printable copy of dive tables?

[baggins_69]

Or just use a computer, like everyone. I have a backup computer to deal with "worst case."

I do too. I always dive with 2 air integrated computers, and I bought my wife a computer along with all her gear when she decided to take the OW course.

the purpose of this thread (which went way off the rails) was to find a downloadable copy of the tables for my wife who was taking the OW cert course and having a hard time wrapping her head around the tables (which are not really used in the course as they expect everyone to use a computer now, but was interfering with her ability to learn the other stuff because it made her feel stupid)

I wanted to be able to sit down at the table with her and work through a few dives so she could get past it.

 

[Rich1280]

I'm not an instructor, but I've followed this for interest as I think about conversations about deco in our club setting (BSAC, so slightly different and we still teach tables). Does it matter which tables you use, as in does it need to be the SSI ones? If the idea is to link the concepts around time and depth, could you just use the USN tables that are in the diving manual on free download?
This has just occurred to me, probably should have done earlier to be honest, but we were talking about tables and the differences in risk on them (BSAC 88 vs PADI vs USN vs ZHL16 planned) last night so that's what triggered it.
Rich

 

[Lorenzoid]

the purpose of this thread (which went way off the rails) was to find a downloadable copy of the tables for my wife who was taking the OW cert course and having a hard time wrapping her head around the tables (which are not really used in the course as they expect everyone to use a computer now, but was interfering with her ability to learn the other stuff because it made her feel stupid)

Yes, I recall the original question. Anyway, if tables are not really used in the course, why not just reassure your wife that there is no need to "feel stupid"? Tables are probably not taught in the course because they over-complicate something that computers make simple nowadays. They no longer teach slide rules in school, either. As you know, there are countless divers who struggled with tables and just barely managed to get through the few tables problems on their exam and then promptly forgot how to use them--because they are not what we call user friendly.

 

[OMyMyOHellYes]

I never learned a dad-gummed thing about tables in my primary OW training. You honestly do not need to know a blasted thing about tables for recreational diving. Use your computer. It's very much a required part of the setup now, kinda like an octopodipus reg and a BC device. In my experience on resort boat dives, it's not required because there was NEVER any planning on the part of the divers. The guide took you on a canned dive - the profile of which was designed to keep folks out of trouble - never close to an NDL and conservative enough that an hour-long surface break for watermelon slices or cantaloupe and some hydration more than adequately (ridiculously so) takes care of any repetitive dive concerns (somebody mentioned Cocoview above - yes - exactly that. That's what I'm talking about).

I was curious and learned tables on my own. The only thing I find them useful for most of the time is if I want to show someone the benefits of using EAN nitrox vs nitrox 21%: "Bottom time on air table is 12 minutes. On the nitrox table it is 20 minutes..."

To me, tables are like the 1960s version of treating someone with diabetes: for the rest of your life, no refined sugars allowed, no fruit juice allowed unless treating a hypo event, no alcohol allowed, take two shots of pre-mix 70/30 insulin daily and hope for the best versus today's continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, carb counting and calculations for meal planning and to determine fast-acting insulin doses as a function of food intake (if even on insulin!) or even automated CGM paired with an insulin pump which replaces the pancreas' role in BG regulation (at least for DM1 pts) which can make life almost "normal" for the pt. And the advent of effective oral meds for most DM2 pts, eliminating or delaying introduction to insulin treatment.

I am kinda a little opposed to teaching tables as part of OW training outside of "In the old days before we knew better, this was the tool that we used... Its shortcomings included X, Y, Z .... What we have today is better in virtually every conceivable way. Use your computer."

Tables can complicate the training process. Two different answers to the same question comparing tables to computers. I had a certain amount of frustration when dating a girl that did her dive training in the early 1980s and would not deviate from the practice of planning from tables. Tables are right. Tables are exact, proven science. Tables are the Bible. Computers are just gimmicks. She also would not ever consider using nitrox because it would cause you to die, per the outdated training superstitions she was taught.

 

[tursiops]

I sometimes keep in mind the rule-of-thumb commonly referred to as the Rule of 130.

The PADI RDP gives a Rule of 110 for air and 125 for 32%; the old Navy tables gave 120 for air, the new Navy tables give 118. Where do you get a Rule of 130? Isn't that for 32% on the old Navy/NOAA tables?

 

[Lorenzoid]

The PADI RDP gives a Rule of 110 for air and 125 for 32%; the old Navy tables gave 120 for air, the new Navy tables give 118. Where do you get a Rule of 130? Isn't that for 32% on the old Navy/NOAA tables?

I figured if anyone wasn't familiar with this kind of rule of thumb, they could look it up. The point is not necessarily the number, but that there are rules of thumb like this. But to answer your question, GUE uses a table (I have no idea from where it derives) that gives 130 with EAN32.

 

[OMyMyOHellYes]

But to answer your question, GUE uses a table (I have no idea from where it derives) that gives 130 with EAN32.

Don't know if this is where it came from, but if you use 1.6 as your max PPO, then MOD calculates to around 132 ft. If you use the generally recommended 1.4 PPO you get 111 ft.

IIRC when I took the class, 1.4 PPO was the recommended MAX, but that included a .2 fudge factor and the message was that the real max is 1.6 PPO with no margin for error or fudge factor.

I take that to mean some more rigorous disciplines will run right to the red-line of 1.6 PPO, particularly the tec folks. My inference may be WAY off base.

Do the GUE table state the PPO to which it was published?

 

[Seaweed Doc]

Nice to see the typical de-railing of a thread where a simple question was asked and answered.

That said, and in defense of tables consider the following:

1. Your computer dies after dive one. To be safe, you should either end your dive day or (if you have data, which you might not if your computer is dead) you could assume a square profile and use a table. Sure, the 80 minute dive to 100' is off the table, but if your computer is dead then to be safe you're done diving for the day with or without a table. But for a newly-minted (or minting) OW diver (as is the case in the OP's question), that dive is not going to happen on day 1.

2. You actually know the site(s) you're diving on tomorrow and aren't doing the "trust me" dive on that tropical vacation. You're planning multiple dives and want to get a general sense of what's possible. Again, keep in mind that you've got a new diver. It might be as simple as reassuring yourself that 3 dives to 45 feet lasting 45 minutes each with an hour SI between them is safe. That's helpful for a nervous newby.

3. If you can't dive without a computer, I'm trying to figure out why I have this delusion of having logged my first 400 or so dives without one.

The biggest drawback to tables isn't the fact they don't always work or don't let you push the NDL's to the max, but that user error rate is high. Do it wrong, and you very well could end up getting bent. (In fact, of all the subjects I cover teaching divers, the table questions on quizzes or exams are the ones students are most likely to miss.)

Rental computers and inadequate explanations from the LDS or user error with the unfamiliar device seem like a risk to me as well. Just last weekend I ran into a father/daughter buddy team I'd certified on the beach. Between their dive one and two the father realized something was amiss with his rental computer. I took one look at it and re-programmed it for air. It had been set for 34% EAN. So somebody set it to EAN, and likely did it wrong since the dive shop they rented for has a standard 32% they sell. So I'm adding yet another line to the syllabus: With computers you're renting or borrowing, make darn sure they're programmed for the gas you're breathing.

 

[baggins_69]

Yes, I recall the original question. Anyway, if tables are not really used in the course, why not just reassure your wife that there is no need to "feel stupid"? Tables are probably not taught in the course because they over-complicate something that computers make simple nowadays. They no longer teach slide rules in school, either. As you know, there are countless divers who struggled with tables and just barely managed to get through the few tables problems on their exam and then promptly forgot how to use them--because they are not what we call user friendly.

you clearly don't know my wife. that is not how her brain works or her self confidence. "it doesn't really matter" won't fix her confidence issue. showing her that tables are actually easy and then telling her she doesn't need to know them will.

 

[jborg]

Do the GUE table state the PPO to which it was published?

GUE MOD for EAN32 is 30m/100ft. (As a function mostly of narcotic depth, not ppO2)