Because a lot of shops are pushing dive computers and not including the gauge with the standard equipment. No one is dropping it. They are substituting.
If they are substituting...the definition of that sort of means they are dropping it. They are dropping it in favor of a computer.
And if you look closely at those consoles you might notice they have dive computers in place of depth gauges.
I will pay closer attention to the rec diver equipment I see in the future. Either way, my opinion is that, without the level of training you have, qualifying you to decide if you need a depth gauge or not, it is silly to dive without one.
While there are valid reasons for bayonet training, even the Army has limited time for training.
Ah...The "Army Times". The National Equirer of the Army. It's a tabloid,
nothing more. Their stories almost never come true. Those of us serving tend to moan when we see something good in it; because it's like the kiss of death for something we wanted to see.
Believe me; we teach bayonets. Once Hertling (the same silly goofball behind all the stupid PT revamping) left, they came back.
If only an hour is spent teaching the tables, then the student won't master them, and it's the waste of an hour of teaching time. Using the tables is not rocket science, but using them is certainly not intuitive. It requires practice, practice, and more practice to become proficient.
Then take the time that is required to teach them. Most divers can learn this tool on their own, with the instruction booklet and practice problems. Thus, only an hour or so will do it in the actual class.
My only point in chiming in was to emphasize that while it's great to learn tables, it is not NECESSARY. To me, "necessary" does not mean necessary to avoid having to sit out 12 hours or whatever. To me, necessary means necessary in order to enjoy the kind of relaxed vacation diving that many many of us out there do.
Ah, applying your own definition of how to enjoy a vacation", I see. Your definition of "enjoying a vacation" is not the same as others. Your arguement fails on this point; because you are looking at it solely from your point of view.
Judging from SB posts, some newly minted divers can't wait to spend their dollars.
Some
want to buy gear, but know that there are other priorities first. Like their kids eating.
On resort and liveaboard dives, you ask the DM how deep and long the next three dives today will be, and he's not even sure yet of what site we're going to visit FIRST.
Then he should know the average, or at least what the the profile of that first dive
should be like.
And just what WAS the depth of that last dive?
That's what your analog gauge is for. They have this handy needle that records this info for you.
It was likely VERY multi-level, complicating the use of tables.
No, not really. Compute it as a square profile.
While few of us advocate blindly following the DM, who in their right mind is going to go out of their way to piss off the DM whom we are spending a week with?
Any DM trying to plan my dive for me will get the warning that I will plan my own profile, then the warning that continuing to try to control my profile will adversely affect his tip. The confirmation of this is usually accompanied with a finger. I will not tolerate unsafe planning.
To the extent the diver deems it safe, we tend to go with the flow, not against it.
This is why we get such entertaining reads in the "Lessons for Life", the DAN magazine, and the Accidents and Incidents forum. People think that they can just go with it, and become underwater sheep to be lead around. "Trust me, I'm a DiveMaster...".
Makes me more worried than a new Lieutenant saying, “I think we should…”.
one considers that a backup computer that should last for years can be purchased for a fraction of the cost of just one vacation….But for those divers who can't afford an extra $250 computer, I suggest being careful about booking a $3,000 week-long liveaboard or trip to Cozumel…I would think that divers who dive only once or twice a year are the ones who would not be overly concerned about spending money on their vacation.
Again, not everyone has money to blow like you seem to. It would be nice to see you not interjecting your fiscal priorities onto other divers. Those divers going once or twice a year are probably the
most likely to be concerned about spending money on dive gear. They’re probably vacationing only once because they can can’t afford to go more often.
When the difference between going on a vacation and not is a few hundred dollars, the idea of spending the equivalent of the next two weeks’ worth of groceries on a
backup computer is hard to justify. So that leaves a diver without a backup plan, unless they were taught tables.
T.C. has added his own extra "flavour" to this thread by also suggesting that if a student does not understand tables and/or is not able to remember it permanently after the class that there must be someone to blame. This is a twist that we don't see all the time.
I know…you just want to let people off the hook. After all, having a quality instructor or skilled diver isn’t as important as avoiding a tragedy like…hurting someone’s
feelings. Heaven forbid you actually assign
blame.
He suggested that I must be an inferior instructor because I don't agree with him or that my observations that people can forget things means that those people are not taking "personal responsibility".
Liar. I said you would be an inferior instructor if you didn’t teach something, or taught it poorly. I did not say it was for disagreeing with me.
If you as an instructor do not teach a student something, or teach them poorly,
you are to blame. Likewise, if someone is properly taught, and does not maintain their skills,
they are to blame.
You can’t dodge responsibility by saying, “Oh, I forgot…”. This applies in every profession in the world; I submit a medical Doctor for example. They devote a considerable amount of time staying current in their profession and maintaining their knowledge. The same applies for divers. You, the diver are responsible for ensuring your skills stay sharp.
This edgy manner of debate makes for good "gladiator sport" but is so utterly devoid of objectivity that I refused to respond to it. Perhaps someone else would like to get into the ring about this.....
People who have been long-time lurkers who finally dare to make their first post often "write off" scubaboard when people like T.C. use their genuine questions as a podium for the pumping negativity and the beating of dead horses into threads. We've lost *so* many people over the years because of this.... I feel bad for allowing myself to get sucked into it. yet again.
Right. So you just lie about what I said, and then take personal swipes at me. Good job,
moderator.
Second; point out anything I said to make him 'write off' the board. I encouraged him to get the training, and have repeatedly congratulated him on wanting to get it.
It was argued that the diver is *less* skilled -- i.e. less capable -- as a diver if they do not understand tables. This point could do with more debate. In my mind the *skill* of a diver has to do with whether or not the are able to plan and execute a given dive. The tools they use to do that are of secondary importance in my mind.
What of a cheap computer that does not have the ability to plan dives? What do you recommend to a diver on vacation who rents a computer, only to find that all the computers for rent do not have the capability to plan dives? How should the diver plan their next dive then? Without the ability to use the single skill they were taught, computer dive planning, they are now sorely lacking in
your own measure of a diver’s skill, whereas a diver with the ability to plan with his tables has a definite advantage.
T.C. has repeatedly argued that the tools the diver uses *do* define whether or not they are skilled as divers. I tried arguing that a modern mathematician may be skilled without knowing how an abacus works and a modern diver may be skilled without knowing how a J-valve works. Likewise, I think I modern sailor may be "skilled" without being able to navigate with a sextant.
So a sailor with the ability to navigate by sextant is not better than one, of otherwise equal skill, who cannot? A mathematician with the ability to use an abacus does not have an edge, however very, very slight, over an equally skilled colleague? My point is that just because a certain skill does not have a current application, or one that you can foresee, does not mean that skill is worthless or not worth teaching.
Given two divers of otherwise equal ability and skill, one knowing tables has an edge, however slight, over the one who does not. This point is beyond dispute, it does not matter if there are better tools out there. It is one more tool in the toolbox, one that is not hard to teach.
I see no reason to drop it from instruction, and the OP is to be commended for wishing to learn it.
