Info Why are tables not taught in OW classes anymore?

[Centrals]

You understand how flawed your Mickey Mouse logic is right? Lol. Bad instruction can take place in a computer class or tables class. The difference is that the fundamentals of computer diving (any computer) can be mastered in 5 minutes of quality instruction. The same is NOT possible with tables. All things equal, ask a brand new diver which is easier, safer, quicker, and more reliable; their brain and their understanding of tables or the dive computer. The answer will shut this argument down. You know it. I know it. The newer divers reading this thread know it.

It has nothing to do with instruction when diver does not know what his/her computer was telling them.
"can be mastered in 5 mins of quality instruction"!!! It takes a lot more than 5 mins just to read the manual.
New divers who had never been taught the Table would never know anything about it.

 

[BRT]

I generally agree with that notion -- and thanks for that article.

There seems to be great deal of variability among dive computers, not only in terms of their algorithms, and myriad excuses why there wasn't more exhaustive testing, as mentioned in a 2010 DAN article, "There are at least two reasons for this: 1) dive computers are not regulated; 2) validation of decompression safety is complicated and expensive. Thus, in most cases manufacturers do not have the data necessary to support claims of risk control or risk reduction — an important issue for divers."

I dove a Suunto Solution for decades, without issue -- still have two of them -- which also happened to be, paradoxically, a bit more conservative than my NAUI tables, which allowed for example, a maximum of 22 minutes at 30 meters, while the Solution only allowed for 17 minutes before the onset of decompression.

From 12-15 meters, there was a ten minute difference, in the tables allowing more time; only four at 18 meters for some odd reason; nine at 21 meters; seven at 24 meters; 2 at 27 through 36 meters; and only switched out at forty meters, where the computer allowed for one more minute.

As an aside, the Suunto Solution allowed for six minutes at 46 meters which was really something for 1992-3 . . .

I have used extremely liberal Oceanic pucks since the early 90's. I used to dive them to their limits. Now I generally don't. Anything used to the limits has more risk. I choose to dive nitrox when I can get it and often exceed the NDL's for air but on nitrox am not even close to NDL's. The less times I get close to NDL's the less likely I am to get bent. Tables are useless for the way we dive. But computers don't have to be pushed to the limits.

 

[scubadada]

The more time you spend underwater at pressure, all else being equal, like gas used, the greater your risk of DCS. See the probabilistic SAUL dive planner SAUL Recreational Dive Planner | Modern Decompression

 

[Superlyte27]

It has nothing to do with instruction when diver does not know what his/her computer was telling them.
"can be mastered in 5 mins of quality instruction"!!! It takes a lot more than 5 mins just to read the manual.
New divers who had never been taught the Table would never know anything about it.

You might just be a slow learner.

 

[agilis]

You might just be a slow learner.

No, a learner as opposed to someone dumbly following instructions with no understanding or context. I've come across a few 'five minute fools'. Just push the button and do what it says.

 

[Bigbella]

I was able to handily explain dive tables to my late mom, years ago, whose formal education, had largely begun. as she'd fondly say, "around the time of the Anschluß," in about five minutes, by simply planning a couple of dives on the kitchen table, with a flawlessly-polished red fingernail following along.

She thought the tables fascinating, "so very simple," in her words.

Once she grasped the few self-explanatory symbols on the card and understood that simple notion of a surface interval -- "sure, you need to rest between swims" -- she was amazingly good to go; but, alas, never really cared for swimming (or diving, for that matter), but prided herself that she "could do it in a pinch, if necessary . . ."

 

[S****N]

Same reason why carburators aren’t teached anymore in an era where we are switching from direct injection as part of motor management of an ICEV over HEV’s and PHEV’s to BEV’s and FCEV’s.

The biggest concern here is not the carburators and the diving tables but the people holding on to the past. And to answer that question: people don’t digest change very well. That is the core and the reason why these questions are asked.

Same as one of our older instructor’s reaction to blended learning where diving theory is partially taught with web based training:” Why do we need this? We have been giving classroom teachings like forever and it works fine!”
Yeah ok, but that is not a valid reason why we shouldn’t progress to modern pedagogical techniques. This kind of reactions have the same source: change is difficult to humans.

 

[agilis]

Same reason why carburators aren’t teached anymore in an era where we are switching from direct injection as part of motor management of an ICEV over HEV’s and PHEV’s to BEV’s and FCEV’s.

The biggest concern here is not the carburators and the diving tables but the people holding on to the past. And to answer that question: people don’t digest change very well. That is the core and the reason why these questions are asked.

Same as one of our older instructor’s reaction to blended learning where diving theory is partially taught with web based training:” Why do we need this? We have been giving classroom teachings like forever and it works fine!”
Yeah ok, but that is not a valid reason why we shouldn’t progress to modern pedagogical techniques. This kind of reactions have the same source: change is difficult to humans.

Change is not always for the better. Web based learning is useful, but not on the same level as direct personal connection.
Carburetors were seldom taught, they were learned from use and from doing. Fuel injection is nothing new, it was used in some vehicles and aircraft back in the 1930s.
Some changes, like web based instruction, are driven by cost savings, not superiority. They are regressive, not progressive, simply cheaper, and you get what you pay for.
Basic theoretical knowledge of the tables is valuable, not so much because of their possible use but because of the insight and understanding they provide. Smarter is better than dumber.

 

[tursiops]

Same reason why carburators aren’t teached anymore in an era where we are switching from direct injection as part of motor management of an ICEV over HEV’s and PHEV’s to BEV’s and FCEV’s.

The biggest concern here is not the carburators and the diving tables but the people holding on to the past. And to answer that question: people don’t digest change very well. That is the core and the reason why these questions are asked.

Same as one of our older instructor’s reaction to blended learning where diving theory is partially taught with web based training:” Why do we need this? We have been giving classroom teachings like forever and it works fine!”
Yeah ok, but that is not a valid reason why we shouldn’t progress to modern pedagogical techniques. This kind of reactions have the same source: change is difficult to humans.

Another concern is that change is not necessarily better. Sometime it is change for its own sake...just to be different. Sometimes it is change just to be faddish, not to function better or to be more economical or safer. "Cheaper, Faster, Better" is the mantra, but usually you only get one or maybe two of those. You denigrate the older instructor, but keep in mind that he may have seen lots of changes, probably none of which actually made something better, faster, and cheaper; and only a few of which did two of the three. And if the change is not for making something better, faster, cheaper, then it is just change for its own sake...

 

[grantmac]

I learned, recently, entirely by table. This included supervising dives for groups made up of individuals who had different SIs and RGs from previous dives. Very workload heavy but I'm glad to have that to fall back on.

It did however take much longer than 5 minutes.