Info Why are tables not taught in OW classes anymore?

[The Chairman]

At least with the computers, they'll know something is wrong.

Indeed.

Many, many years ago (04?) a dive shop told me about this lady who had locked out her PDC after exceeding NDL on her second dive by like a half hour. I don't think she had her NitrOx dialed in or something. To him, it was proof that dive tables were essential. To me, it was proof that they hadn't done their due diligence in teaching her about PDCs in class. His retort was then "what if the PDC fails?" The rule of 120 was all I had for years and years and my depth gauge was a red ribbon. I never got bent, because I never pushed it. We are often our own worst enemy. The only person responsible for my safety is ME.

 

[DiveProKoko]

I'm an SSI instructor that still teaches tables....sort of. I use the tables as a building block to show new divers where the data comes from and how the computer uses table data to spit out an individual result. Let's face it, computers are basically just a really efficient way to run complex table data. I like to make sure the students know that info isn't "magic" and that it comes from years of science and research.

 

[The Chairman]

This won’t be the last of us.

I certainly hope not.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

I still think that a diver who knows tables and also uses a computer is better off than a diver who only uses a computer and has no clue about tables.
Knowledge can’t hurt.
I am not anti computer BTW, I use one but probably would be made fun of if I said which one so I won’t say it. It’s not the holiness Shearwater either.
Even if a computer only diver just picked up a table and looked at it for five minutes, looking different depths and the corresponding times allowed, then looked at the pressure groups and what happens the longer you stay out, how that affects your new pressure group and how much time you are allowed on your next dive, etc. this would not only be interesting but couldn’t cause any harm.
The tables give direct visual and tactile/physical graph data that computers don’t. Computers are more abstract in thought and therefore may not imprint like visibly seeing what is actually happening. Even though tables are square you still get some sort of idea of how deep how long, it’s all right in front of you printed out, how can you not?

I got a good chuckle out of the “some people get offended by tables” comment, lol!

 

[VikingDives]

I still think that a diver who knows tables and also uses a computer is better off than a diver who only uses a computer and has no clue about tables.
Knowledge can’t hurt.
I am not anti computer BTW, I use one but probably would be made fun of if I said which one so I won’t say it. It’s not the holiness Shearwater either.
Even if a computer only diver just picked up a table and looked at it for five minutes, looking different depths and the corresponding times allowed, then looked at the pressure groups and what happens the longer you stay out, how that affects your new pressure group and how much time you are allowed on your next dive, etc. this would not only be interesting but couldn’t cause any harm.
The tables give direct visual and tactile/physical graph data that computers don’t. Computers are more abstract in thought and therefore may not imprint like visibly seeing what is actually happening. Even though tables are square you still get some sort of idea of how deep how long, it’s all right in front of you printed out, how can you not?

I got a good chuckle out of the “some people get offended by tables” comment, lol!

I think I posted somewhere in this thread that I'd never met a student who retained the ability to correctly use tables over the 14 days between open water classroom training and open water dives. Nor have I ever encountered an aow who retained sufficient knowledge to use tables during their training. There have to be some who do, but in my experience, they are like unicorns. I've yet to meet one.

That being said, when I teach OW, I use tables to explain things (because they are visual) like why you should do your deepest dive first.

There's been a lot of discussion of more education = a better diver, but in this entire thread I haven't heard anyone discuss what value teaching tables has, really.

I used to spend hours teaching my students the RDP, now I spend that time discussing things like fast and slow tissues, rescue skills, frog kicks, buddy positioning and awareness, team diving concepts, rock bottom gas planning, SAC and RMV. I'm pretty sure I know who's getting the better education.

If I had a semester to teach OW, I'd certainly use tables more extensively, but since I don't, I'm spending my time and efforts where I can get the biggest bang for my students' buck.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

I think I posted somewhere in this thread that I'd never met a student who retained the ability to correctly use tables over the 14 days between open water classroom training and open water dives. Nor have I ever encountered an aow who retained sufficient knowledge to use tables during their training. There have to be some who do, but in my experience, they are like unicorns. I've yet to meet one.

That being said, when I teach OW, I use tables to explain things (because they are visual) like why you should do your deepest dive first.

There's been a lot of discussion of more education = a better diver, but in this entire thread I haven't heard anyone discuss what value teaching tables has, really.

I used to spend hours teaching my students the RDP, now I spend that time discussing things like fast and slow tissues, rescue skills, frog kicks, buddy positioning and awareness, team diving concepts, rock bottom gas planning, SAC and RMV. I'm pretty sure I know who's getting the better education.

If I had a semester to teach OW, I'd certainly use tables more extensively, but since I don't, I'm spending my time and efforts where I can get the biggest bang for my students' buck

“…I'd never met a student who retained the ability to correctly use tables over the 14 days between open water classroom training and open water dives. Nor have I ever encountered an aow who retained sufficient knowledge to use tables during
their training…”

Well, I don’t know what to tell ya.
Every one of us learned PADI RDP tables in a standard OW class in 1998 and were able to plan and conduct a dive on our own with another freshly certified buddy using tables.
One weekend was class and pool, the following weekend four ocean dives, two per day.
I got the book a week or two before the class and read it.
It was not hard by any means.

 

[ChrisDee]

I'm an SSI instructor that still teaches tables....sort of. I use the tables as a building block to show new divers where the data comes from and how the computer uses table data to spit out an individual result. Let's face it, computers are basically just a really efficient way to run complex table data. I like to make sure the students know that info isn't "magic" and that it comes from years of science and research.

One of the larger points , that again seems to be missed is this idea that the tables are the data.
The "data" is DCS deaths and medical reports, always has been and always will be. This creates a data set, that for a long time many people have tried to "fit an equation into." It is this simplistic math,...that is really the crux of an issue that rears its head, year after year.

As far as research, it is this very same research that is telling us as a whole, we are doing a very poor job of teaching the who, what, and why of DCS.

We have traded knowledge for simplistic HEURISTICS.

Not taking your head off here Koko, and kudos to you for teaching tables. But this whole dependency is fostering a culture of increased risk taking right under everyone's nose.

Perhaps making the statement: "We all should be teaching more and increased conservatism as compared with squeegeeing the last drop out of a tank of air."

DCS is a complex subject with a multitude of variables, made all the worse by reliance on things like: Bubble Models, Gradient Factors, Micro Bubbles, over 50 deco algorithms and models etc. Which BTW ALL do the same thing. We do everyone a great disservice by attempting to simplify this issue by putting all of our eggs in one computers basket. All of the factors of DCS are "functions" of the individual, during one dive, at one place, at one time. And these and this issue need to be easily understood and accepted. Instead we have come to unquestionably rely with out understanding why on an inanimate object, that at current is incapable of fully guaranteeing anyone's safety. Because of the nature of how they work combined with taking the easy road. Which has a severe cost to many individuals worldwide each and every year.

 

[Belzelbub]

I still think that a diver who knows tables and also uses a computer is better off than a diver who only uses a computer and has no clue about tables.
Knowledge can’t hurt.

I don’t disagree with you at all. It’s definitely not a negative to have tables be taught. I just wouldn’t expect it to be as big of a focus today. They most likely won’t be used much after class.

The tables give direct visual and tactile/physical graph data that computers don’t. Computers are more abstract in thought and therefore may not imprint like visibly seeing what is actually happening.

Well, that’s because you got the wrong one. The tissue graphs on my Shearwater and Garmin are really helpful to see what’s going on.

I think I posted somewhere in this thread that I'd never met a student who retained the ability to correctly use tables over the 14 days between open water classroom training and open water dives. Nor have I ever encountered an aow who retained sufficient knowledge to use tables during their training. There have to be some who do, but in my experience, they are like unicorns. I've yet to meet one.

Really? That’s pretty shocking to me. I thought the tables were pretty easy to use. I retained it the 7 years between my first OW and second. Haven’t actually used a table in well over a decade for diving, but could still use it.

 

[inquis]

computers are basically just a really efficient way to run complex table data.

You have that backwards. Tables are merely the results of calculations. Early researchers like Haldane obviously did those calculations "by hand", but the DSAT RDP came around nearly a decade after microcomputers were widely available. Without a doubt, computers were used in the production of those table values.

 

[dmaziuk]

We have traded knowledge for simplistic HEURISTICS.

We did? When'd that happen? Do our resident hyperbaric specialists know?