PADI tables finally going away?

[Pullmyfinger]

I'm confused NetDoc,

You mentioned to Paladin that he's not the norm because he checks his gauges every few minutes.
I check mine every five minutes, I calculate my air consumption and know approx. how many PSI I should be using up for a given planned depth. I write my expected SPG reading for each 5 minutes of the dive, just so I can see how closely I am to my predictions. I was taught this in my YMCA class, it's certainly the norm to me.

Of course, these air consumption calculations are only correct if I stick to my planned dive, which I do....as I was trained. You mentioned in one of your earlier posts many pages ago...about what if you planned to go to 70 ft. but ended up at 95 ft.
Well in that instance no amount of table planning or air consumption calculations are going to help you....that diver has other skills that need work. (IMPROVED training methods?)

If a diver was trained to be so undisciplined that they are "planning to dive to 70 ft. but some how "mysteriously" find themselves at 95 ft, then clearly the wrong things were emphasized during their training. If part of computer emphasized training includes..."If you go to 95 ft. instead of your planned 70 ft., don't worry....your computer will have your back. On this dive, and the next."

Computers offer many advantages.....but using them as an excuse to not have to plan or follow a plan isn't one of them.

It only takes a second to glance at my SPG, check my depth, and time. I can do all of these checks every five minutes, and still maintain buddy awareness, environmental awareness, and have fun.

You mentioned "IMPROVED training". It's different, but if students are taught that they don't need to check their gauges as much, I don't see that as an improvement.

Checking gauges less often rather than more frequently, is a good way to end up at deeper depths than originally "planned".

Suggesting that it's cool to check everything less often, while inferring that a diver who checks his gauges is abnormal and far from the norm....is certainly not "evolution".



Mitch

 

[Paladin]

Pete,
Yes, I do tend to be anal in my diving and equipment maintenance. I have readily admitted this many times.

I said "virtually" every contingency. Not "literally." The phrase was intended to convey the gamut of the most likely problems a diver was likely to face in the mid '60s using the the type of equipment in use at the time. This took quite awhile, but certainly not 20 years. However, over the years after my training, I did run into new problems and added their solutions to my repertoire.

The man who trained me was not a certified instructor. He wasn't certified at all. He was an ex-Navy diver who was a friend of the family. He taught me the same way he had learned in the Navy. I got my first C-card 11 years later.

 

[The Chairman]

I'm confused NetDoc,

You were trying to make a point here, but your confusion prevented you from accomplishing that mission.

I have never seen anyone dive like you describe. FWIW, I wouldn't want to dive that way. Too much work for no increase in safety. You are indeed the exception to the rule.

You mentioned the effect that depth had on air consumption. I would point out that from 70 to 90 ft the consumption increase would be inconsequential compared to an unplanned event that got your heart pumping. Nothing increases air consumption like the caca hitting the fan.

As for the plan... If the captain tells me we are in x deep water and upon descending I find that I am in x+20 feet, I can deal with it in several ways. I can return to the surface and ruin the dive, or I can modify my plan and have fun. If your training is so rigid that you can not deal with such a small change in plan, then you should indeed get more training and learn how to deal with it. That, or continue to call dives needlessly. I am surprised that with a class that took over a year to complete that this minor skill wasn't covered in detail. Of course, one should remain within recreational limits for such a dive.

As for checking your gauges incessantly, I teach my DMCandidates to keep an eye out for this behavior. It's one of the signs of a nervous diver. Of course, it's up to them to determine if you're about to bolt for the surface or are simply anal about your gauges.

 

[Paladin]

Which one are you talking to, Pete? I'm the one who's training took over a year and it wasn't a class. Yes, part of my training did include going a little deeper than planned,if necessary. That's the reason for the "Rule of 120." It allows for changing the profile on the fly, again if necessary.

If I'm diving unfamiliar waters, I tend to add a little extra depth to my dive plan anyway. Just in case. That's what I meant by "maximum depth." My planned, maximum depth is generally deeper than I actually think I'll be diving, so I have a built in buffer. To be honest, until recently, I thought everybody did this. The guys I dive with here are all pretty much like me. When I bought my Veo 100 last year, I was the only one around here with a computer. Because I got one, my friend decided to get one. He dived it a couple of times and put it up for sale. He's been trying to sell it for months but no one wants it.

I'm not a deep diver and I don't usually go deeper than 70 feet. 100 is my maximum. I don't go below that and only very rarely to that depth. For me, there is plenty to see and do in the less than 70 region.

 

[Pullmyfinger]

You teach your open water students not to check their gauges too often?
If I'm spending 30 minutes diving, I'd be checking my gauges around 7 times.
The students you teach are told this is incessant?
This student later comes to you and wants to be a DM, so you now reinforce to them that a gauge check every 5 minutes is incessant.
They are conditioned by you to believe that this is a behavior that they should be on the lookout for?
You may find it unusual to teach students to factor their air consumption into their dive plan, and to be able to know what it should be during the dive, but luckily my instructor did not.
I'm glad he chose to take the time to teach how to do it.
Monitoring gages is deemed incessant if it's at 5 minute intervals? Glad I wasn't taught that way either.
I am no longer confused, you've cleared it right up.
This affirms what I've already known......I chose wisely when I signed up for my class.
Thanks for the heads up......I'll be on the lookout for DM's that have been trained to "prevent me from bolting to the surface" if they happen to witness my abnormal behavior of checking my gauges every 5 minutes.
I'll keep an eye out for this new environmental hazard.
I'll bet your rescue classes are a lot of fun. ;-)

-Mitch

 

[Pullmyfinger]

"You were trying to make a point here, but your confusion prevented you from accomplishing that mission."

Good one.

"You are indeed the exception to the rule."

I don't know about that, I've met other divers that were taught and dive similarly.

"You mentioned the effect that depth had on air consumption. I would point out that from 70 to 90 ft the consumption increase would be inconsequential compared to an unplanned event that got your heart pumping. Nothing increases air consumption like the caca hitting the fan."

You're right, the differences in gas consumption between these depth isn't great, but I still monitor my gas usage, no point getting complacent. I am aware of the differences between my normal and working rates, because I actively keep track.
It's not a real big task load to keep on top of the things I feel I should be monitoring.
Checking the mirrors, speedometer, and the fuel gauge doesn't ruin my enjoyment of driving. It's just part of the process.

"As for the plan... If the captain tells me we are in x deep water and upon descending I find that I am in x+20 feet, I can deal with it in several ways. I can return to the surface and ruin the dive, or I can modify my plan and have fun. If your training is so rigid that you can not deal with such a small change in plan, then you should indeed get more training and learn how to deal with it."

You are saying that the ONLY way you could adapt to this change and modify your plan is if you had a computer? Otherwise you would have no choice but to surface and ruin the dive? At least you'd have plenty of time to ask why the dive briefing was off by 20 feet. ;-)
I don't know where you got all that from, but I never said that I was so rigidly trained that I couldn't adapt to changes, Paladin just mentioned one way to be flexible so I won't restate that. I don't recall mentioning my dives weren't any fun , you just wish to make that assumption because I'm mentioning a way that differs from yours.
That's one of the first things that get thrown out by some on this board.....("You must not be having any fun.")

Also, I have pursued training that has allowed me to deal with many different things, and will continue to do so. Thanks for the suggestion, getting more training is always great advice. I get what you meant to infer by that, but it's all good.


"Of course, one should remain within recreational limits for such a dive. "

Thanks again for the wonderful advice. I am aware of the limits of recreational dives, and rigidly adhere to them when I am doing recreational dives. I am disciplined enough to stay within the limits of my training.

Back to the original topic.....I own a computer, but I prefer to use a bottom timer and the tables. That being said, I don't feel I am at a disadvantage in preferring the tables. I can use both, and both are good.
I feel both should be covered equally in training, the the student can decide which he prefers on their own.

As I've already posted, it's really a moot point. Some dive agencies have already done away with teaching tables, so it's an issue for discussion purposes only. Some boat operators require a computer, so computers are required when diving with these operators. That's cool too, it's their boat. If I have to use a computer, I'll take mine out of gauge mode. I'll still use my bottom timer and tables however, just my preference that's all.

My main issue with the whole thing is it seems that the biggest reason for doing away with teaching tables, is that it allows agencies and instructors to cut the class time down. This is a clear benefit for the instructor......did the cost of your training go down?
Not having to print and include a dive table in the crew pack, certainly save a few bucks for the agency.......did the cost savings get passed on to your students?

Since you (or the agency) don't teach or provide a dive table, they sort of have no choice but to rent or buy a computer.......There's no money to be made there, I suppose.

I don't see how any part of this is for making training better or safer for the students. Instructors don't have to deal with the hassles of going over a little bit of dive table training, which seems to be one of the reasons behind the move.

Years from now it'll get flipped back to tables, and divers will be able to sign up for a 'Table Diver' specialty. Then you can charge for the class, the table, and the card. ;-) You can even make it a requirement for any boat charter deeper than 60 ft.

Your earlier mention of the fact that no student has ever asked you to be taught how to use a dive table is ridiculous.....Of course they don't ask, there's no dive table included in the crew pack. No mention in the book on how to use one, and an instructor who has already pre-determined that they aren't really going to teach the tables anyway.

The students probably pick up on the vibe and don't dare ask. To be ridiculed and labeled a Luddite for wanting to use.........A DIVE TABLE!!!
How scandalous!

-Mitch

 

[The Chairman]

[/B] You are saying that the ONLY way you could adapt to this change and modify your plan is if you had a computer?

That's a leap to a conclusion. I never stated that. One of you stated how THEY would abort such a dive. When I dove tables, I literally dove WITH my tables. They were a part of my kit.

As for time with an instructor, I almost exclusively require online training for the academics. There is no need for me to teach what an online program can do. I have no illusions of superiority here as well.

You go on demanding that I reduce the price to my students and this is nothing but a red herring. I am not an inexpensive instructor. They aren't coming to me for "quick and cheap", but for some quality time in the water working on skills. With the advent of online education I get to spend more time in the water, work with fewer students and still make out OK on a dive class. Do you see this as a bad thing?

 

[Kingpatzer]

My main issue with the whole thing is it seems that the biggest reason for doing away with teaching tables, is that it allows agencies and instructors to cut the class time down. This is a clear benefit for the instructor......did the cost of your training go down?

Multiple instructors have taken part in this thread. Many us have had the opportunity to choose if they we teach tables, computers or both and we have given our reasons for choosing not to teach tables. Some posts have been quite detailed about the reasoning process the individual went through. I don't recall anyone stating that they choose to use computers to cut down the class time. Indeed, quite a few of us have indicated that using the time we had more effectively was a component of our decision on what to include in the class.

Blatant misrepresentation of our thoughts for the benefit of scoring cheap rhetorical points is utterly disingenuous and disrespectful on your part. Moreover, if the only reason you have seen presented is around class time, then you have clearly not been paying attention to what has been said on the subject here.

You're obviously fairly literate given your post. So are we to conclude you're simply fundamentally intellectually dishonest? Or, if not and you actually intend a discussion, maybe you can stop trying to make points long enough to actually read the responses instructors have taken the time and effort to write. Perhaps you could respond to real points instead of trying to lie about the positions others have taken.

 

[*dave*]

With the advent of online education I get to spend more time in the water, work with fewer students and still make out OK on a dive class. Do you see this as a bad thing?

I think it has huge potential for being a bad thing for the student.

As for turning all the academics over to online training; it's probably a good idea for many instructors. For me, I think there's a great deal I can add to the materials in terms of content and elaboration.

 

[Kingpatzer]

I think it has huge potential for being a bad thing for the student.

As for turning all the academics over to online training; it's probably a good idea for many instructors. For me, I think there's a great deal I can add to the materials in terms of content and elaboration.

This is an area where I think the jury is still very much out. I see very real advantages and disadvantages on both sides of this discussion. And it is something that is really quite distinct from the tables discussion as it is not about content but delivery method. Personally I know I get far more out of an in-person, in-class experience than I get from on-line training delivery. I suspect that with quality instructors that is true for most students. But from the perspective of a larger agency, there are questions of consistent delivery and quality control to be asked.