Safe and Unsafe

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I am a Dive Master through NAUI. I am recently in the process of helping an Instructor with an Open Water class. I was asked to teach the NAUI Dive Tables and so I did. But at the end of the lesson I was pulled aside and was told if I am going to teach dive tables, I need to teach every thing, so I had asked what it was that I missed? The instructor explained that I need to talk about the flying aspect toward diving.

When you are assisting an instructor, you teach what they want you to teach, when they want it taught, how they want you to teach it. It is their call, so you simply say "thanks," and thereafter whenever assisting that instructor, you teach things the way they want it taught.

It may well be that when you are an instructor you will want to teach things in a different order, you may want to emphasize some things that the other instructor did not think were important, or skip over some things (s)he wanted you to teach.

This is not wrong. A curriculum is an integrated thing, all the pieces fit together a certain way. You may decide that you can teach students the tables without mentioning flying, but you will get to that on another day. Such a system could also work well. But when you mix the things up, there is trouble. You might put that discussion off until the students are more advanced, but the instructor you are teaching thinks they have already learned it after you presented tables, so if you and that instructor are sharing the teaching duties, students might "graduate" without all of the necessary components of their education.

I guess what I am saying is that when you are assisting someone else, let them drive, that's best for everyone, even if you disagree to a certain point, let it slide.
 
Reg is right in so far as it is just another aspect of academia. For example in a Ph.D program if the faculty chair on your committee says rape a cat, you go find a kitty and rent a hotel room if you ever want to get your degree.

It is not right but it is the politics of the situation. The saying is that old ideas die only when the people promoting those ideas die or retire. Scuba instruction is no different.
 
From a tables point of view, you could be an H diver if you go to Lake Tahoe from Sacramento.

Richard

That would be a useful bit of information if we knew what tables they are referring to.
 
It's not just flying. It's the lessening of pressure which allows the nitrogen bubbles in your system to expand and possibly do great damage.

If you come from either Eilat, Israel or Aqaba, Jordan (both on the North End of the Red Sea) and want to go to Petra, you will be asked by the tourist agency if you have been diving. If you have been diving that day they will refuse to allow you to travel to Petra. The reason is that you will go over a mountain pass and they will not be responsible for you getting bent.

You will also learn these things in High Altitude Diving because many times you will have to go over a pass to get out of the high altitude diving situation.

Both of my diving computers (Oceanic & Suunto) give "No Flying" warnings for a period of time after diving. You cannot depend upon the pressurized cabin of an airline to protect you. You must take responsibility for taking care of yourself. Listen to the scientists/dive physicians and follow your certifying agency's recommendations.

And the Instructor here wanted it introduced with the tables. Fine, just make sure the students get it.

drdaddy
 
I think that when you are assisting in teaching or leading a dive, the details should be covered before you even begin. Would you assist on the dive without knowing the dive profile beforehand? If you are going to be assisting this particular DI (or any other, for that matter) I recommend that you discuss your role and the particulars before you start.

hope this helps!

:)
 
Dive tables are passe anyway since the advent of computers.
 
Dive tables are passe anyway since the advent of computers.

Sorry, but that's like saying learning to do math is passe since the advent of the pocket calculator. A computer can monitor your deco status with a greater level of precision than you can with tables, but, the diver needs to at least have an idea of what the computer is calculating, and, like all electronics they are subject to failure where tables are not.
 
One of my favorite reads lately from Global Underwater Explorers:

A Baker's Dozen: Problems With Computer Diving
  • Dive computers tend to induce significant levels of diver dependence, and undermine the awareness essential to all diving, but particularly essential to divers just beginning decompression diving.
  • Dive computers prohibit proper planning; they discourage divers from “studying” the impact of various mixtures and decompression choices.
  • Dive computers are of little educational benefit because they promote neither questioning nor proper planning discussions.
  • Dive computers often use algorithms that heavily pad decompression time; this sometimes results in odd and ridiculous levels of conservatism.
  • Dive computers are expensive, and prevent divers with limited resources from purchasing truly useful equipment.
  • Dive computers significantly limit the likelihood that divers will track their residual nitrogen groups, leaving them less informed in the event of computer failure.
  • Dive computers do not allow for diving helium in any format but the bulkiest and most questionable. It is very likely that new helium-based decompression computers will be inordinately conservative and suffer from all the limitations of air and Nitrox dive computers.
  • Dive computers often generate longer decompressions than an astute, well-educated, experienced diver generates.
  • Dive computers often confuse matters by providing the diver with too much useless information, sometimes even obscuring depth and time in favor of blinking CNS and/or decompression limitations.
  • Some dive computers become very difficult to use if a decompression stop has been violated.
  • Some computers will lock up completely, while others will just beep or generate erroneous and distracting information.
  • Dive computers do not allow the educated diver to properly modify his/her decompression profile to account for advances in knowledge, e.g., the use of deeper stops in a decompression profile.
  • Dive computers do not offer divers much flexibility to generate profiles with varying conservatism. For example, the right mix would allow 100 minutes at 60 ft rather than 60 minutes at 60 ft, but a diver might prefer to do one or the other or a hybrid of the two. Computers confuse this issue by not providing divers with the proper information.
  • Dive computer users often ignore table proficiency and therefore do not learn to read tables properly. When faced with a situation where they can't dive a computer (e.g., failure or loss) these divers are seriously handicapped.

You can read the rest at Equipment Configuration | Global Underwater Explorers
 
Dive tables are passe anyway since the advent of computers.

Planning a series of dives is far quicker on tables than computers, most of which have very poor or non-existent planning options.
99% of computer users just strap on and jump in without planning.

Planning a series of dives that maybe at different altitudes and/or altitude changes between the dive sites can only sensibly be done on tables.

As for the GUE link above, about 3 of the points there are valid. The rest is just propaganda.
 
As for the GUE link above, about 3 of the points there are valid. The rest is just propaganda.


Actually, let's take a look at that list....

From my point of view I would answer as follows:

  • Dive computers tend to induce significant levels of diver dependence, and undermine the awareness essential to all diving, but particularly essential to divers just beginning decompression diving.
    As much as it hurts, I bet there are many divers who couldn't (wouldn't dare) dive without their computers.... so the first part of that is abolutely right. Insofar that many divers "ride" the computer, I will agree with the second part too...

  • Dive computers prohibit proper planning; they discourage divers from ÅÔtudying the impact of various mixtures and decompression choices.
    Absolutely true. "proper" planning, especially in the context of technical diving, which is what he's talking about, goes well beyond what most computers provide in terms of functionality.

  • Dive computers are of little educational benefit because they promote neither questioning nor proper planning discussions.
    Complete nonsense

  • Dive computers often use algorithms that heavily pad decompression time; this sometimes results in odd and ridiculous levels of conservatism.
    In recreational diving this point is completely moot. In my experience my computer is also clear before I'm ready to surface on technical nitrox dives but I'm open to the idea that there are contexts in which this wouldn't be the case. I know that among the extreme deep crowd that at least some of them would dispute this claim as being false, claiming instead that the GUE/WKPP protocols don't work outside of the bandwidth of dives they were designed for.... I don't know either way but I think this point is laden with opinion.

  • Dive computers are expensive, and prevent divers with limited resources from purchasing truly useful equipment.
    Complete nonsense

  • Dive computers significantly limit the likelihood that divers will track their residual nitrogen groups, leaving them less informed in the event of computer failure.
    In the context of recreational diving of limited impact. It is true, however that moving from the computer to tables and back doesn't work.

  • Dive computers do not allow for diving helium in any format but the bulkiest and most questionable. It is very likely that new helium-based decompression computers will be inordinately conservative and suffer from all the limitations of air and Nitrox dive computers.
    Pure opinion and not in line with developments.

  • Dive computers often generate longer decompressions than an astute, well-educated, experienced diver generates.
    He's repeating himself. See previous comments.

  • Dive computers often confuse matters by providing the diver with too much useless information, sometimes even obscuring depth and time in favor of blinking CNS and/or decompression limitations.
    Complete nonsense. However, like any "dashboard" it can come across as confusing if you're not familiar with it.

  • Some dive computers become very difficult to use if a decompression stop has been violated.
    Once again purely a question of familiarity

  • Some computers will lock up completely, while others will just beep or generate erroneous and distracting information.
    purely a question of familiarity

  • Dive computers do not allow the educated diver to properly modify his/her decompression profile to account for advances in knowledge, e.g., the use of deeper stops in a decompression profile.
    Nonsense. A computer ONLY provides information and the diver is always in complete control of his/her dive.

  • Dive computers do not offer divers much flexibility to generate profiles with varying conservatism. For example, the right mix would allow 100 minutes at 60 ft rather than 60 minutes at 60 ft, but a diver might prefer to do one or the other or a hybrid of the two. Computers confuse this issue by not providing divers with the proper information.
    Untrue. Not ALL computers can do this but purpose built computers can switch gasses.

  • Dive computer users often ignore table proficiency and therefore do not learn to read tables properly. When faced with a situation where they can't dive a computer (e.g., failure or loss) these divers are seriously handicapped.
    Completely true.

So like Sting I count 3 points where I agree without qualifications and two containing partial truths. In my opinion the rest are either over-reaching or saying things that indicate that the author is simply unfamiliar with the technology.

In fact, it's a badly biased piece bad-mouthing a whole class of technology with which the author would appear to lack real-world experience....but because he's famous, people still quote him. The fact is, being famous is not a guarantee of correctness ....

R..
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom