Dive tables take a back seat in SSI training

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!

with out some background in tables. how does one know when they are getting bum info from the computer. knowing the basics of time and depth as it affects the gasses is as important as basic math and use of a calculator. i know each time i reduce depth i expect to see remaining dive time to increase on my computer. and if it doesnt it must be driven by other factors like air time remaining. i dont think that doing the table problems are perhaps necessary however questions like what is the effect on time remaining as depth increases ect. ..... it would probably take me some time to be profiecent with a table again. and the nitrox issue with the equivilant air table is yuk .... but understanding it is something that is needed. the computer is somewhat a standard as it spits out data. a far cry from trying to figure out how all the agencies table format works. and in the event of an accident the puter it the dive record. no table can do that so i think ow's should be using computers. lastly do ow's/vacation divers have a higher or lower probability of a dsc problems. that stat i do not know.. i can only guess.
training on computers is an issue i dont now how to overcome. the only way i can see it working is to have all students use the same puter model while in the course. instructors mastering the use of models availiable is tougher than mastering the various tables.


While much is made in the dive community of the dangers of DCI, DAN's latest 2008 report has a section which reviews DCI incidents. In one major study, they say recreational divers reported 3 incidents in about 15,000 dives. This seems fairly low to me, and indicates that the almost universal use of computers is not a problem.

The computer training issue is one that is already being handled, so I think that is not a big problem, and if the classroom time (very considerable in my experience) now spent on tables was instead spent on computer use (very brief in my experience), the diver would have a much better understanding of the computer.

For those who feel the tables give some insight into the mechanics of decompression, I would point out that the computer's ability to plan and simulate repetitive dives is much more accurate, flexible and intuitive than a dive table.

With my computer I can perform a simulated dive, over realistic terrain, initial or repetitive, on air or nitrox, watching what happens to tank pressure, NDL time, remaining dive time, ascent rate, ceilings, and other variables as I swim along. Try THAT on your tables.
 
Well I guess the medical community should get all their tables out of the back of the books... this is a much about nothing. Tables are important in the learning process but get forgotten as time goes on. Do I agree with it, no but it is the reality. Move on already.
 
While much is made in the dive community of the dangers of DCI, DAN's latest 2008 report has a section which reviews DCI incidents. In one major study, they say recreational divers reported 3 incidents in about 15,000 dives. This seems fairly low to me, and indicates that the almost universal use of computers is not a problem.

The computer training issue is one that is already being handled, so I think that is not a big problem, and if the classroom time (very considerable in my experience) now spent on tables was instead spent on computer use (very brief in my experience), the diver would have a much better understanding of the computer.

For those who feel the tables give some insight into the mechanics of decompression, I would point out that the computer's ability to plan and simulate repetitive dives is much more accurate, flexible and intuitive than a dive table.

With my computer I can perform a simulated dive, over realistic terrain, initial or repetitive, on air or nitrox, watching what happens to tank pressure, NDL time, remaining dive time, ascent rate, ceilings, and other variables as I swim along. Try THAT on your tables.

i think you missed my point. i agree that computers should be tought. that is what is going to be used in the real world. howevre using them has a couple of problems. the student learns a computer in the limited use as it relates to the level of training receeived. in the case of ow 40-50-60 ft or less emvirionment. how can that depth get anyone in trouble. and as such who pays attention to the computer for other than an electronig depth gage and a timer for safety stop? how does that student know if the computer they are using is not set up for nitrox or something else not standard to thier training. without the background of table knowledge they do not know when the computer is lying to them. perhaps if they started woth non nitrox cmputers??? i dont know. and then the primacy issue of first learned hardest remembered, hardest to forget hardest to change. the best example of this is ,,, i asked one of my students in an electronic course what was harger 2 pi or 6? the student had to use a calculator to figure it. from the students perspective why learn the basics i have a calculator to do the test.

the computer issue may have been handled as far as the agency goes but student application is something else. in the 60's when i took my basic, we just mentioned the tables existed and that was it. the course was taught for the area environments. as such 60 foot lake 72 cube tank no way in $%^& can you stay down long enough to have a problem. ow is basicly an intro to diving let them use tables, advanced is just that. advanced skills, depths, and technologies. a review of tables is all that is necessary and concentraton on computers is the responsible course to take. now take 12 students and 12 different computers,,, how does the instructor deal with that,,, to the level of liability he has ,,,, and not confuse some student unnless the same computer is going to be used by all students.

its not so much the issue its the application of teaching the computer/computers and achievving student profiency.

i wil agree that the accuracy of the computer far exceeds the tables. but if the puter gives you a 4 hour ndl and the tables give you a 2 hour ndl and the student has no basic understanding of routine times he will believe what the puter tells them. are the acgencies going to get into which puters are liberal or conservitive is respect to the tables. i know that tables from one agency to another vary. but the agency has all students using the same table for training, so all students get the same results. (reinforcement of leaining) how do you explain that aeris and uwatec have different data calculation's and which are (in the students eyes) better to use. it adds a whole new level of liability by itself let alone having a class of 12 all bringing in thier own puters. as far as the handling of the puter issue, is it not handled by giving the instructor the option to use or not to use.

the ability to so simulated dives is moot to the issue using it for training. it only reinforces my position that 12 different puters have 12 ways to operate the simulator. and the time needed to train all the ways takes away from the effectivness of the training. and that once again goes back to all use the same model of puter. the last issue is how do you test table usage oops computer usage with a gradable answer criteria that verifies learning. you cant so it is left out of testing. and becomes nice to know info.

i have not looked at the instructor material of any of the agencies so i am speeking somewhat off the cuff. i do have 7 yrs of teaching behind me from the military. i have discused this with the lds and thier current position is teach the tables and then add computers as a bonus until they can figure how to get all students using the same puter in the same modes to produce the same results. they cite thier authority to do this from "instructor discresion to use or not to use computers.

there is more than just doing problems in a class, the students have to believe and trust the computer outputs. how can that be done when you do not have basic unserstanding of tables to validate the computer outputs.

lastly how do you have a student plan repeditive dives on a shop puter knowing they will not have the same instrument when they buy thier own. the tables will at least tell them that only 3 dives can be made (square profile) before running out of time. as opposed to the puter saying 5-6 dives because you pushed a wrong button or it was calsulating a 36% mix. it just seams that puter use is better left to aow as opposed to ow because its advanced not basic.. one other thing 3 problems in every 1500 dives. is that reported or does it include known or unknown incidents that were unreported?

i am nnot trying to pick a fight here


from another post

Our shop is currently in the transition mode of changing from tables to computers, which makes things a bit confusing right now, but will soon smooth out, once the transition is complete. At this point I still plan to teach the tables from a historical point. to show the student where the computers are getting the the information they are displaying. That way the students get the best of both worlds, they get to learn to use computers & they also have at least a very basic introduction to using the tables.
__________________
Tammy Storm
SSI OWSI # 46723
www.evvscuba.com

i think this poster has it right.
 
Hello KWS,

I'm an old-timer like you, so I understand the feeling that we shouldn't just throw out the tried-and-true stuff. I think you raise a lot of good points and I know these issues are being debated within the agencies. That is probably why they are taking so long to make these changes.

I learned on the Navy tables and used them for many years because that was all we had. When I first saw a dive computer I laughed! Now that I have used a dive computer I realize how much better they are than tables, and as a diver I would never go back to tables.

But, you make good points when you say that there are some drawbacks to teaching computers and relying on computers. These are areas that the agencies will have to address.
 
The word Knot comes from throwing a measured line with knots in it overboard and counting the knots that slipped through your hand in a given time! Well I will take my GPS every time, but I enjoy the history of the term! Everyone should know the history and what the tables tell and why, but the computer will only get better and continue to make Diving even safer! My 2nd 2500 have been much safer, longer, and more comfortable thanks to the Computer!
 
Hello KWS,

I'm an old-timer like you, so I understand the feeling that we shouldn't just throw out the tried-and-true stuff. I think you raise a lot of good points and I know these issues are being debated within the agencies. That is probably why they are taking so long to make these changes.

I learned on the Navy tables and used them for many years because that was all we had. When I first saw a dive computer I laughed! Now that I have used a dive computer I realize how much better they are than tables, and as a diver I would never go back to tables.

But, you make good points when you say that there are some drawbacks to teaching computers and relying on computers. These are areas that the agencies will have to address.

thanks for you understanding. i too would never go back to tables. with a device that works real time instead of in theory i would be a fool to. just like trading in my motorcycle for a bike. the bike had its place and now i have moved on with no plans to return. i learned a lot from riding a bike like vulnerability to cars on the road. i took all those lessons with me when i got my goldwing.
 
The word Knot comes from throwing a measured line with knots in it overboard and counting the knots that slipped through your hand in a given time! Well I will take my GPS every time, but I enjoy the history of the term! Everyone should know the history and what the tables tell and why, but the computer will only get better and continue to make Diving even safer! My 2nd 2500 have been much safer, longer, and more comfortable thanks to the Computer!

the history is nice. as many dives as you have the diversion into history is fun. i bet you remember the electrolung???? i know it is for me and i dont have any where near your logged dives. also you would be foolish to use a basic table for the complex dive profiles you have come to do. one thing the tables give you is the data where you can make hand profiles of your planned dive. you just don have that using a computer with out the laptop connection . they will never know just how much of a tool the computer is unless they have to do the job them selves first. and with many, it is just a few dives(perhaps <10) before they do the aow. use of a dive computer should be a given for an aow grad. its a bit much for the task loading of an ow the first dozen dives. too many clocks too many depths to keep up with and still try to get/keep some form of horizontal neutral bouyancy. i would guess that an ow is mostly concerned with tank presure and depth than any thing else. for the ow the puter (unless integrated) is a mighty expensive depth gage and probably would not buy one. so perhaps my point is all moot, but maybe not.
 
I see this as another "Tip of the Hat" to SDI.

Their slogan "SDI leads, others follow" couldn't be any truer.

Except for the fact that PADI has been advocating this since mid 2009... They even changed some quizzes and knowledge reviews to reflect the change...

I think teaching with computers is completely rational. I do think though, that if someone just learns with a dive computer, they don't learn the reasoning why and how time interacts with nitrogen... I teach that the letter is some amount of nitrogen that needs to come out, and how the tables relate - more time down = more nitrogen in, more time up= more nitrogen out... With a dive computer, the difference is that all you get is a number that says how much longer you can stay at that depth... people translate this to "I'm running out of time, I need go up" which works, but, they don't understand that it is much more than a timer, that it is following a set of tables that determine, essentially, whether you live or die...

I teach computers to those that have them, go over the basics with those that don't, but everyone learns the tables...
 
I do think though, that if someone just learns with a dive computer, they don't learn the reasoning why and how time interacts with nitrogen...

What is preventing you from teaching that? Why do you need tables to explain how nitrogen goes into and out of tissues as divers descend and ascend? Why can't you explain how a computer measures that?
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom