I'll respond since I did make a post here and return to the sidelines so that this does not continue ad infinitum.
So, you would have them just cave in and not dive? You don't think they should try to find a replacement for whatever failed? That's winging it my friend: Dealing with an unplanned contingency in the best way possible. The POINT is that it's not confined to just computers: it applies to all diving equipment. You either come up with an appropriate solution on the fly (winging it) or you don't dive. Of course, it's always best to assume the very worst and MISS the entire point. Good job. You don't like me and that message came shining through. The converse is not true.
What you choose to do as an experienced diver and what you teach a student may be two different things. If you wish to "wing it" when you're diving then that's your choice. If you are going to teach a student, I think you owe them more than just "wing it". Students should be taught to be self sufficient. To be able to function as an independent diver with the ability to participate in a team sport. To suggest to them that they scour the boat and other divers to find another computer instead of teaching them the tables which would allow them to maintain their sense of independence does a disservice to the student. By the way, having a set of tables IS a very good way to deal with an unplanned contingency.
As an aside. I don't dislike you. I don't know you well enough to dislike you. I have concerns regarding statements that you have posted as they relate to diver education. That's all. It certainly is not personal. I shared an opinion on the matter at hand as have you. My point was to try and stay on point with the topics as they are presented. The analogies are nice, but again did not seem germane to the topic IMO. I am sure you are a very nice guy. People have posted very nice things about you. My comments were directed at your postings. Not your character. If they have suggested anything else then I apologize. I hope to see you at DEMA if I can find the time to go.
But then my first dives were without the benefit of an SPG, an depth gauge or even a BC. We just dove a j-valve and that was it. I certainly love the new safety gear and use it all the time... but in the real world I'm gonna do my best to get in the water. If I forgot something or it broke before I splash, I am going to do my very BEST to replace it.
Again, I have NO problems with you diving as you wish. That was never my point. As an Instructor, if you are going to teach a student to "wing it", then I take issue with that. If a student had their tables with them, then they could get in the water regardless of the status of their computer. I am as much a fan of the new gear as the next guy. I love my Datamask, my camera housing and my video housing. Thanks to SB, I think I made a good choice on each. In this regard we seek the same thing.
Sorry Doc, it's only irresponsible if the solution puts them in harms way or is otherwise contraindicated. No one has demonstrated how teaching tables is superior to teaching PDCs. They surely don't help you to understand deco theory if you are being overwhelmed chasing the alphabet soup of your tables.
There is more to being irresponsible than those two choices. If an educator fails to properly prepare their students to succeed in their chosen field of study, then I would perceive that as irresponsible. It is an educational preference. I cannot say that someone will die if they don't know the tables. I do believe, however, that a student who is educated on decompression theory using the tables as a reference tool is better educated about the concept than one who is not. I don't think the discussion is about which is better. I still have not heard a valid reason to NOT teach the tables. Again, understanding that they are teach a tangible example of nitrogen loading, not just alphabet soup.
What a load of crap! That's a complete distortion of what I have suggested. You should be ashamed at such a cheap shot.
It isn't. You statement dealt with giving the people what they want as a business concept whose implementation would lead to success. I responded with a tangible example from my own real world experience that demonstrated the potential flaw in that philosophy. How is that crap? I see nothing to feel ashamed about. I don't take cheap shots. I state my thoughts directly and hopefully succinctly (still working on that part).
Bingo. Are you suggesting that every SDI diver is incompetent because they have learned just computers?
I am sure that SDI produces outstanding divers. My concern would be for the SDI diver who has an inevitable computer failure (I have had 2 myself) and is ill prepared to deal with it. If they are comfortable with "winging it" then that's their choice.[/QUOTE]
Again, just another distortion of what I am suggesting.
On post 156 you made the following post :
For the same reasons I don't teach underwater demolition, how to rebuild a regulator and underwater basketweaving to open water students. Sure, if a student has an interest in any of those subjects (except UDT), I can help them gain mastery after the basic class. But really, tables aren't needed by them to go diving and have a great time. I would rather spend more time on skills they will actually use to have a safe and enjoyable dive, like trim and the frog kick.
It was the last sentence that prompted my response. If I interpreted it out of context, then I apologize.
But, according to the divers posting here, that is a rare occurrence.
That's a good question. I am not sure how often it is taught. I certainly should be introduced IMO at the OW level. At least one poster has said that she would have not been able to dive if computers were required. Others have stated that they did not have the money to buy a computer just yet. Since PDCs are not mandatory to dive then I assume they have chosen other pieces of equipment to buy or are saving to do so if they desire. An easy remedy to that dilemma would be to teach them the tables. It solves their issue quite nicely.
That's the point Doc. You have yet to show that they are the only or even the best way to teach deco theory. I cater to students who don't want a sage on the stage. They don't want to listen to you pontificate about how tables saved your life. Their time is valuable and they choose to eliminate that which is not essential. They don't want or need to learn the arcane minutiae you need to run tables. That's their choice and not yours. You think that I am a bad person for meeting their needs, and I see you as a pompous instructor for forcing people to learn only your way.
I don't believe that the tables are the only way to demonstrate decompression theory. I do think that they provide a nice tangible beginning for people who have never heard of decompression theory before deciding to take a dive class. When explained properly, they combine the concepts of depth, time at depth, nitrogen loading, surface intervals, and residual nitrogen with regard to repetitive diving. And they do it all on one card or poster. Now you can certainly discuss/explain those concepts without tables, but you have not shown me a more proven method to do so. You denounce the teaching of tables and have only discussed a battery operated machine to replace such teaching. Sticking an Oceanic Veo in their faces and saying "that's decompression theory" falls short of educating students IMO. Oddly enough, I think if an Instructor presents the material in an interesting, streamlined, professional, humorous, and intriguing fashion, the students will hang on your every word. I think they DO want to know what saved your life. That you used tanks with J valves and how valves have changed over the years. They will appreciate that the time you gave them, the time they paid for, was filled with pearls of wisdom that comes with an experienced diver and an experienced educator. The students are hungry for knowledge. Give it to them. What they WON'T appreciate is an Instructor who leaves out valuable information in an attempt to move on to more "exciting" topics and they find that their educational experience is lacking compared to other divers they come across. When their computer dies and the others on the boat are prepared to properly execute a dive because they were properly prepared. Give the students some credit. If they feel their time was spent learning as much as they could about a sport that they want to be passionate about, then they will absorb every bit of knowledge you have to provide, and will not feel that their time was wasted.
I have yet to meet a student who knows what is essential regarding diving. That should be the job of the Instructor. They clearly would not know if learning the tables is essential to diving unless they are extremely well prepared before class. I don't think they will feel that their time learning the tables will be wasted if it is taught in a manner that allows them to appreciate what the tables represent. If approaching the education of divers as I have stated makes me pompous, then I proudly accept that title. I have not been diving or Instructing long enough to consider myself pompous. I am still learning, thus my presence on SB.
As for the appeal to popularity fallacy. I think it pales in comparison to the appeal to tradition fallacy. There is no compelling reason to not make Scuba Certification as appealing as possible. I never contended that not teaching tables was correct because so many wanted it that way. I have always contended that teaching PDCs is just as efficacious in teaching Deco as is teaching tables. If these are equal, then why not give the masses what they want? The answer to that is an over reliance on tradition and an inability to change with the times. I wonder if those who defend that you MUST learn tables to be a competent Scuba Diver also believe that having your mask on your forehead is a certain sign of distress? Do they still teach the 60 fpm ascent rule? Some traditions (including myths) are hard to change.
I have not sat in your class teaching PDCs as a means to comprehending decompression theory so I do not see the link between the two being equal. Please elaborate. Again, leaning the tables is a means to an end, not necessarily the end itself. It forms a foundation on which to build, and an understanding as to why computers function the way they do. I don't see it as being overly reliant on tradition. I see it as a sound educational practice and have not seen anything yet that would effectively replace it.
