DevonDiver
N/A
If agencies provide a 'system', then the use of computers may pose risks of system breakdown.
As an example... training provision/qualification-level is typically balanced against formal limitations on the diver.
So... for a given agency we have an amount and standard of training (i.e. PADI OW and AOW syllabus) that was initially designed based upon the restrictions of diving within the agencies designated tables. This balance of training provision versus limitations ensured diver safety.
Those divers... receiving the same training syllabus.... nowadays don't dive with designated agency tables. They typically use computers. Those computers enable much more aggressive diving... or even empower divers to exceed no-stop limits (and can allow theoretical 'justification' of such behaviours).
This can be considered an imbalance between training and the limitations appropriate for that training.
Of course, agencies do teach 'use of diving computers', but not to the detail of algorithm behaviour and variances. Agencies generally keep it simple, advising students to "dive conservatively" etc, etc. ...advice which, I note, is selectively ignored by some.
Comparing one agency versus another is comparing apples to oranges. The single unifying factor is that agencies try to balance training they provide with appropriate limitations.
Differing agencies provide differing training... varied hours of study and practice... varied performance standards. Some are low commitment, others are high commitment. Student qualification limits are tailored accordingly.
BSAC tables might not be appropriate limitations for a PADI qualified diver who's done a quick certification course, nor vice-versa....PADI tables might be restrictive to a BSAC diver who's recieved significantly more volume of training (even when course levels are deemed equivalent).
Computers.... being of varied limitations... throw these balanced systems into confusion. It's entirely possible for divers to now set themselves very permissive limitations far beyond the capabilities and scope of their training.
The prudent solution is, of course, is for the diver to either self-select appropriate limitations for themselves... based on accurate reflection of the training heaven recieved and their real diving abilities (problematic and prone to over-zealous self-assessment).... or to seek further training that ensures they are appropriately and amply trained for the dives they wish to undertake.
As an example... training provision/qualification-level is typically balanced against formal limitations on the diver.
So... for a given agency we have an amount and standard of training (i.e. PADI OW and AOW syllabus) that was initially designed based upon the restrictions of diving within the agencies designated tables. This balance of training provision versus limitations ensured diver safety.
Those divers... receiving the same training syllabus.... nowadays don't dive with designated agency tables. They typically use computers. Those computers enable much more aggressive diving... or even empower divers to exceed no-stop limits (and can allow theoretical 'justification' of such behaviours).
This can be considered an imbalance between training and the limitations appropriate for that training.
Of course, agencies do teach 'use of diving computers', but not to the detail of algorithm behaviour and variances. Agencies generally keep it simple, advising students to "dive conservatively" etc, etc. ...advice which, I note, is selectively ignored by some.
Comparing one agency versus another is comparing apples to oranges. The single unifying factor is that agencies try to balance training they provide with appropriate limitations.
Differing agencies provide differing training... varied hours of study and practice... varied performance standards. Some are low commitment, others are high commitment. Student qualification limits are tailored accordingly.
BSAC tables might not be appropriate limitations for a PADI qualified diver who's done a quick certification course, nor vice-versa....PADI tables might be restrictive to a BSAC diver who's recieved significantly more volume of training (even when course levels are deemed equivalent).
Computers.... being of varied limitations... throw these balanced systems into confusion. It's entirely possible for divers to now set themselves very permissive limitations far beyond the capabilities and scope of their training.
The prudent solution is, of course, is for the diver to either self-select appropriate limitations for themselves... based on accurate reflection of the training heaven recieved and their real diving abilities (problematic and prone to over-zealous self-assessment).... or to seek further training that ensures they are appropriately and amply trained for the dives they wish to undertake.
Last edited: