Another Tables vs. Computers Thread

[Rick Murchison]

Years ago when this argument came up, I beat my head against the wall with the "tables only" crowd trying to make the point that the computer was a useful tool to have in my tool kit; why deny the use of a tool that can help you dive better?
Now I find myself defending tables and math from the "computers only" crowd. Funny thing is, my position hasn't changed one tiny bit - the computer is a useful tool in the hands of someone who has a firm enough grasp on what's reasonable to recognize when the computer is screwed up...
Rick

 

[The Chairman]

Yes they do. That fact is adequately explained in the manual that comes with the computer and might even be advertised on the outside of the box that houses the computer in some cases.

Great. Lose the instructors and have diving instructions come from the various manufacturers in either pamphlet form, or just print them on the box. Maybe we can put any loose bits on the backs of cereal boxes.

Again... the mere mechanics are dealt with by the various manufacturers. That doesn't give you a CLUE how to dive it competently.

I wouldn't take a diver in the water who needed a computer to remind them that a safety stop might be appropriate.

Again, you are a better diver and instructor than I am. My students make mistakes and learn from them.

But you have YET to prove that relying on tables/watch/gauge makes you a better (safer) student than relying on a computer. You have yet to demonstrate how this is superior for the student to learn something that they may never use again. My point is to teach them how to use the tools they will probably be diving with. Why make them guess as to how to use them when they are not with you?

 

[MikeFerrara]

Years ago when this argument came up, I beat my head against the wall with the "tables only" crowd trying to make the point that the computer was a useful tool to have in my tool kit; why deny the use of a tool that can help you dive better?
Now I find myself defending tables and math from the "computers only" crowd. Funny thing is, my position hasn't changed one tiny bit - the computer is a useful tool in the hands of someone who has a firm enough grasp on what's reasonable to recognize when the computer is screwed up...
Rick

Seems sensible to me.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Great. Lose the instructors and have diving instructions come from the various manufacturers in either pamphlet form, or just print them on the box. Maybe we can put any loose bits on the backs of cereal boxes.

Or better yet if diving with a computer requires so much instruction maybe we should require a computer certification?

Again... the mere mechanics are dealt with by the various manufacturers. That doesn't give you a CLUE how to dive it competently.

You're right. Learning dive planning is what gives you a clue. After that, all you need is the the mere mechanics of any specific computer to plan a dive with it.

Again, you are a better diver and instructor than I am. My students make mistakes and learn from them.

My students did to but that's why I spent some time diving with them and they can certainly learn to remember a safety stop and control an ascent without a computer.

But you have YET to prove that relying on tables/watch/gauge makes you a better (safer) student than relying on a computer. You have yet to demonstrate how this is superior for the student to learn something that they may never use again.

Knowing how to use tables makes them a more versitile diver and gives them more choices. As I pointed out before being able to control an ascent or do a safety without a computer would seem a necessity should the computer fail. Am I wrong? What procedures do you teach for computer failures?

The computer you provide during class may be a tool that they'll never use again. Computers come is a whole bunch of different shapes and sizes. You provide computers during an open water class. Do all your students go out and buy computers right away? Some of mine did and some didn't. They were still all able to dive. Why presuppose that they'll be diving a computer or that they won't have application for tables? Why limit their choices and abilities?

My point is to teach them how to use the tools they will probably be diving with. Why make them guess as to how to use them when they are not with you?

Again, probably be diving with? With computers getting more popular, I can't fault an instructor who wants to spend more class time on them. I think it's good that you want your computer diving students to know what they're doing. However, there are other applicable tools. Tables are still around and in use too so I think they should be taught. Would you have your students who can't afford to buy a computer or choose not to for whatever reason guess at how to use tables or just not be able to dive?

Tables are inexpensive, easy to get and work just great for many dives and for many people. Why not teach them?

 

[TSandM]

I did my PADI OW certification with a shop that provided computers for us from the beginning. However, there was never any education whatsoever in how to use them. In fact, when I did my third and fourth certification dives, I could not retrieve the data on the dives from the computer to log them. My instructor couldn't, either. We ended up logging the dives off his computer. As you can imagine, there was no instruction at all on dive planning on the computer.

I've owned two computers. I have to admit, I haven't gone through the entire manual on either. Sometimes the computer makes noises I don't understand . . . my Mosquito was beeping at me at 120 feet the other day, and I don't know why, because I've never programmed an alarm into it for maximum depth. Periodically, I get "slow" messages on dives where I haven't blown any stops. I've learned to use the depth and time information, note the NDL information, and disregard almost anything else, while trying to use the skills I have to control the profile and the ascents. It's not that I ignore the computer's information about how long IT thinks I can be where I am; it's that I largely ignore the alarms. If I spent the time to go through the manual, I probably could learn to turn them off.

Here you have a highly motivated diver, reading advanced decompression theory, taking classes in preparation for technical diving, but my computer just annoys me. As is so often true in modern life, it's a piece of technology which was designed by a programmer to do what HE thought a piece of equipment should do -- instead, he created an interface which is tedious and complicated and requires too much effort from me to learn.

It might be well worth while to have classes in learning to use all the many facets of one's dive computer. The problem is that, as far as I can tell, you'd have to have twenty or thirty different classes, since the computers are so drastically different in how they operate and what they will do.

 

[Scubakevdm]

I think that to argue that computers are too complicated for beginning divers and that running swags are not is a little silly.

 

[The Chairman]

You got that right Kev.

 

[Scuba]

So...any PADI certified divers going back some number of years (I don't know when the material was first added) has at least been exposed to the basics of computer diving in addition to being required to learn to use tables.

I'm sure that we could debate whether or not we think the information provided is to our liking but the fact is that the students computer instructio is not limited to "go read the manual" as you suggest.

You're right. I checked my OW manual about 5 years old.

I'll explain what I meant. The rental gear I was using had a computer. Not a depth gauge and bottom timer needed to follow the tables. If my recollection is correct we did not go into any computer explanation but told to read the manual. At a minimum I had to learn what the various numbers in the display meant. Which was which: current depth, max depth, is that elapsed dive time or time to NDL, do those ascent bars start counting at 10 or 20 ft p/min, and so forth. Not a big deal after a few dives, or had I spent more time studying - or had it been thoroughly covered in class. Explaining how to use certain tools in class, depth gauge and bottom timer, not using those tools during actual diving, and not covering the actual tool utilized for actual diving is not a good way to start off a new student, who in addition to this, has all kinds of other issues to consider. I suppose we can go on forever on this issue in regards to other training issues. There is definitely information overload in OW training. In my opinion adding some additional information, actual dive tracking tool usage in this case, can actually result in easing the information burden.

I don't know about most classes but Is more really required? Computers are pretty simple to use, after all. I have yet to see ANY diver who knows how to plan a dive with tables that is unable to plan one using a computer. There may be one someplace but I haven't seen any. Unwilling maybe but not unable.

I agree with your general premise. That is one of the issues I addressed in my previous post. Additional deco theory knowledge and practice, beyond the bare rudimentary basics, is necessary in order to effectively maximize the information provided by real time dive tracking, regardless of tool used. I think this is the, or one, of the main reasons why many consider computer users inferior divers. Someone willing to put the time and effort into mentally tracking their dive will generally gain greater knowledge and understanding than someone who never learns how to use the information provided by his tracking tool beyond the bare minimum, like stay off the red.

The ease with which a computer tracks and provides dive profile information simplifies the dive tracking process for the diver. Providing the necessary knowledge to utilize and verify this information should be an essential part of dive instruction moving into the future. Maybe not at the OW level, but at a non existing advancing level class covering fundamental deco theory and dive practice application short of tech.

Computers are not only here to stay, they will become an increasingly integral part of diving.

 

[The Chairman]

Not a big deal after a few dives, or had I spent more time studying - or had it been thoroughly covered in class. Explaining how to use certain tools in class, depth gauge and bottom timer, not using those tools during actual diving, and not covering the actual tool utilized for actual diving is not a good way to start off a new student, who in addition to this, has all kinds of other issues to consider.

Excellent POV from the student's perspective.

 

[Thalassamania]

This discussion has been going on, that I know of, since 1988. It really has not changed at all. Read the argument when it started, at least the participants were somewhat more knowledgeable and much better prepared: Proceedings of the Dive Computer Workshop (1988)

For a good understanding of the relationship between a Dive Computer and tables look at the article on page 181. Also read what Jim Stewart had to say on page 207 and the Personal Perspectives starting on page 209.