PADI tables finally going away?

[John_B]

I'm shocked at the number of newer divers I've seen in the past couple years who have no idea how to do any dive planning. And by that, I mean people who find themselves in deco on their second dive of the day halfway through a week of diving.

For whatever reason, they didn't actually learn to use tables and their dive computer's planning function always seems to confound them.

The interfaces to the planning functions on most dive computers is completely inadequate to plan for three- or four-dive days so, IMO, I don't see them as an adequate replacement to learning tables.

FWIW, most of them don't know how to do gas planning either, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

 

[lowviz]

..........The interfaces to the planning functions on most dive computers is completely inadequate to plan for three- or four-dive days so, IMO, I don't see them as an adequate replacement to learning tables.
............

Page 231 "Deeper into Diving" shows how Buhlmann can be less conservative than the U.S. Navy Tables in certain types of repetitive diving. Directly to your point, by the way.

And I also agree, it is easy to just dive until your PDC tells you that you are done. However, I use and like PDC's. (along with my tables on my left arm)

 

[dmoore19]

Just an observation here. It seems (though I have no data to back this up) that the majority of people who are proponents of using tables appear to be divers that have stepped outside of the realm of a recreational diver. I understand their passion to promote safety, but I also believe that as a recreational (vacation) diver it is my responsibility to CONTINUE what was taught in my OW recreational diver class. I have no desire to enter into the realm of decompression diving, penetration of wreck or cave diving, I like looking at the fishies. I prefer a 40 FSW dive to 60 or 80 FSW dive. I think learning to use the planning function of my dive computer is a far more productive use of time for the type of diving I intend to do. If I decide to change my mind and explore the other options I will seek training relavant to that type of diving. I don't need a CDL to drive a SUV.

 

[lowviz]

.......... I think learning to use the planning function of my dive computer is a far more productive use of time for the type of diving I intend to do. .......... I don't need a CDL to drive a SUV.

Agreed. The point is that this should be second nature before getting into the water. Things happen, even recreational divers go into deco by mistake.

A lot of the push-back comes from divers that feel that things are getting too relaxed and too many new divers feel entitled. ('entitled' meaning it is someone else's responsibility to keep them safe.)

 

[John_B]

 

[Splitlip]

Yeah, but why teach something that only "might" come in handy over something that they will actually use.

Using your logic, slide rules should still be taught to FULLY understand Chemistry and Physics. There's just no way that a pocket graphing calculator can help you understand equations!

Ahh, but we all still learn arithmetic and math in school even though calculators ere the norm in classrooms, charges and change due is all calculated by machine at the grocery store, most everyone has an electronic device on him (phone) to figure out who owes what when dividing the bill in a restaurant, etc.

 

[Peter Guy]

The point is that this should be second nature before getting into the water. Things happen, even recreational divers go into deco by mistake.

The problem I find with this statement is that I have no idea what it means to "go into deco." While I certainly know what it means to have a decompression obligation (of course, EVERY dive is a DECO dive), what did the poster mean by his comment?

The problem I have with this statement is that it assumes we can actually know when a diver "goes into deco" but in reality, do we?

If I do a dive, on air, to 100' for 40 minutes, have I "gone into deco?" Is not the answer, "It depends?"

Have I done a "square profile?" If so, I believe every algorithm would say I have a "mandatory deco obligation."

But if I have done a multi-level dive, with only 5 minutes at 100' but with an average depth of 45 feet, I know that many algorithms would say "No problem, be happy." BUT, some algorithms (those manifested by "tables") would say "Big problem, be worried."

Have I "gone into deco?"

 

[The Chairman]

Ahh, but we all still learn arithmetic and math in school even though calculators ere the norm in classrooms, charges and change due is all calculated by machine at the grocery store, most everyone has an electronic device on him (phone) to figure out who owes what when dividing the bill in a restaurant, etc.

Learning arithmetic is not a good analogy here. Learning to use a sliderule is a far better one. Sliderules are not electronic (nor are they analog, Kev), but that does not make them easier or more reliable than a calculator.

So tell me: do they still teach students how to use a sliderule today? I don't think so.

 

[The Chairman]

For whatever reason, they didn't actually learn to use tables and their dive computer's planning function always seems to confound them.

This is precisely why PDCs should be taught from the beginning. Reading the manual on how to start them up does little to teach you how to use this tool effectively. Spending valuable time teaching them something that they will abandon as quickly as possible is foolish. Teach them to use the tools they will be diving with and leave the hubris behind.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I haven't read through all 639 posts--just a few at each end--but here is my two cents. I feel that my having a grip on the principle behind the tables gave me a better feel for how my computer worked, once I bought one. The idea of an algorithm that computes nitrogen loading based on sampling depths seems intuitive to many of us now, but I suspect that without having at least played with the tables or some equivalent teaching tool there will be students who have only a superficial understanding of what their computer is doing for them. Of course, that may be fine--there's nothing inherently wrong with people following what some electronic instrument tells them to do without much of an intuitive understanding of what it's doing. But in my opinion having some intuitive understanding of what's going on would be helpful, and I think the tables are a good teaching tool. Until I played with the tables in my OW class, I didn't really "get" the idea of what a surface interval or repetitive dive does to my "residual nitrogen time" or whatever the table called it. The tables seem like a good teaching tool to me. Of course, I can envision teaching tools based on a computer, too--animation and all that. If the certification agencies are replacing tables with such teaching tools, then I'm all for that.