Rex De Silva
Registered
It could be my genes. Anyway, I use whatever works for me!
Rex
Rex
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and tables have always worked for me, (maybe it's my genes). No I'm not 25, actually I'm 69 and have been diving most of my life. I should clarify that I did not intend to be dogmatic, but merely mentioned what has worked for me. I am old and (hopefully) wise enough to appreciate that an individual is always the best judge of what works well for him/her. Hence, the old adage "To each his own" certainly applies here, and best of luck with whatever your choice (computer or tables) is.First: I think very important for a diver to understand how a computer works so learning the tables may be intellectually important.
Second: I never use tables underwater and I never dive a square dive. So I use my Archimede.
Third: Breaking down, crash...Yes...Like every human things...No? And In two LDS it was not possible to buy depth gauge and timer (not electronic ) they simply said: "Ho, we've not that, we sell so rarely..."
Conclusion: I suppose that PADI will make "lighter" the table training to be more realist. And I suppose that too: maybe it is only a rumor...
I hope you are in the tested group...Young, males, athletes, fit, overtrained and less old than 25 years. If not, those tables or de RDP...I choose the second.
Kindly.
Most computers today use RGMB method that is scientifically based and well researched.
There has been a lot of misinformation exhibited about computers. There is another thread about this and the people who are most against them seem to have the most of these misconceptions. Let's list a few, shall we?Respectfully, that's not the least bit true.
There has been a lot of misinformation exhibited about computers. There is another thread about this and the people who are most against them seem to have the most of these misconceptions. Let's list a few, shall we?
Perhaps if they simply got educated about PDCs, then they wouldn't have these cro-magnon attitudes towards technology. All I am saying is:
- PDCs are based on tables.
- PDCs are prone to failure.
- Most PDCs are based on RGBM.
- Divers panic when their PDCs crap out.
- PDC failures are treated differently than depth gauge/watch failures.
- You can do anything with tables that you can do with PDCs.
- You can explain decompression with tables, but not with PDCs.
- Real divers only rely on tables, not PDCs.
- You can't plan a dive with a PDC.
- Computers rot your brain!
:caveman:
I just don't see the point of NOT teaching tables.
I just don't see the point of NOT teaching tables. They're very simple and can probably be thoroughly explained in 30 minutes of classtime. Afterward, give the students an hour or so of homework. That enables them to have a backup, should their computer ever fail and a primary method assuming they don't have the money yet for a computer, (very common for a new diver).
And tables also have a number of advantages all their own. If you do a couple dozen dives with tables, you'll probably find you have most of the first dive NDL's memorized. That means that without a table, computer or anything, you've got a pretty good idea of how long you can safely stay down at different depths without getting bent, and IMO, that's something you don't really develop from a computer. With the tables you have all that info right in front of you and you get more familiar with it with every dive.
I'm not saying that tables are better though. Computers are simpler, more convenient and give you longer dives, but tables have a few advantages of their own and should still be taught.