PADI tables finally going away?

[Paladin]

I dove four of the last six days . . . having to do this would make me insane.

LOL I actually enjoy it. It's my quiet time to reflect on the day and insures that the next time I get in the water, I know that my gear is in top form. One of the reasons I am such an Aqua-Lung devotee is how easy my Conshelf and Aquarius regs are to work on. Another benefit is that the standard, yearly service is unnecessary. Any part that has begun to show wear is replaced and my regs are in a virtually perpetual state of having been freshly serviced. I have an Aquarius that I purchased new in 1976 and it looks and dives like new.

Last fall, I bought a brand new Conshelf 14. The first thing I did was to take it apart and marvel at the clean, shiny new metal. Then I reassembled it and tuned it to my preferences.

I have two boxes full of parts and a tool box dedicated to working on my stuff. I keep a supply of O-rings, HP and LP seats, diaphragms and such on hand.

But this sort of fanaticism is not for everyone. For me, it's part of the fun of SCUBA diving. I like working on my equipment. It's fun!

 

[Quero]

For example, I have a friend that was certified OW without attending theory classes, did only 2 dives straight in open sea, his "instructor" sent him beforehand the PADI videos and in his vacation he went in and certified. He learned very little of diving and were he not lucky enough work were there are so many divers, maybe he would not be around now-days.

Another example a trio of friends of mine that are OW went on vacation and the DM took them on a dive of 42m deep and another in a wreck.

In one of my trips the operation capitain wanted to bring the group to explore a "small cave" that he had found, as it was the cave entrance were at 12m and the exit at 20m. The group threw a party for him right on the spot, but I went ballistic on him as the dive would be far outside of our safety parameters in many accounts, yet he ended taking many people their, my wife included that chastised me on being a PITA and too strict, told me that I ruin the fun of others.

I can go on on examples of disregard of security policies to please the client, to sell the product. That is not right, that gets people killed.

So, including computers in a course is a total thumbs up if you find a way to encompass all computers or at least give a general idea, but dropping tables seem to me an unjustifiable idea.

Notivago, I'll say one thing for you, you are unwavering in your stance! But here again, you are illogically drawing conclusions from events relating to one set of issues to inform your views on an entirely different issue.

That you have heard all these horror stories--whether they are strictly true or exaggerated, as I suspect they are, makes little difference--these stories have ZERO to do with teaching tables or not to Open Water students. The curriculum is one thing; unscrupulous instructors who break standards, sheep-like divers who are responsible for their own dive plan and yet follow DMs beyond recreational depths, skippers who suggest dangerous dive sites, these are all something different. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

And notivago, tell me why we would need to teach a course that encompasses all computers? Did your table instruction teach you to use all the variations on tables that are out there? When I teach tables, I teach PADI tables because that's the agency I certify students under; when I teach computers, I teach the one they have in their hand for the course. I think that gives students much more than a general idea since all dive computers have the same basic functions (some fancy computers have additional functions, but by the time a diver needs/wants one of these, they no longer need a class in dive computers).

 

[cfrensley]

My response: absolutely noone should not know how to dive within limits without a computer. Period.

 

[Paladin]

My response: absolutely noone should not know how to dive within limits without a computer. Period.

Why? Computers are latecomers to the SCUBA scene. Millions of safe and enjoyable dives have been made without them and people still dive safely using the tables. Why should a diver be forced to use a computer if he doesn't want to? Like Net Doc so correctly stated earlier, computers and tables are both just tools to do the same job and as long as a diver uses one or the other of those tools correctly, then the choice is entirely up to the diver.

To declare that everyone must use a computer is nonsense.

 

[Blackwood]

Why? Computers are latecomers to the SCUBA scene. Millions of safe and enjoyable dives have been made without them and people still dive safely using the tables. Why should a diver be forced to use a computer if he doesn't want to? Like Net Doc so correctly stated earlier, computers and tables are both just tools to do the same job and as long as a diver uses one or the other of those tools correctly, then the choice is entirely up to the diver.

To declare that everyone must use a computer is nonsense.

He tricked you with a double negative. I think.

 

[Paladin]

He tricked you with a double negative. I think.

Possibly. There is so much bad use of the English language on this board, it's hard to tell, sometimes!

 

[Kingpatzer]

The reasoning that they do not want to learn tables is not strong enough, instead to acquiesce to lazy complains they should be taught the usefulness of having one more tool for they own security.

Every instructor must determine where to spend their time. For most of my students, their time is best spent learning deco theory and using computers.

So, including computers in a course is a total thumbs up if you find a way to encompass all computers or at least give a general idea, but dropping tables seem to me an unjustifiable idea.

Tables are no more necessary than computers are. They are merely a tool for planning a dive.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

It's wierd,
I first learned on tables, then I got a computer and didn't have to worry about tables anymore. I would just look at the screen and it would tell me everything. After a while I started to forget how to use tables. I guess it was mental atrophy.
Then I started diving with people who were using bottom timers and running tables in their heads. This made me feel like an amature because I didn't feel skilled enough to be able to do that and I became dependant on a computer to tell me everything.
The day I lost my computer overboard on one particular kayak dive gone bad I was forced to go back to tables. I figured I would replace the computer before long since I thought I needed it.

Meanwhile, I had befriended one of these mental table runners and he taught me the ins and outs of mental tableing. I found out that running tables in your head, depth averaging and ratio deco was no big deal, actually quite easy so that's what I've been doing ever since and still haven't seen a need to replace the computer after 5 years.
And no I'm not DIR in any way shape or form,.. well maybe a little with the table thing in the head. That is one very good thing they do which I really like.

 

[Peter Guy]

The OW student needs to come out of OW with a basic understanding of Decompression -- what it is, why it matters and how to stay out of mandatory decompression. HOW that is taught should be irrelevant IMHO.

Re tables vs. computer -- Me, I typically don't use either a "table" nor a PDC for determining my decompression status. First of all, GUEs "Minimum Deco" is a very simple method of running "NDL" dives (and we all know, there is no such thing as "no decompression" diving, don't we?) and doesn't require anything more than a bottom timer.

And for planning, the "Rule of 120" (or 130) works pretty well for ball-parking maximum safe dive times.

People make way too much out of all this. Of course the REAL issue tends to be how much gas you have -- not how much "NDL" time one has! This whole discussion is really about the wrong question, is it not?

 

[Paladin]

The OW student needs to come out of OW with a basic understanding of Decompression -- what it is, why it matters and how to stay out of mandatory decompression. HOW that is taught should be irrelevant IMHO.

Re tables vs. computer -- Me, I typically don't use either a "table" nor a PDC for determining my decompression status. First of all, GUEs "Minimum Deco" is a very simple method of running "NDL" dives (and we all know, there is no such thing as "no decompression" diving, don't we?) and doesn't require anything more than a bottom timer.

And for planning, the "Rule of 120" (or 130) works pretty well for ball-parking maximum safe dive times.

People make way too much out of all this. Of course the REAL issue tends to be how much gas you have -- not how much "NDL" time one has! This whole discussion is really about the wrong question, is it not?

I have used the Rule of 120 a number of times in the past. It works, but one must be careful with it.