PADI tables finally going away?

[Splitlip]

Wow! How this thread has grown. A lot of responses!

When I initially read the first couple pages I was thinking map reading v. GPS navi use.

Lot's of food for thought here however.

 

[The Chairman]

Im pretty sure that regarless of agency NetDoc refuses to teach

Wow Tom. I have never indicated that, and I specifically wrote that I would teach students tables if they wanted them. I learned on tables, I use tables from time to time and I don't have a problem with tables WHEN they are used.

You make tables mandatory and the PDC optional, knowing full well that the majority of your students won't touch tables after they have finished your class. You have justified this in your mind and it works for you.

I make learning PDCs mandatory and learning how to use tables optional. I do this knowing full well that the chances of my students using PDCs after their class exceeds those using tables by several orders of magnitude. I have no issues with those who use tables (or teach them), but I do have a problem with NOT teaching PDCs when you know full well that many of your students will be adopting them.

I hope this helps.

 

[Quero]

Next, I have looked at the requirement for the computer option, and they are extensive. Students will know what the computers can do, and they will know how to use them properly. I have not taught this option yet, but I believe it may actually take longer to teach the computer option than the tables.

You're right, John. There's an entirely separate book covering the topic (albeit a short one, 44 pages long, about 1/3 of it illustrations of various sorts--both fillers and instructionally useful ones). I personally hope that this manual becomes part of the crew pack, or better yet, included in a revised version of the student manual, so that I don't have to buy it separately for my OW students.

As far as taking longer to teach, no. It's more accessible somehow. Students often get hung up on the tables and we have to go over and over the problems, which takes time. It's true that the eRDPml is quicker to teach though, since there's no possibility of skipping steps or following the wrong line and then coming up with the wrong answer.

I generally teach both the tables and the computer. First of all, our crew packs still come with those expensive tables bundled with the manual, and in fact, students might remember how to use the tables if they end up on a boat someplace and their computer dies (plus I won't ask students to pay for something I don't show them how to use). On the other hand, I agree with those colleagues who point out that it's important to teach people how to plan and execute dives with a dive computer since my students are much more likely to actually use a computer in their future dive planning than the tables. It's fine to talk about shoulds and ought-tos, but the truth of the matter is that of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of divers I see every year on boats here, I can count on two hands the number of times I see certified divers pull out tables for dive planning. The only time I consistently see tables being used on the boats is during courses.

And yes, even on the other side of the world in Thailand, renting dive computers is easy. I expect that eventually they will be standard rental equipment much as the SPG and octopus are now. I require them as part of the rental set for my OW students, and I make them available for rent to my fun divers too.

 

[Splitlip]

Which computer is best for training?

Is there one with "universal" functions which would be better than others for purposes of training?

 

[The Chairman]

The Veo 250 is the simplest to learn on. You won't spend much time getting them pushing the right buttons and will get to spend time on them using it to plan and dive.

 

[Kevrumbo]

To reiterate succinctly IMHO,

Classic analog tables will always serve you.
Digital electronic dive computers while desirable & convenient
will just serve you until the battery needs a recharge or replacement (or the unit malfunctions).



[NetDoc, please don't confuse the issue by arguing the trivialities of analog vs digital again.

Originally Posted by NetDoc
Trivial semantics? My opinions? Dude... tables just aren't analog. You're completely wrong on that. Go look up analog at Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com and see what it actually means. I triple dog dare you. Calling tables "analog" is a gross misrepresentation based on your ignorance of what analog actually means. Now, they are "tabular", but they are not analog. Let me save you some time:

From Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com

an·a·log   [an-l-awg, -og]
–adjective
of or pertaining to a mechanism that represents data by measurement of a continuous physical variable, as voltage or pressure.

Here's a simple, acceptable, straightforward description of the usage and diction of the two terms in this thread's context i.e. there are no "shenanigans" as you claim -the usage is proper, clear and understood:

classic analog tables => generated by continuous function algorithm, uses base 10 elementary arithmetic evaluations where needed (i.e. RNT calculations etc);

digital electronic computer => fast & efficient, uses binary logic for symbolic evaluation & data storage by discrete mathematical operations.]

 

[The Chairman]

[NetDoc, please don't confuse the issue by arguing the trivialities of analog vs digital again.

I'm not the one confusing the issue by forcing a word to fit where it doesn't belong. Please show us a dictionary definition that makes this work.

Here's a simple, acceptable, straightforward description of the usage and diction of the two terms in this thread's context i.e. there are no "shenanigans" as you claim -the usage is proper, clear and understood:

But not accepted by most of the English speaking populous. It's about as silly a concept as an analog BC or an analog mask. The original Shenanigans stands. But hold onto your horses Chester, there are a few more a coming!

classic analog tables => generated by continuous function algorithm, uses base 10 elementary arithmetic evaluations where needed (i.e. RNT calculations etc);

Shenanigans #1. Most modern tables were generated by land based computers at least in part. Many of the calculations require the use of calculus, which is anything but "elementary". Furthermore, both tables and PDCs are predicated on the VERY SAME algorithms, math and comparisons.

digital electronic computer => fast & efficient, uses binary logic for symbolic evaluation & data storage by discrete mathematical operations.]

I will cede that compared to tables, PDCs are fast and efficient. However, further Shenanigans (#2 and #3) are in order for the use of "binary logic" and the introduction of "discrete mathematics". The first is made up and the latter is irrelevant to the discussion. Even more ironic, is that tables present these algorithms in discrete mathematical fashion where as PDCs display their information as a continuous graph. Maybe you should you should be more "discrete" in your response?

In the end, both tables and PDCs are nothing but SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guesses). Following them does not guarantee that you won't suffer from DinstructCS. Using them in an unwise manner raises that possibility to unacceptable levels. It is my contention that Scuba Instructors, as a whole, do a piss poor job of teaching their students how to use a PDC, needlessly exposing them to unnecessary risks.

Furthermore, it pains me to see how many instructors equate tables with decompression theory. They are NOT one in the same, and I find that you can't make that distinction somewhat disturbing. There seems to be a lot of myths out there about tables, PDCs, decompression theory and diving physiology.

 

[Kingpatzer]

To reiterate succinctly IMHO,

Classic analog tables will always serve you.

Tables are not "analog" the very fact you're using words whose meaning you clearly can not understand, given you've been corrected several times, seriously weakens your credibility. But more to the point, 'analog' is not inherently superior to 'digital,' nor the other way around. It's an irrelevancy and that you continue to focus on it suggests you have no argument but merely personal, but irrelevant, preferences.

Digital electronic dive computers while desirable & convenient will just serve you until the battery needs replacement (or the unit malfunctions).

Quite a few batteries are user-replaceable. And the few which are not are easily replaced by shops. All units I am aware of have a battery check function and anyone using the unit according to instructions will have sufficient battery power available to them on any dive.

Arguing that tables work when used correctly, so they are superior from computers used incorrectly is not an argument. That point is simply invalid.

The mean time to failure rate of modern computers is so ludicrously high. The probability of the computer failing is in fact so low that one would expect the tables to get blown overboard long before the computer fails. But more to the point, the computer is no more likely to fail than the combination of a bottom timer and pressure gage. Indeed, given that a bottom timer is nothing more than a very simple computer, the likelihood of failure for the latter combination is higher. So to argue that because a computer can fail it is inferior to a table misses the point that the table is used in combination with gear that possesses failure rates as well.

So you have not made anything close to a valid argument here. It's nice rhetoric, but when you actually stop to think about what is being said, it is meaningless.

classic analog tables => generated by continuous function algorithm, uses base 10 elementary arithmetic evaluations where needed (i.e. RNT calculations etc);

digital electronic computer => fast & efficient, uses binary logic for symbolic evaluation & data storage by discrete mathematical operations.]

So?

If you mean this to be an argument for your use of the term "analog" it fails. If you mean this to be an argument to the superiority of tables it fails.

You do realize that a computer can compute the proper values of continuous functions using discrete algorithms to any arbitrary level of precision. You do realize that tables use approximate values for ease of use. You do realize that the level of precision necessary for a diver is very low. Or have you not thought about any of that?

 

[Lorenzoid]

Wait... are you saying that they don't even get a NEW dive table to own and wear out? What are the ethics of teaching someone to dive tables and then not making sure that they even own one?

I don't know about the ethics, NetDoc--I'm not even sure that such practices are strictly in line with PADI's requirements. But I know it happens. There are hordes of young people out there backpacking around the world for a year or two and stopping in to some tropical backwater for a few days to do an Open Water course. These people are traveling on a shoestring and don't receive their own books and tables or wish to pay for them or carry them around with them in their backpacks for the next year. And even the instructors may not have computers. The tables are all these places have. Either give these outfits some higher-tech teaching tools or let them continue teaching tables. Or PADI can shut these low-budget outfits down, though I don't see that as an attractive option. The original question was simply whether tables are or should be going away. I say no they should not--not any time soon--for at least the reason I mentioned. There are just too many OW students in the world who are not fortunate enough to have a dedicated, knowledgeable and articulate instructor like NetDoc or access to a Veo computer or whatever in their class. If we're talking PADI worldwide, we need to think globally about the practicality of any new or different PADI requirements.

 

[The Chairman]

Thanks for the kind words.

I don't think tables will go away in my life time. I don't even think they should. There will always be obscure teaching conditions where PDCs might not be appropriate, but I imagine those are disappearing all the time as the torch is passed to younger instructors.

FWIW, if you want a PADI certification, then I am not the instructor for you. I support PADI's efforts to evolve their certification classes, but I am not a PADI instructor.