Hmmm - macrobubble commented as such on the blog page...
Personally I have always thought that use of the tables provides a basic introduction to decompression theory that has a more visual aspect than simply plugging numbers into a computer. I compare it to the difference between an analogue watch and a digital one - both tell you what time it is, but the analogue watch gives you a visual representation of the passage of time. I can "see" that a quarter-hour has passed by the relative position of the hands, and I don't even have to actually know what time it is. A digital watch requires you to make a small additional calculation.
In the same way, the pattern of the lines and boxes on the RDP tables provide a broad visual reference for a diver's memory. Even if they forget how to work the table correctly, there's a very obvious "deeper means shorter" pattern to the table, whereas computers just tell you exactly where you are at any given time.
My feelings on the teaching of tables have changed somewhat over the last two years, where my work has been mostly as a dive guide rather than an instructor, and I very rarely teach OW these days. I'm now the guy that has to deal with the aftermath of other people's instruction and since tables are effectively obsolete in my job, I'm starting to think it's better that computers are taught in more detail as part of basic training. Bear in mind that all of the problem folk I mentioned in my post are not new to diving - some were certified before I was and therefore inevitably would have been taught with tables - also I feel I should mention that they were not all certified by the same agency.
My dilemma is therefore do I want people to learn tables which have almost zero practical application these days, or correct use of computers which actually cause us rather a lot of headaches? I really don't want to see theory being removed from basic training, but if it means that there is more focus on the practical aspects of diver training - buoyancy, breath control, safety, computer use - then so be it. That's become a lot more valuable to me over the last few years.
On the other hand, if this particular guy had his tables on board - or I had mine, for that matter - maybe we could have worked out a second dive for him based on his maximum depth and time for the first. After all, this was the original PADI advice for using a computer - if it fails and you have a backup as in watch, depth gauge and table, you can re-plot accordingly.
I think it boils down to the fact that - at least in my world - nobody uses tables any more. Those who don't have computers rely on the guides to make very conservative dives, and some of those that do have computers create unnecessary complications by not understanding them. If this guy had been taught "if you forget to set your nitrox percentage, dive the air profile", which is correct, or understood the display - and all computers are only variations on similar themes - then possibly we wouldn't get this type of problem. If he'd also Read The Falootin' Manual this would have been of additional benefit!
I can see a day in the not too distant future where agencies market their courses with computers as part of the crew-pack "complete with PADI Zoop Computer..."
"..And the times they are a-chaaaaanging..." - Bob Dylan
Cheers
C.