Why you can't use the PADI RDP table for Multi-Level dives

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Can you at least agree that if the method aligns or is more conservative than Buhlmann, the origin of the method or the research (or lack thereof) is of less importance?
But if Buhlmann is your metric, why not just use Buhlmann? Why bring in another method of questionable origin?

Or is the goal to have a table/procedure that is a backup to a Buhlmann DC that is at least as conservative?

In that case, wouldn't a backup Buhlmann DC be less error prone and therefore more reliable?
 
But if Buhlmann is your metric, why not just use Buhlmann? Why bring in another method of questionable origin?

Or is the goal to have a table/procedure that is a backup to a Buhlmann DC that is at least as conservative?

In that case, wouldn't a backup Buhlmann DC be less error prone and therefore more reliable?
The whole point is to test this method ("of questionable origin"). I have been taught this method. I've used it. I know many divers that have used it, some that still do. We can discuss the idea behind having such a method - why learn it, why use it, what's the benefit - but that is kind of a sidetrack. Personally I now use Buhlmann. I would like to see how the computer diving I'm doing now stacks up against the multilevel table diving I did before. I now use the tables (memorized) as a backup, and as a sanity check to see if what my computer is telling me is in the ballpark of what I would expect. So I would like to know just how aggressive or unreliable this method is.
 
The whole point is to test this method ("of questionable origin"). I have been taught this method. I've used it. I know many divers that have used it, some that still do. We can discuss the idea behind having such a method - why learn it, why use it, what's the benefit - but that is kind of a sidetrack. Personally I now use Buhlmann. I would like to see how the computer diving I'm doing now stacks up against the multilevel table diving I did before. I now use the tables (memorized) as a backup, and as a sanity check to see if what my computer is telling me is in the ballpark of what I would expect. So I would like to know just how aggressive or unreliable this method is.
What flavor Buhlmann do you want to use, and what GFs?
 
I ran a few simulations...

Software: Subsurface
Algorithm: Buhlmann ZHL-16C
Ascent speed: 9m/min to 50% depth, 3/min to surface

Dive 1a
multilevel dive 30/24m avg 27m - 40 minute bottom time
depth​
duration​
runtime​
30m2min2min
30m18min20min
24m2min22min
24m18min40min
0m6min46min
SurfaceGF% 86

Dive 1b
square profile to 27m - 40 minute bottom time
depth​
duration​
runtime​
27m3min3min
27m37min40min
0m6min46min
SurfaceGF% 89

Dive 2a
multilevel dive 30/24/18m avg 24m - 50 minute bottom time
depth​
duration​
runtime​
30m3min3min
30m15min18min
24m1min19min
24m15min34min
18m1min35min
18m15min50min
0m5min55min
SurfaceGF% 81

Dive 2b
square profile to 24m - 50 minute bottom time
depth​
duration​
runtime​
24m2min2min
24m48min50min
0m5min55min
SurfaceGF% 89

Dive 3a - continous ascent profile from 30m avg 22.5m (using 24m table) - 50 minute runtime
depth​
duration​
runtime​
30m3min2min
0m47min50min
SurfaceGF% 31

Dive 3b
see dive 2b

I planned all the multilevel dives using the GUE method for average depth to the maximum MDL limits of the table. In this tiny sample size it looks like the depth averaging is more conservative than a square profile.
 
Dive 4a
multilevel dive 24m/12m avg 18m - 100 minute bottom time
depth​
duration​
runtime​
24m2min2min
24m48min50min
12m2min52min
12m48min100min
0m3min103min
SurfaceGF% 74

Dive 4b
square profile 18m - 100 minute bottom time
depth​
duration​
runtime​
18m1min1min
18m99min100min
0m4min104min
SurfaceGF% 92

Dive 5a
multilevel dive 27m/15m/21m avg 21m - 60 minute bottom time
depth​
duration​
runtime​
27m2min2min
27m18min20min
15m2min22min
15m18min40min
21m2min42min
21m18min60min
0m5min65min
SurfaceGF% 80

Dive 5b
square profile 21m - 60 minute bottom time
depth​
duration​
runtime​
21m2min2min
21m58min60min
0m5min65min
SurfaceGF% 83

Dive 6a
multilevel dive 30m/21m/15m time weighted avg 24m - 50 minute bottom time
depth​
duration​
runtime​
30m3min3min
30m20min23min
21m2min25min
21m12min37min
15m2min39min
15m11min50min
0m4min54min
SurfaceGF% 76

Dive 6b
see dive 2b - SurfaceGF% 89
 
So far, so good. That some of the square profiles are more aggressive than GF85 shouldn't surprise me, I guess. I have always added some conservative padding when diving tables.

Any ideas for profiles to try that would debunk this method?

Edit to add:
In practice this method will be even more conservative (and less efficient in terms of getting maximum bottom time) as you always round the average depth down. On purpose I used exact averages to match the table and used the maximum MDL times to test the boundaries of the method.
 
I ran a few simulations...

Software: Subsurface
Algorithm: Buhlmann ZHL-16C
Ascent speed: 9m/min to 50% depth, 3/min to surface

Dive 1a
multilevel dive 30/24m avg 27m - 40 minute bottom time
depth​
duration​
runtime​
30m2min2min
30m18min20min
24m2min22min
24m18min40min
0m6min46min
SurfaceGF% 86

Dive 1b
square profile to 27m - 40 minute bottom time
depth​
duration​
runtime​
27m3min3min
27m37min40min
0m6min46min
SurfaceGF% 89

Dive 2a
multilevel dive 30/24/18m avg 24m - 50 minute bottom time
depth​
duration​
runtime​
30m3min3min
30m15min18min
24m1min19min
24m15min34min
18m1min35min
18m15min50min
0m5min55min
SurfaceGF% 81

Dive 2b
square profile to 24m - 50 minute bottom time
depth​
duration​
runtime​
24m2min2min
24m48min50min
0m5min55min
SurfaceGF% 89

Dive 3a - continous ascent profile from 30m avg 22.5m (using 24m table) - 50 minute runtime
depth​
duration​
runtime​
30m3min2min
0m47min50min
SurfaceGF% 31

Dive 3b
see dive 2b

I planned all the multilevel dives using the GUE method for average depth to the maximum MDL limits of the table. In this tiny sample size it looks like the depth averaging is more conservative than a square profile.
In general, I would expect this to be true any time the later part of the dive was significantly shallower than the earlier part of the dive. You are spending significant time shallower than the average off-gassing from the early part of the dive. If the dive had portions deeper than the average just prior to the final ascent (possibly a violation of the GUE procedure), you would expect the opposite result, possibly dangerously so.

If you run the dive of 1a with the 30m and 24m segments reversed (same average depth), your Surface GF hits 100% 3min into the 30m segment, and at the end of the dive you have a SurfaceGF of 119%.
 
In this tiny sample size it looks like the depth averaging is more conservative than a square profile.
Yes, since you're mandating the second depth be shallower, the worst-case surfGF for a given average depth occurs when the two depths are equal to the desired average and times are equal (ETA: meaning all 40 mins are at the average).
 
  • Bullseye!
Reactions: L13
So far, so good. That some of the square profiles are more aggressive than GF85 shouldn't surprise me, I guess. I have always added some conservative padding when diving tables.

Any ideas for profiles to try that would debunk this method?

Edit to add:
In practice this method will be even more conservative (and less efficient in terms of getting maximum bottom time) as you always round the average depth down. On purpose I used exact averages to match the table and used the maximum MDL times to test the boundaries of the method.
Does the method strictly require depths to monotonically decrease after the initial decent? If not, it will not always be more conservative!
 
Does the method strictly require depths to monotonically decrease after the initial decent? If not, it will not always be more conservative!
Yes, one of the requirements of this method is that you start at the deepest point. I included one profile with a twist (27m-15m-21m) to see what the effect would be - it is indeed closer to the square profile, but still a tad more conservative. Of course, it's not as flexible as diving with a computer.
 

Back
Top Bottom