PADI tables finally going away?

[The Chairman]

Don't split hairs, there are people who just plain f*** up due to their complete lack of planning. They are a hazard to themselves and to others, and I wish instructors would stop churning them out under the excuse that new divers just aren't smart enough to learn tables.

Not learning tables has nothing to do with an inability to plan. Not teaching PDCs adequately and ONLY teaching tables will lead to that as the diver has learned to use the wrong tool. Also, it's impossible to impart old fashion common sense to any student via tables or a PDC. You can preach about staying away from your NDL all you like, and there will be those who push it to the max anyway.

 

[Kevrumbo]

I dipped back into the experiences I had years ago teaching grammar in an attempt to find the subjects, verbs, etc. in that construction that would help me understand your point, but I really don't know what you were actually saying there. Education and learning theory is my vocation, and I explained why your analogy was false. In reply, you simply said I was wrong and used the pejorative and insulting phrase "curiously strange conclusion" without any explanation of why my conclusion was curiously strange. Usually when one has a valid point of view, the response will be to explain why it is valid. When one responds instead with an insult and no content whatsoever, it is usually a sign that one does not have a valid response.



I will try again.

The analogy of arithmetic instruction/calculators v. tables/computers is not valid.

First, you must understand arithmetic to use a calculator. Arithmetic is a concept and is more closely analogous to decompression theory. Just as the calculator is a tool that helps a someone perform arithmetic, the dive computer is a tool that helps a diver calculate decompression needs. Just as you need to know arithmetic to use a calculator, you need to know decompression theory to use a dive computer effectively.

A more apt analogy would be to the abacus. There are two well known tools that help people perform arithmetic, the abacus and the calculator. One needs to understand arithmetic concepts to use either one, but you don't need to know how to use the abacus to use a calculator. Similarly, you need to know decompression theory in order to use both the tables and the dive computer, but you don't need to know how to use tables to use a dive computer.

A second point is that the ability to perform arithmetic functions without a calculator is an important skill that will continue to be needed throughout one's life. In its 2008 report, the National Math Panel quite correctly identified those needs in explaining why this is such a critical skill to master. In contrast, there is no independent need to use a table if one is using a dive computer.

I think the misunderstanding comes from the way many instructors have historically taught decompression theory. Many have taught it at the same time they teach how to use tables to calculate decompression needs. That leads people to make the natural mistake of assuming it is necessary to understand the tables in order to understand decompression theory. It is not.

I still teach tables (or the eRDPml, depending on what my students learned in their independent study) myself, but I teach decompression theory long before I reach that point in my class. My students understand how their bodies take on and release nitrogen long before we talk about how to measure and plan for that process. When I reach that point in my instruction, I could teach any method for calculating decompression needs-- tables, eRDP, or computer.

By the way, I do not use a computer with decompression diving on square profiles, but I do recognize it as a valid tool used safely by nearly all recreational divers.

Apologies for the misunderstanding and perceived insult . . .I simply meant that you came to a different conclusion. That's all and perfectly fine . . .I acknowledge your disagreement and opinion (I said it was "curiously strange", but I never said your conclusion was "wrong", did I now?)

Again my analogy restated and generalized for your understanding BoulderJohn (with regard to your vocation in Education & Learning):

Tables are the foundation for decompression planning and the basis for Advanced Scuba/Technical Diving, just as:

Arithmetic is the foundation and base for further study in Advanced/Applied Mathematics.

Computers are useful conveniences but should never precede or substitute the learning of the fundamental foundations above.

Again, restating further motivation from Jarrod Jablonski, founder and President of GUE (a leading scuba organization that provides superior education within recreational, cave and technical diving):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarrod
<snip>From my perspective all divers need to learn and be familiar with tables. I regularly use tables to this day as guesstimates are silly with aggressive and/or complex decompressions. In general I don't accept the idea that using a computer or any iteration of ratio [i.e. Ratio Deco] relieves this responsibility. I believe divers should understand where this information comes from, be able to work a basic set of tables and understand how to make basic comparisons between strategies and/or algorithms. Various methodologies (ratio, PC, other tables, computers etc) are reasonable choices to be made by educated divers but I think they should be able to refer to a basic foundation to make comparisons with a relatively well known baseline. This is the reason we are teaching tables (along with our other strategies) and why we refer to Decoplanner when teaching ratio deco. Our tables are not meant to be aggressive and when paired with a slow ascent and the stops we require as part of our training I think they represent a fair compromise. They are basically NOAA tables in origin and build upon a well proven historical record with current GUE principles interwoven.<snip>
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/5268132-post59.html

 

[Peter Guy]

Your post demonstrates a fundamental lack of gas planning. A recreational diver should always have a reasonable guess as to what entering deco will cost them in gas load.

Yup, I'm sure you are correct. What me worry? Gas planning? What's that? (Or do you mean this?

IF you have a basic understanding of what "going into deco" really means and a basic understanding of gas management, it "really is that simple." Just because I forgot to set my computer to the gas I'm breathing and the computer "goes into deco" does NOT mean I've "gone into deco." Likewise, just because the RDP says I must compute all of my bottom time at my deepest depth and thus puts me "into deco" does NOT mean that I've "gone into deco." All it means is that by some algorithm which doesn't match the dive I've done, says I've got too much N2 in my system.

Hey, but that standards, EVERY dive can be a decompression dive because EVERY dive can be said to put you "into deco" if you feed the algorithm the wrong information! If you don't understand how one actually "gets into deco" then you can't understand the the tables, the computer or whatever actually means.

 

[boulderjohn]

Tables are the foundation for decompression planning and the basis for Advanced Scuba/Technical Diving, just as:

Actually, decompression theory is the basis for decompression planning and advanced scuba/technical diving.

Computers are useful conveniences but should never precede or substitute the learning of the fundamental foundations above.

Tables are also useful conveniences that should never precede or substitute for the learning of the fundamental principles above.

Think of it this way. Let's say that John Haldane had not done his groundbreaking research on decompression until the 1980s. In that case, he might have developed a computer algorithm for measuring and planning for decompression instead of tables. It is theoretically possible that we could have gone from deco theory to computers without tables ever existing.

People don't realize this because tables have been historically taught at the same time as deco theory, so people who have gone through such training naturally think they are the same thing. They are not.

Again, restating further motivation from Jarrod Jablonski, founder and President of GUE (a leading scuba organization that provides superior education within recreational, cave and technical diving):

I know who Jarrod Jablonski is, and I know what GUE is. I will do three days of decompression diving this weekend, and I will both plan and execute those dives without using either tables or computers. I will be using ratio deco. I am not advocating one thing or the other--I am just trying to help people understand the relationship between the theory of decompression and the various tools that are available for measuring it.

 

[The Chairman]

People don't realize this because tables have been historically taught at the same time as deco theory, so people who have gone through such training naturally think they are the same thing. They are not.

Tables have become a sacred cow or a right of passage and needlessly so. It's part of the "Good old days" mentality, where through chronologically tinted glasses, things were so much better back when... When people say that about cars, I take a moment to help them see just how much better today's autos are than they were 50 years ago. It's not even close.

GUE has no intention of teaching the World how to dive, and so they can adhere to a less than optimal instructional paradigm in regards to PDCs. Their classes are intense and they turn out highly motivated and functional divers. PADI, on the other hand, appeals to those who do not want to invest large sums of money or time to get into the water and so they epitomize their motto of teaching the masses to dive. That being said, most of the divers turned out by most of the certification agencies will be relying on a PDC whether tables are taught or not. Unfortunately, until very recently there was very little emphasis put on giving the student the SKILLS needed to dive a PDC and plan with it. The agencies are slowly catching on, but there are still a lot of divers as well as instructors, who have no clue how to use PDCs correctly.

 

[*dave*]

The agencies are slowly catching on, but there are still a lot of divers as well as instructors, who have no clue how to use PDCs correctly.

No clue.... seriously? How are they using them incorrectly?

 

[Kingpatzer]

No clue.... seriously? How are they using them incorrectly?

There is a tendency to dive the computer rather than the plan.

 

[The Chairman]

No clue.... seriously? How are they using them incorrectly?

Srsly, seriously? Read the litany of horror stories in this thread alone. Inability to plan a dive. Mistakenly incurring obligatory stops. Inadvertently missing those same stops. Cussing at their PDC for beeping rather than solving the problem (low air, obligatory stop, too quick of an ascent, etc). The list goes on. Diving with a PDC is not intuitive and merits a good deal of time to involve the student with learning those skills.

 

[boulderjohn]

Again, restating further motivation from Jarrod Jablonski, founder and President of GUE (a leading scuba organization that provides superior education within recreational, cave and technical diving):

BTW, Jarrod also owns a PADI dive center.

 

[Kingpatzer]

No clue.... seriously? How are they using them incorrectly?

There is a tendency to dive the computer rather than the plan.