PADI tables finally going away?

[tomfcrist]

Tom,you are taking this way too personally (emotionally). As I pointed out, you are in the status quo within our industry and THAT'S the problem. Too many in the industry want to teach a device which is shunned by the vast majority of divers after their class is done and they avoid teaching the very device most of their students will end up using. .

You are damn right im taking it personally. You are constantly trying to tell me that MY way is negligent because of YOUR philosophy. Why do divers shun tables???? Because the DM on the boats they dive on plan the dive for them. This is the same reason they dont plan with thier PDC either. YOU can teach them to Pan plan plan, but it is ultimatly up to them to do the right thing.

The take away from that discussion was that we should be teaching students to use the gear they will be diving with, SO THAT they would be competent to dive with that gear. Given that we all agree that few divers utilize tables after their class, it is my rather strong opinion that we do a disservice to our students when we don't train the use of a PDC effectively. In fact, I see the relegation of your student learning how to use a PDC to them merely reading the manual as a gross dereliction of duty. .

I find it to be a disservice to the students to train them on a PDC that they may not like, and or buy for themselves.

Please, go ahead and teach tables if you must, but be sure to train them how to use a PDC to effectively plan and execute dives. If you don't then please don't whine when you see people with PDCs failing to plan their dive before they splash. That's the way they were taught to use their PDC.

I will as previously stated keep teaching tables. And i will keep teaching PDC's as long as the student buys their own. And its not whining, as a matter of fact, stop whining about all your previous students that you taught tables to but failed to plan thier dives with them. Evidently judging by your above statement, thats the way you taught them to be used.

 

[Kingpatzer]

Why do divers shun tables???? Because the DM on the boats they dive on plan the dive for them. This is the same reason they dont plan with thier PDC either. YOU can teach them to Pan plan plan, but it is ultimatly up to them to do the right thing.

I don't think anyone disputes that others doing the planning is part of the issue. And certainly no one condones divers acting negligently and against the training.

I find it to be a disservice to the students to train them on a PDC that they may not like, and or buy for themselves.

I find this specious. The first scientific calculator I learned to use an HP, which used reverse polish notation and had a programing language that was unique to say the least. When I moved to a different calculator that used infix notation I was not so ignorant of what I could with a calculator that I was inhibited from being able to use the new tool.

This logic applies to any piece of gear. Is it a disservice to teach using a bottom timer different than what the student will see on a boat or purchase for themselves? Do we harm our students by teaching them in a jacket BC if they go off and purchase a back-inflate or wing?

Just as we have to presume some level of personal responsibility in our students, we have to assume some level of intelligence. To me it is a greater disservice to presume my students stupid than to train them about the proper usage common diving tools.

I will as previously stated keep teaching tables. And i will keep teaching PDC's as long as the student buys their own.

The first part no one here has issue with that I can see -- though some certainly see that as un-necessary and archaic. I wonder if you teach the proper use of a horse-collar as well? I doubt it because it's been superseded by more modern solutions to the problem.

The second part is where many of us part company with you. Where you see it as a disservice to teach a student about the proper use of a tool only if they own a specific version of that tool, the rest of us see teaching the proper use of recreational diving equipment as an essential training component.

 

[tomfcrist]

Kingpatzer,

The arguement that keeps getting thrown in my face is that tables are useless because students WILL NOT use them to plan and execute dives. PDC's have the same issue.

Scientific calculators are not dive computers. A GEO 250 is one button operation, and a cobra 3 is not exactly simple. they cant be taught the same way, even thought he thery of how they are used is the same.

Tables arent archaic, however PDC's are nice to have.

 

[Kevrumbo]

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. 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! 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. 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.

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.

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.

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?

It's a perfectly acceptable colloquial and applied usage of analog vs digital here in the Mixed Analog/Digital and RF Signal Labs of my work at Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. The Engineers there understand what I'm referring to by my functional description above and that's fine with me. . .

btw and fyi: The old mechanical PADI Wheel RDP multi-level table, while not a classic analog dive table, is an example of an Analog (non-Digital) Dive Computer.

Peace & Good Diving. , ,

 

[Kingpatzer]

Kingpatzer,

The arguement that keeps getting thrown in my face is that tables are useless because students WILL NOT use them to plan and execute dives. PDC's have the same issue.

I have not made that argument. If you wish to argue that point with someone else who is making it go for it. Though honestly I have not seen anyone say that.

I've seen the argument that tables are so infrequently used that teaching them is akin to teaching slide rules . . . it simply makes no sense.

 

[Kingpatzer]

btw and fyi: The old mechanical PADI Wheel RDP multi-level table, while not a classic analog dive table, is an example of an Analog (non-Digital) Dive Computer.

Peace & Good Diving. , ,

A static table is not analog. A device whose output is proportional to it's input (such as an abacus or the wheel) can be called analog. You're confusing the two.

Though why I'm repeating this point is beyond me. If that's the extent of content you got from the whole post of mine you quoted, this discussion is beyond pointless.

 

[Kevrumbo]

A static table is not analog. A device whose output is proportional to it's input (such as an abacus or the wheel) can be called analog. You're confusing the two.

Though why I'm repeating this point is beyond me. If that's the extent of content you got from the whole post of mine you quoted, this discussion is beyond pointless.

But again, the base mathematical equations & formulae for generating a static table are inherently analog, as well as its functional practical operations (e.g. RNT arithmetic). You don't normally do these calculations manually using tedious digital binary logic now, do you? (You can if you want to, but the electronic computer designed to work with binary logic is much more efficient and convenient).

Thank you for your time and opinion Kingpatzer. . .

 

[Kingpatzer]

But again, the base mathematical equations & formulae for generating a static table are inherently analog, as well as its functional practical operations (e.g. RNT arithmetic). You don't normally do these calculations manually using tedious digital binary logic now, do you? (You can if you want to, but the electronic computer designed to work with binary logic is much more efficient and convenient).

Thank you for your time and opinion Kingpatzer. . .

Again, so??

Any calculus equation can be expressed as a discrete equation to any level of precision you wish to utilize. There is no inherent superiority to one method over the other and each is superior under the right conditions.

But even more to the point, the diver isn't doing the math, so the method of generation is immaterial.

Because a table MAY have been produced using continuous functions doesn't make it analog. It doesn't make an equation 'analog.' There application of the term "analog" in mathematics is for analogical models in applied mathematics, which do not have a place here. The mathematical model is not trying to compute something else using nitrogen loads, tissue compartments and the like to stand for something else. They are standing for themselves as abstractions to the source/target. You are not using the output of one equation to represent the output of a different target set.

Even more to the point, modern tables are computed using computer programs, not people sitting down doing calculus, so the values come from discrete functions just as the values on a PDC do.

So what are you trying to argue here? Because your intended point is eluding me entirely.

 

[The Chairman]

Though why I'm repeating this point is beyond me.

Ditto. It's a matter of faith for a few: logic and facts have no impact on them. I think I'll stop trying for a bit unless we get some fresh meat to chew on.

 

[tomfcrist]

I have not made that argument. If you wish to argue that point with someone else who is making it go for it. Though honestly I have not seen anyone say that.

OK so let me show you.......

How ethical is teaching them something you KNOW they won't be using. Especially with the PDC since you KNOW that they will not use tables after class. That's the problematic attitude. As long as you keep pushing that notion, we will continue to have people not get trained in using a PDC.