Another Tables vs. Computers Thread

[The Chairman]

So, your open water students can back fin? See, you are the better instructor. I don't even expect that out of my divemaster candidates.

 

[MikeFerrara]

So, your open water students can back fin? See, you are the better instructor. I don't even expect that out of my divemaster candidates.

Maybe you missed something in what I wrote before. I already explained that not all of my open water students mastered back finning and I didn't require them to. I taught it, demonstrated it's value and gave them a chance to practice it but I didn't require that they master it in a OW class. A few did get pretty good at it though. I also said that it's easy to get around not having that skill during ascents and descents.

Earlier you jumped on me for not diving the way I teach. I may not calculate my decompression status exactly as I had to teach it but I do control my position in the water as I teach it. You said that some students mimic your horizontal ascents so apparently you don't teach the way you dive? You teach a vertical negative ascent but you do a horizontal ascent?

In any case I didn't always teach horizontal ascents and descents. It was a change I made to address a widespread problem that I saw divers having and in fact experienced myself when I was new. As I said before, that problem is that divers so often fail to stay together on ascents and descents especially in less than perfect vis (much of the worlds water). Even if they do stay close enough, they have difficulty rendering aid if they can't maintain position and being horizontal and neutral facilitates that much better. It addressed two areas of concern...one being the effectiveness of the technique for control and the other being buddy/team diving skills which are, I think, so poorly addressed in most OW texts and classes.

I don't understand why you're so obsesses with the question of whether or not I was a better instructor. Looking back, there are still many things that I would change about my teaching. I worked very hard to address real world diving problems in our classes. The benefits of the changes were dramatic and obvious. Maybe I was better in some ways but who cares? Actually, I was so slow to recognize and respond to some of this stuff that I find it rather embarrassing. Even at that, I didn't invent any of it. Once I ran into some instructors who could really dive and teach I just stole all of it. You've refered to pride and arrogance a number of times. It was a problem because as a new instructor I was proud and arrogant enough to think that I had been taught to teach knew how and what to teach. I swallowed a lot of pride when I finally admitted how inadequate our course standards and teaching was and that our students were lousy divers and stood little chance of significant improvement because we just hadn't given them the tools they needed.

Beyond that, while we did make some huge improvements in what we taught, I don't think that I was particularly gifted at teaching it and that's one reason that quiting didn't bother me too much. There was improvement but I really should have been much further along before I taught class number one. PADI told me I was a good enough diver and teacher to teach. Hearing that was nice and I believed it. We were wrong. So for the record, I am anything but proud of much of the teaching that I did.

 

[The Chairman]

I just see that your standards are far higher than mine, Mike. I must admit that I only push fun and safety: not perfection. But, since I am largely successful at this, I keep on teaching. I do stress to my students that I can only teach them the basics of the skill set, but they have to perfect them themselves. Those who want to perfect will, and those who don't: won't!

 

[MikeFerrara]

I just see that your standards are far higher than mine, Mike. I must admit that I only push fun and safety: not perfection. But, since I am largely successful at this, I keep on teaching. I do stress to my students that I can only teach them the basics of the skill set, but they have to perfect them themselves. Those who want to perfect will, and those who don't: won't!

I don't know that my standards were higher (as in more difficult for the student to achieve) though they were a bit different. I really think that many of the changes we made along the way made things easier on the students and more fun as I'm sure that you try to do. I don't, for a minute, think that I found every way there is to do that. I don't think I pushed perfection so much as I did techniques that could be applied to whetever the students decided to do later without having to relearn things they thought they already knew...a good foundation that could be biult on. I can't say for certain that I was totally successsful at that (I certainly wasn't early on) but that's what I tried to do.

When I comment on your teaching methods or any one elses it's not to prove that I'm a "good" inastructor and that you, or they, are not. I think you are an instructor with good intentions who probably hasn't experienced or considered every possibility. I can't claim to be more than that either but I may have experienced and considered different things than you have. These days we are able to get on a world wide web and swap experiences and ideas with divers and instructors from around the world and from every discipline. That's an incredible advantage that we didn't always have. We used to lead a sheltered life with little information beyond what we got from the local LDS. I've had the chance to dive with people and watch instructors work who I wouldn't even have known existed if it hadn't been for this site. I can tell you for a fact that there are many instructors who feel their teaching was greatly improved, at least in part, from ideas they found here. I am one of those and your work has obviously been a large part of that by providing this resource. When a soggy or a Steve or whoever shares some of what they think is good about their diving or teaching, don't kick their butt too bad because, in many cases, you helped them learn it.

To go further, when we as divers or more so as instructors flaunt our stuff here in public we are really hanging it out in the breeze. I know there are a few here who are former stuents of mine and a bunch that I've dived with. I have no doubt that if I open my mouth too wide some one is going to make certain that a foot goes in there. Putting our ideas here absolutely invites comments and some of those are not going to be complementary but often something constructive comes from it.

I gotta go do some work. Have a good one.

 

[DivesWithTurtles]

... When a soggy or a Steve or whoever shares some of what they think is good about their diving or teaching, don't kick their butt too bad because, in many cases, you helped them learn it.
...

EDIT: Vented, posted, thought about it for a while, deleted it.

 

[lamont]

s
it seems hard for some to adopt new "technologies", so go ahead and use the ways you learned way back and ignore it. i am sure you will start also soon to mail your replies to threads here in by snailmail and see them month later published if somebody bothers to type them in for you.

most of the current crop of non-computer divers learned how to dive using a dive computer.

 

[Soggy]

EDIT: Vented, posted, thought about it for a while, deleted it.

That's alright, we saw it, anyhow...

 

[Scuba]

Quoted from
another thread:

Ignoring issues of reliability, just considering understanding of decompression, why do so many people repeatedly say that learning to use the deco tables in OW is preferable to learning to use a computer?

Many believe that by using tables in OW the diver is forced to be more proactive in monitoring his depth and time, making him more aware of circumstances than a diver using a computer. Carrying this concept further into real time dive profile tracking, as opposed to infrequent periodic snapshots used to monitor where one stands in relation to deco tables, the belief is that using methods such as depth averaging increases awareness and flexibility to modify profile.

But these are nothing more than assumptions leading to flawed comparisons.

Given the same “understanding of decompression”, the fact is whichever diver monitors his gauges more often is more likely to gain a better feel and awareness of changes taking place and where he stands at any one point in relation to the deco model and its affects.

In regards to real time dive tracking, the knowledge and information used in more advanced mental tracking methods is not taught in OW as far as I know. It encompasses more than that needed to follow a computer’s real time tracking. This additional knowledge provides advantages in terms of a foresight of how profile modifications will affect stance within deco model. This is not an equal comparison. Provide the computer user with the same more comprehensive understanding of deco theory and application, and he is capable of the same foresight and understanding.

Computers vs. Tables?

Computers animate deco model tables. They are tables - in action.

A deco table is analogous to a photo. A computer is analogous to a movie, as is mental tracking. Both of which animate deco model tables in real time.

Given comparable subject understanding, what difference does it make if you derive your information from a printed table, a digital display, or your buddy tells you? The same goes for real time dive profile monitoring. How much does it matter if you do the calculations yourself, you have someone else or a tool do the calculations, as long as you know where you stand and what options you have when you view the results. There are some obvious differences, but they are all susceptible to proper operation and failure, as well as proper and improper operator use, advantages and disadvantages.

In terms of dive tracking, computers are superior compared to other dive tracking tools and methods. They track actual profile at a much faster rate providing greater precision. They perform deco model calculations with greater accuracy than any other available tool or method. They are not as susceptible to environmental influences affecting calculations, such as distractions and impairment, provided battery is in good condition. Whether these advantages are advantageous in any particular dive or set of dives, or whether their limitations and possible shortcomings are deemed unacceptable, to any diver, is another matter.

There are valid reasons for not using computers. Mainly cost, programmed limitations, rigid user interfaces unsuitable for some, adequate alternative methods available, etc. It’s just that most reasons given and comparisons made against its usage are bogus.

However you view a deco model table, however you track your dive profile, errors are a possibility, and there are peculiar strengths and weaknesses evident in any comparisons. The most important factor in application usage is not the method used to calculate a result, provided comparably derived results. How much subject knowledge you posses up to a practical minimum necessary point for optimum operation, and how well you know how to use it to the same point, will be the greatest determinant factor for successful operation or not.

 

[The Chairman]

most of the current crop of non-computer divers learned how to dive using a dive computer.

Hmnnnn, I would disagree with this. You are saying that their OW class did NOT teach tables? Do you have any evidence for this?

 

[Scuba]

Hmnnnn, I would disagree with this. You are saying that their OW class did NOT teach tables? Do you have any evidence for this?

Not to answer for him. But I think he meant that these divers, after or during class, used a computer during the dive and relied on it for excution and possibly in the absence of planning. Funny thing is, I'll bet their computer instruction was limited to - go read the manual.