PADI tables finally going away?

[Hatul]

I think this is one of those topics where we ought not throw the baby out with bathwater. This is a good discussion...an old one...but a good one to bring up every now and then. We recently had a dive where my buddies computer crapped out at 250'. It was not critical as he was not using it for it's algorithm, but for it's purpose as a bottom timer. For the dives we choose to do, a computer will not suffice and failure of one could make things turn up very bad if it did. With that said, I think it is important that tables as well as computers are taught in this modern era of diving instruction. They are a necessary "evil", and more and more shops are selling them to the unwitting customer who straps it to their arm or HP hose and jumps in without any real education on how to properly use it. I've seen new divers think they are magical little boxes and place too much stock in their capabilities. Personally, I will never dive a computer. Computers are impractical for our purposes and will give us rediculious and sub-optimal deco schedules. However, when I decide to become an instructor, I'll be teaching my students about both which I believe could only add value to their class.

Trouble with your example is that diving to 250' is in a totally different category to recreational diving. I don't think anyone thinks that technical divers should not use dive tables. My comments about tables vs computers apply only to recreational diving.

Adam

Adam

 

[Blackwood]

Trouble with your example is that diving to 250' is in a totally different category to recreational diving. I don't think anyone thinks that technical divers should not use dive tables. My comments about tables vs computers apply only to recreational diving.

Adam

Adam

There are many people who recreationally dive to 250 feet, and a good portion of them opt to use computer algorithms rather than tables.

 

[boulderjohn]

There are many people who recreationally dive to 250 feet, and a good portion of them opt to use computer algorithms rather than tables.

Here we see a difference in terminology.

What constitutes a recreational dive?

In the context of this thread (PADI tables), a dive to 250 feet just about doubles the depth limit of the PADI tables (Recreational Dive Planner, and it would not be considered recreational.

 

[Blackwood]

Here we see a difference in terminology.

The main point was that a whole lot of deeper-than-'recreational' divers opt to use computers, not table.

 

[boomx5]

Trouble with your example is that diving to 250' is in a totally different category to recreational diving. I don't think anyone thinks that technical divers should not use dive tables. My comments about tables vs computers apply only to recreational diving.

Adam

Adam

There is no trouble with my example. It doesn't matter if it's 25' or 250' feet...failure is failure...that's why it's good to know both...regardless of what type of diving you are doing.

 

[boulderjohn]

There is no trouble with my example. It doesn't matter if it's 25' or 250' feet...failure is failure...that's why it's good to know both...regardless of what type of diving you are doing.

I don't think it's the same.

If you are at 25', you should know that it really doesn't matter and you can stay as long as you want.

If you are diving anywhere within NDLs when your computer craps out, you have the choice of taking a leisurely and safe stroll to the surface or staying to the NDL for your maximum depth, assuming you still have a timing device. You don't need to have a table for that--the planning mode on the computer can give it to you in a couple of seconds before you start the dive.

If you are on a dive that requires decompression, that is a different story. You really need to know what you are doing and have the training for it.

 

[boomx5]

You missed the point John. The depth is not the point...being properly trained is....that's all I was saying. I personally believe that computers as well as tables should be taught in diving.

 

[boulderjohn]

You missed the point John. The depth is not the point...being properly trained is....that's all I was saying. I personally believe that computers as well as tables should be taught in diving.

I don't believe I missed your point, but I suspect you missed mine.

An OW diver intending to stay within NDLs can check the computer before a dive to see what those NDLs are and plan accordingly. If the computer craps out during the dive, the diver can ascend or continue the dive if he or she has a redundant time piece. No knowledge of tables in necessary.

A diver intending to do a decompression dive needs more extensive planning tools, requiring further training.

An OW diver should understand decompression theory to the point of understanding why dives need to be kept within certain limits and why a proper ascent must be made. That diver should know how to plan a dive and how to measure it to adhere to that plan. That planning and measurement can be done with a table or a computer. There are also methods that require neither tables nor computers.

A decompression diver needs further understanding about decompression theory so that a valid decompression schedule can be planed and followed. This requires more complex understanding, and the planning is also more complex. Even then, there are multiple methods for planning and measuring the dives. UTD, for example, calls for neither tables nor computers for those dives. UTD students are not taught tables, either, even in their tech diver programs.

 

[Leadking]

A computer that fails, and who has not had a failure, is worthless. When you are placing your safety/life on an electronic device without a back-up, it is just foolish.

Who would possibly teach such a course!

 

[The Chairman]

A [-]computer[/-] SPG that fails, and who has not had a failure, is worthless. When you are placing your safety/life on an electronic device without a back-up, it is just foolish.

Who would possibly teach such a course!

A [-]computer[/-] Watch that fails, and who has not had a failure, is worthless. When you are placing your safety/life on an electronic device without a back-up, it is just foolish.

Who would possibly teach such a course!

A [-]computer[/-] Depth Gauge that fails, and who has not had a failure, is worthless. When you are placing your safety/life on an electronic device without a back-up, it is just foolish.

Who would possibly teach such a course!

There: I fixed it for you THREE TIMES! ooops, I should have waited to type that:

A [-]computer[/-] Regulator that fails, and who has not had a failure, is worthless. When you are placing your safety/life on an electronic device without a back-up, it is just foolish.

Who would possibly teach such a course!

A [-]computer[/-] BCD that fails, and who has not had a failure, is worthless. When you are placing your safety/life on an electronic device without a back-up, it is just foolish.

Who would possibly teach such a course!

A [-]computer[/-] Tank O-Ring that fails, and who has not had a failure, is worthless. When you are placing your safety/life on an electronic device without a back-up, it is just foolish.

Who would possibly teach such a course!

A [-]computer[/-] Regulator Hose that fails, and who has not had a failure, is worthless. When you are placing your safety/life on an electronic device without a back-up, it is just foolish.

Who would possibly teach such a course!

A [-]computer[/-] Compass that fails, and who has not had a failure, is worthless. When you are placing your safety/life on an electronic device without a back-up, it is just foolish.

Who would possibly teach such a course!

A [-]computer[/-] Dive Buddy that fails, and who has not had a failure, is worthless. When you are placing your safety/life on an electronic device without a back-up, it is just foolish.

Who would possibly teach such a course!

A [-]computer[/-] Dive Master that fails, and who has not had a failure, is worthless. When you are placing your safety/life on an electronic device without a back-up, it is just foolish.

Who would possibly teach such a course!

A [-]computer[/-] Argument that fails, and who has not had a failure, is worthless. When you are placing your [-]safety/life[/-] Reputation on an electronic [-]device[/-] Forum without [-]a back-up[/-] Logic, it is just foolish.

Who would possibly [-]teach[/-] Post such a [-]course[/-] Post!

I could go on... with a lot more Failure points, but I won't. In OW diving, your best and sometimes ONLY redundancy is your buddy. Choose wisely.

Psssst... the last one was totally in jest. I respect the Leadking, his position and all he has done for our industry! Sometimes I just can't resist a joke!