Another Tables vs. Computers Thread

[The Chairman]

Wow Lamont... I am impressed.

My computer taught me to do a safety stop rather than a safety pause.

 

[Scuba]

Doc's class seems to me to be a good idea, its not his fault that the product, by and large, has failed.

From the perspective of units sold, it's been very successful.

From the perspective training classes to teach divers how to properly use it, it has largely failed. Mostly due to an absence of teaching, which is finally beginning to be addressed. For the same reason, many who do use them, and many who do not use them, don't understand them. Yes, that's a big failure, and danger to safety.

I don't know who the camps pro and con where when computers came out, assuming they could be defined, but more recently a three letter acronym dive philosophy has done a great deal of good by promoting good fundamental safe dive practices to many online users on these boards, while on the other hand they have done a great deal of harm towards understanding the practice of objective analysis and perspective.

So, while the arguments are all the same and will remain so until a fundamental change takes place with either instruments or our understanding of deco theory, partly for the aforementioned reason above, old misconceptions continue to be retold and countered for the benefit of a new crop of divers, if no one else. We are a bunch of pages into this thread before someone brought up "computers rot your brain". A couple of years ago this would have been the second post and every other post. There's hope after all.

 

[radinator]

Please re-read the OP.

The discussion is not whether the computer is "more precise" with a swag. The discussion revolves around an OW class and whether there is a compelling reason (safety or otherwise) to teach tables over a computer.

Are you saying that your original class did not contain tables and how to dive them? If so, what class was this?

I said nothing of the sort. In fact, I don't think I mentioned my original class at all. For the record, my original class taught with tables. Computers were very briefly mentioned.

When I said 'Had I learned them years ago", the 'them' I am referring to is the shorthand techniques I mentioned, which I think are simpler than even the tables.

But in this thread many people brought up the 'computers are more precise' argument, and I am pointing out that this is meaningless.

 

[MikeFerrara]

So, let me re-frame the question.

Do you believe that tables are inherently safer than computers?

No I don't believe that tables are inherently safer.

If not, than why are you so pro-table and anti-computer"

I'm not anti-computer. Some choose not to use one and I'm one of those. Some of us have a choice but if we exclusively teach computer use we make that choice more difficult. Then we're deciding for them that they will use a computer or they won't be diving. That's a large part of what I disagree with.

Of course the student can always go home and teach themselves but then we're back to having to ask: what are we paying the instructor for? On an ever increasing basis, I think we're just paying for access. Increasingly our instructors who are taking the same theory lax classes, become instructors faster, know less, teach less and are even less skilled in the water. Leaving out tables is just another part of that trend.

If so, than please show how it is statistically safer.

We don't have the raw data to statistically show much of anything in diving. What we can do is visit any busy dive site and observe. When I do so, I see some pretty strong indications that dive training isn't doing well dispite the fact that most divers survive. I dived for years without ever taking a class and I survived as did many others. The fact that most of us survive is NOT evidence that training is effective. It seems to be a "don't care". We would certainly have trouble showing a statistically significant difference between the two groups though I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the "peer" taught divers come out far better than those with formal training. Now if we could clearly observe an obvious skill difference between divers with formal training and those without, we might be getting someplace.

Rather than address it, we continue to remove things from the classes. Less theory, no tables, shorter pool sessions, OW dives before CW training is complete...all centered around marketing concerns rather than diver competence. For a long time I've been of the opinion that the agencies were useless and they're going way out of their way to prove me right.

 

[tedtim]

I'm not anti-computer. Some choose not to use one and I'm one of those. Some of us have a choice but if we exclusively teach computer use we make that choice more difficult. Then we're deciding for them that they will use a computer or they won't be diving. That's a large part of what I disagree with.

Right on Mike. I too use a computer, but I carry my tables and know how to use them. The whole point here I believe is the use of the tool. Choice is good.

Rather than address it, we continue to remove things from the classes. Less theory, no tables, shorter pool sessions, OW dives before CW training is complete...all centered around marketing concerns rather than diver competence. For a long time I've been of the opinion that the agencies were useless and they're going way out of their way to prove me right.

Many arguments here. I see something similar when we have a few folks do their first dives in our region after having taken their OW course in the warm, clear water. Your comment on diver competence is interesting. I suggest that this is certainly situational in nature. Someone who is only going to do their dives in a warm water environment is certainly not going to be competent in an environment where they have to wear thicker protection (or a drysuit). Yet, we have people returning from the Caribbean islands with a C-card and decide to join the local weekly group for a dive believing that the experience will be the same.

 

[The Chairman]

But in this thread many people brought up the 'computers are more precise' argument, and I am pointing out that this is meaningless.

I don't recall this argument being raised until you brought it up. I guess I might have missed it.

 

[The Chairman]

Rather than address it, we continue to remove things from the classes. Less theory, no tables, shorter pool sessions, OW dives before CW training is complete...all centered around marketing concerns rather than diver competence. For a long time I've been of the opinion that the agencies were useless and they're going way out of their way to prove me right.

Maybe the traditional training (with tables) is flawed? Perhaps we are wasting our time and theirs by training them to use tools that they have no use or patience for?

Let's face it, with the advent of online academics, my role as an instructor is more of a "coach" than a "professor". In that respect, I can concentrate on producing competent divers IN THE WATER rather than being a sage on the stage in regards to their academic training. Personally, I would rather spend more time in the water and less in the class.

 

[IwakuniDiver]

Maybe the traditional training (with tables) is flawed? Perhaps we are wasting our time and theirs by training them to use tools that they have no use or patience for?

Let's face it, with the advent of online academics, my role as an instructor is more of a "coach" than a "professor". In that respect, I can concentrate on producing competent divers IN THE WATER rather than being a sage on the stage in regards to their academic training. Personally, I would rather spend more time in the water and less in the class.

This is a terrible excuse for not teaching the theories in your class. Would you go in for brain surgery performed by a neuro surgeon that learned how to use a scalpel in class and got the rest of his education from Wikipedia? I don't think so.

I use a computer to the point of not not liking diving without one but I still use and know my tables. None of you have given a "really good" reason to not teach tables in class. It doesn't take long, all computers are based off them, and it doesn't hurt anything. The only reasons I've seen here underneath the rhetoric is "I don't feel like teaching it" and "I don't feel like learning it". Lousy reasons.

 

[radinator]

I don't recall this argument being raised until you brought it up. I guess I might have missed it.

That what I get for reading the whole thread before responding. It was mentioned (check out posts 74 & 112) but with multiple replies with quotes it seemd that it was brought up more often than it had been.

 

[The Chairman]

This is a terrible excuse for not teaching the theories

How do you make this quantum jump leap? No tables does not mean I don't teach theory. Thats only pretentious bunk. I probably cover tissue compartments and loading MORE than a table based class.