more LDSs so not create distinctive specialties or just plan old classes for the computers they sell. I brought it up to the shop with which I used to work several times over a number of years. Every time I brought it up, the reply was always, "That's a great idea!"--but it never happened.

 

[offthewall1]

Tables should be taught in a historical context, showing how diving has evolved and how modern computers are based on them.

This topic has been beaten to death in many threads.... but regardless of which side of the debate you're on, the fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of divers are diving with computers now. Many resorts require a diver to have one and to know how to use it.

Meaning no disrespect to the techies, the fact that some of you still use tables is fine... but you are an overwhelming minority. Most techies I know are diving with multiple computers to cover failure and the modern computers are all multi-gas capable. The primary reason techies initially stayed with tables was because computers were only air capable... then only air or nitrox capable... but now they handle multiple gases on the same dive... and so the right computer makes tables completely obsolete.

We all know the benefits of computers and so any argument against them is simply a devils advocate argument for arguments sake.

With all that said, I don't see any reason not to introduce the tables in OW classes... primarlily as a historical reference... but if a student asks to have a better understanding - any instructor deserving of that rating should be able to walk the student through a multi dive scenario in a matter of minutes. I see no harm in teaching it... but requiring it is kind of silly at this point. Learning tables can be done on ones own time simply by picking up a manual.

What I think is ridiculous is the ERDP electronic device. Either use the tables or use computers... but PADI creating a $2 device and selling it for $20-$25 just to make a buck is an outright embarrassment to a proud organization. It replaced the PADI wheel which was arguably a complete joke. There were the few that loved it and the rest who got stuck paying for it. Same thing with this electronic device.

We do a complete dis-service to new divers by not teaching them with dive computers and giving them a thorough understanding of how they work, how to read them and how to program them. Any Instructor not providing this to their students is not being thorough.

 

[Paladin]

No, the tables are not "completely obsolete" and I seriously doubt they ever will be. There will always be those of us who would rather not go blindly about, letting a machine do all our thinking for us.

 

[windapp]

Tables should be taught in a historical context, showing how diving has evolved and how modern computers are based on them.

After looking at this thread a couple of weeks ago, I was going to post a long message on how, as Engineers, we learn the theory first, and then use computers to apply it in an efficient manor but always keep an eye on the output based on our knowledge of the theory.

Since then, I have read a little more on decompression theory, and I have come to a realization: Dive tables are not decompression theory, and computers are not based on the tables.

Dive tables are an implementation of a model based on decompression theory, and computers are another implementation based on the same or a slightly different model. You cannot learn how your computer works just by learning how to use a dive table. You need to learn the underlying theory first.

That's it. I don't have an opinion on whether the tables should be taught or not although I would like to see more actual theory taught in the OW classes.

Edit..

I think the tables are a stroke of genius. Any computer programmer can program a computer to implement a neo-haldanean model. It took a lot of figuring on someone's part to make something as simple as the tables as flexible as they really are.

 

[DiveNav]

For the life of me I could never figure out why more LDSs so not create distinctive specialties or just plan old classes for the computers they sell. I brought it up to the shop with which I used to work several times over a number of years. Every time I brought it up, the reply was always, "That's a great idea!"--but it never happened.

Well ... now they don't have excuses anymore. Distinctive specialties for model-specific dive computers are here and are ready to be used.
Also, we are coming out with a new "package" that combines an online class for a model-specific dive computer with our new (to be released in a couple of weeks) "Introduction to dive Computers" online class.
Basically with this new package we combine how a generic dive computer works (underlying theory) with how the specific computer should be used.
Additionally, this package will be "customized" for the individual dive store

Alberto (aka eDiver)

 

[notivago]

After looking at this thread a couple of weeks ago, I was going to post a long message on how, as Engineers, we learn the theory first, and then use computers to apply it in an efficient manor but always keep an eye on the output based on our knowledge of the theory.

Agreed.

Since then, I have read a little more on decompression theory, and I have come to a realization: Dive tables are not decompression theory, and computers are not based on the tables.

Agreed for today computers but no doubt for the first ones the same equations used for the tables where used for the computers.

Dive tables are an implementation of a model based on decompression theory, and computers are another implementation based on the same or a slightly different model. You cannot learn how your computer works just by learning how to use a dive table. You need to learn the underlying theory first.

Disagree. Both are different tools with different points of view to solve the problem and they are not necessarily exclusive. Tables are planing tools, computers are gauge tools.

But after reading a bit more on the subject, I've concluded that computers can be exclusive with tables and among themselves, see for example:
http://www.dive-tech.co.uk/resources/suunto-rgbm.pdf

It proposes a degassing model that keep you in a progressive ascension inside the limits of a floor and ceiling that is constantly updated. Using the traditional diving model that is preached in OW courses with tables or simple computers like mine, instead of degassing, you would be gassing in such ascension.

Thus, not only you would have to teach the use of each specific computer, as for each computer you would have to teach different ways of diving according to it's underlying degassing theory.

Not only that, people with different computers would not be able to buddy properly, at least regarding the ascension.

 

[boulderjohn]

It proposes a degassing model that keep you in a progressive ascension inside the limits of a floor and ceiling that is constantly updated. Using the traditional diving model that is preached in OW courses with tables or simple computers like mine, instead of degassing, you would be gassing in such ascension.

Thus, not only you would have to teach the use of each specific computer, as for each computer you would have to teach different ways of diving according to it's underlying degassing theory.

Not only that, people with different computers would not be able to buddy properly, at least regarding the ascension.

I have no idea what you mean here.

It is true that when dealing with no decompression diving, different computers with different algorithms will give different NDL times, but as is taught in every OW class, even ones that teach tables, you simply go with the most conservative computer in a buddy team.

It does not matter whether you are using tables or computers--it is likely during part of an ascent that some of your tissues will be ongassing while others are offgassing. That's due to physics and is true no matter how you are measuring your dive.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say people would have to teach different ways of diving. Can you give an example?

It is true that in decompression diving, using different computers CAN break up a dive team if they give different times at different stop depths, but almost all modern decompression computers will allow you to overcome that and follow the more conservative computer. This thread is also not about decompression diving. If you are interested in how to dive different computers in decompression diving, there was a thread on that topic recently in the tec diving forums.

 

[TMHeimer]

Yes, Dr. Rogers did an amazing bit of work to develope the RDP.
The eRDPml is definately an interesting device, and we all had to get one for DM class. Haven't used mine yet, as almost all of my dives have been simple one depth dives (though a few have been very deep). I use the computer too, but so far I think tables would've been fine for 99% of my dives.
Yes, you must understand the underlying theory to understand both tables and computer. But knowing that theory didn't make it any easier for a computer dumb putz like me to figure out how mine works--just a whole lot of reading the manual over & over and trying each thing.

 

[windapp]

Yes, you must understand the underlying theory to understand both tables and computer. But knowing that theory didn't make it any easier for a computer dumb putz like me to figure out how mine works--just a whole lot of reading the manual over & over and trying each thing.

The one thing I really like about my computer is the simulation mode. With it, I can see exactly what the computer is going to read for different situations without actually having to be in those situtations. The most important part about learning any computer is understanding the information it is giving you at any given instant.