While much is made in the dive community of the dangers of DCI, DAN's latest 2008 report has a section which reviews DCI incidents. In one major study, they say recreational divers reported 3 incidents in about 15,000 dives. This seems fairly low to me, and indicates that the almost universal use of computers is not a problem.
The computer training issue is one that is already being handled, so I think that is not a big problem, and if the classroom time (very considerable in my experience) now spent on tables was instead spent on computer use (very brief in my experience), the diver would have a much better understanding of the computer.
For those who feel the tables give some insight into the mechanics of decompression, I would point out that the computer's ability to plan and simulate repetitive dives is much more accurate, flexible and intuitive than a dive table.
With my computer I can perform a simulated dive, over realistic terrain, initial or repetitive, on air or nitrox, watching what happens to tank pressure, NDL time, remaining dive time, ascent rate, ceilings, and other variables as I swim along. Try THAT on your tables.
i think you missed my point. i agree that computers should be tought. that is what is going to be used in the real world. howevre using them has a couple of problems. the student learns a computer in the limited use as it relates to the level of training receeived. in the case of ow 40-50-60 ft or less emvirionment. how can that depth get anyone in trouble. and as such who pays attention to the computer for other than an electronig depth gage and a timer for safety stop? how does that student know if the computer they are using is not set up for nitrox or something else not standard to thier training. without the background of table knowledge they do not know when the computer is lying to them. perhaps if they started woth non nitrox cmputers??? i dont know. and then the primacy issue of first learned hardest remembered, hardest to forget hardest to change. the best example of this is ,,, i asked one of my students in an electronic course what was harger 2 pi or 6? the student had to use a calculator to figure it. from the students perspective why learn the basics i have a calculator to do the test.
the computer issue may have been handled as far as the agency goes but student application is something else. in the 60's when i took my basic, we just mentioned the tables existed and that was it. the course was taught for the area environments. as such 60 foot lake 72 cube tank no way in $%^& can you stay down long enough to have a problem. ow is basicly an intro to diving let them use tables, advanced is just that. advanced skills, depths, and technologies. a review of tables is all that is necessary and concentraton on computers is the responsible course to take. now take 12 students and 12 different computers,,, how does the instructor deal with that,,, to the level of liability he has ,,,, and not confuse some student unnless the same computer is going to be used by all students.
its not so much the issue its the application of teaching the computer/computers and achievving student profiency.
i wil agree that the accuracy of the computer far exceeds the tables. but if the puter gives you a 4 hour ndl and the tables give you a 2 hour ndl and the student has no basic understanding of routine times he will believe what the puter tells them. are the acgencies going to get into which puters are liberal or conservitive is respect to the tables. i know that tables from one agency to another vary. but the agency has all students using the same table for training, so all students get the same results. (reinforcement of leaining) how do you explain that aeris and uwatec have different data calculation's and which are (in the students eyes) better to use. it adds a whole new level of liability by itself let alone having a class of 12 all bringing in thier own puters. as far as the handling of the puter issue, is it not handled by giving the instructor the option to use or not to use.
the ability to so simulated dives is moot to the issue using it for training. it only reinforces my position that 12 different puters have 12 ways to operate the simulator. and the time needed to train all the ways takes away from the effectivness of the training. and that once again goes back to all use the same model of puter. the last issue is how do you test table usage oops computer usage with a gradable answer criteria that verifies learning. you cant so it is left out of testing. and becomes nice to know info.
i have not looked at the instructor material of any of the agencies so i am speeking somewhat off the cuff. i do have 7 yrs of teaching behind me from the military. i have discused this with the lds and thier current position is teach the tables and then add computers as a bonus until they can figure how to get all students using the same puter in the same modes to produce the same results. they cite thier authority to do this from "instructor discresion to use or not to use computers.
there is more than just doing problems in a class, the students have to believe and trust the computer outputs. how can that be done when you do not have basic unserstanding of tables to validate the computer outputs.
lastly how do you have a student plan repeditive dives on a shop puter knowing they will not have the same instrument when they buy thier own. the tables will at least tell them that only 3 dives can be made (square profile) before running out of time. as opposed to the puter saying 5-6 dives because you pushed a wrong button or it was calsulating a 36% mix. it just seams that puter use is better left to aow as opposed to ow because its advanced not basic.. one other thing 3 problems in every 1500 dives. is that reported or does it include known or unknown incidents that were unreported?
i am nnot trying to pick a fight here
from another post
Our shop is currently in the transition mode of changing from tables to computers, which makes things a bit confusing right now, but will soon smooth out, once the transition is complete. At this point I still plan to teach the tables from a historical point. to show the student where the computers are getting the the information they are displaying. That way the students get the best of both worlds, they get to learn to use computers & they also have at least a very basic introduction to using the tables.
__________________
Tammy Storm
SSI OWSI # 46723
www.evvscuba.com
i think this poster has it right.
