No muss, no fuss, no brane - tables for you

[jeffsterinsf]

In the interest of safety, I beleive that I should be able to read any common dive table out there, so I purchased the new RGBM-based NAUI (rec) table. Speaking of simplified!

Three columns, one each for dives one through three for the day. Pick your first dive in column one by depth, read across for the next two dives.

Interesting restrictions:

* Minimum SIT of 1 hour (makes tables simple)
* Maximum decent rate of 75 fpm
* Maximum ascent rate of 30 fpm
* "Safety stop" at 15 fsw +/- 3 fsw for 3 min REQUIRED

There is no mention of the phrase "No-Decompression Limit," using "Maximum Dive Time" instead -- an improvement in terminology, IMHO.

So much for "knowledge of the tables" meaning a lot.

Has the world gotten too simple? If NAUI adopts these tables as "standard," how will their divers deal with dive boats that have a typical 45-minute SIT? Will they just trust the boat's DM? What if such a diver leaves their tables at home and only has the USN-style tables available?

:reaper: Woo hoo! 10 min MDT at 130' -- and it says I only need a 9 min at 15 fsw deco stop if I extend by 5-10 min. 20 min at 130' on air -- LET'S GO!!

(In defense of the tables, the deco stops are general across all depths. The illustration is one of extreme stupidity by such a diver, but I'm sure you know one that....)

Could this be the first step to moving to computers for another agency? Some PADI instructors I have talked with think that PADI's placement of tables and instructions into a sleeve in the back of the book (instead of within the text) is a step in preparing for that direction.

(mods -- feel free to move if in wrong forum)

 

[MikeFerrara]

I think eventually most if not all rec agencies will do away with tables. I think this is a mistake. I, for one, will teach tables or I will not teach. I am not completly against computers as some are but, IMO, they are misused more often than not. I think a diver should understand the principles involve and learn to plan a dive before incorperating a computer.

I haven't seen these table but I don't know that oversimplifying tables is a good idea.

 

[SteveW]

It all depends on want you mean by simplify. If you mean dumb down and lose information, then yes it is a mistake. If you mean put the same information in a more user friendly format then it is a good idea. I never understood what was difficult about the tables in first place though.

 

[Kat]

Being somewhat of a newbie, I don't have a dive computer. I always feel like I'm a dinosaur when I'm using my table. While everyone else is high tech - I'm plotting & planning my dive on the tables. :embarr:
I don't think the tables are hard to understand at all.

 

[cpalerm]

I agree that not teaching the tables would be a bad thing. Learning to use a computer without knowing what is behind it is not a good idea at all (like learning basic math directly on a calculator, without learning to do it by hand).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that this simplified table just assumes a SIT of 1 hour and indicates the no-deco limits for the second and third dives based on this assumption. So if someone ends with a three hour SI or longer, the tables would be giving them extremely conservative values.

I can't help but think that the people that put these materials together feel that new divers are probably morons and thus they need to dumb it down to nothing...

I would certainly not feel comfortable diving with someone that does not understand the tables; who knows what else they really don't know and I would not like to find out under water...

Cesar

 

[radagalf]

Don't worry, I still use my table. Well, I use the Wheel for my fun dives, as I do almost exclusively multilevel dives; but I use the table when leading dives or helping beginners log their dives.

I think that everyone should be fluent with the dive tables. Unfortunately, many people now think that spending some extra cash is so muhc easier and better than learning how to dive with the tables... <sigh>.

 

[Scubalnks]

I use both a computer and dive tables. I always have my tables in my pocket on every dive. If Im ever 70ft down and my computer decides to flood or stop working I have my dive watch and the tables to calculate from and still enjoy my dive. I also make a point to second guess my computer against my tables while on my surface interval to be sure the computer is giving me accurate information. The main reason I use the computer is so I don't have to fill the dive log out after every single dive. I can retrieve the information during the boat ride back to shore or after Im in my hotel room and then fill the dive log out but when it comes to the actual dives I always check my tables to be safe.

The dive tables are not hard to learn and should remain a part of any dive training in my opinion as well as a part of every dive thereafter. Being a computer tech I can tell you that computers do develope problems (allot) and you should not totally trust them as your sole means of information when planning your dives.

Diving smart is diving safe.

 

[O-ring]

jeffsterinsf,

I have seen the new NAUI tables for EANx32 and they are nice. The new tables are at the forefront of decompression theory and are not some vestige of Haldanian thought, so I would consider them a worthy upgrade to any existing dive tables. I plan to get a set once they come out, but won't be able to use them that often (I can't use NAUI tables with PADI students ).

 

[jeffsterinsf]

O-ring -- are those the tech tables of which you're speaking?

I agree that RGBM approaches go well beyond the Haldane-based ones. My concerns are the possible teaching implications of the rec tables.

I am looking forward to seeing the tech RGBM tables at some time as well...

 

[O-ring]

Unfortunately, I didn't get to see those This was the standard recreational table for EANx32. It was REALLY simple to do repetitive dives though...max 3 dives per day, 1 hour SI like you said, and really easy to use.

What teaching implications are you concerned with?