PADI tables finally going away?

[DiveNav]

..........The problem is that in most cases the information provided is lacking and, from what I have seen, computers have made the information problem worse.....

Could you please elaborate on this?

Alberto (aka eDiver)

 

[Quero]

If I may inquire, how much coverage is required and where do you buy that from?

I am required to have THB 500,000 coverage. My current carrier is AIG.

I suspect that with respect to the moral question of providing informed consent that I'd find you at least a bit on the "immoral" side. But you're in a large company there, e.g., most of the industry.

As far as, "so be it," I mean that. There's no reason for me to pull my punches, if I do (or for that matter you do) that only reduces what might be learned. But don't take it personally, you are well in the majority of the industry, if that helps.

There are ways and ways to go about educating people; insults and bullying don't work at all for me, and I suspect they actually work for very few learners. There are lots of instructors out there who adopt the same no-holds-barred attitude you do--I have studied under a couple of these, and in all fairness I have to admit that they have had a significant impact on the respectful way I interact with students and colleagues, even when I think they are misguided somehow.

 

[notivago]

Okay. I'll try once more.

Diving is an industry (not a business). Innovation in the industry has tended, over the decades, to bring out the Chicken-Littles (but instead of "The sky is falling!" we hear "You're gonna die!")

As I said, disregard to the dangers. MTB forums do not have passings sections ore incident and accidents and it is seem as an dangerous export...

If it is so easy and secure, why so much trouble in certifications? Why would we seek out instructors? I guess the best thing then is simply do away with agencies and with instructors and tell people to go around nosing reefs and caves provided they buy the new fad in gear.

So as not to confuse you, let me use an example that is not dive computers: today we typically dive with gear sets that include alternate second stages, but this wasn't always so, and when this technology was introduced, many made the same kinds of "shiny gear" accusation you have expressed above--that if people were (what the critics felt to be) properly trained, there would be no need for (what the critics termed) unscrupulous, money-grubbing dive instructors/shops/manufacturers to push this (to the critics' minds) unnecessary additional gear onto divers and students. Since you yourself have been recently certified, it's quite likely that during your OW training you were not taught the skill we call "buddy breathing." While this was a necessary skill to have when divers didn't routinely carry alternate air sources, it is no longer universally taught because advances in equipment (i.e., the advent of the alternate air source) have made it superfluous. There are still some instructors and divers out there who decry the omission of buddy breathing from the curriculum. Is there a risk that a diver's alternate will fail when his/her buddy needs it? Yes there is--it could happen. Does not teaching buddy breathing mean we are "blind" to this risk? No, it does not--it means that the risk is so small as to be inconsequential. Is the sky falling? No, it isn't.

You presume too much, you assume too much. I did learn buddy briefing and no, I never dove with alternate air supply as I never saw anyone diving with one. And even if we did use it, I would like to learn it, you never know.

What you propose is akin to always using parachutes to leave a plane, they are safe, fast and you would not risk breaking your neck exiting through an ladder. Do you know how many people die in ladders due to human mistakes? Parachutes are safe, we should teach passengers to use them and then be done with disembarking people.

You are confused (again) here. Certifications are not needed. There are no scuba police. For insurance reasons, most dive operators will require that anyone buying dive services be certified or under the care of a dive professional.

Thus they are required.

It would be entirely counter-productive for us as industry professionals to put ourselves in the position of encouraging divers to engage in behavior that is unequivocally dangerous.Not only would it be morally reprehensible (and we are human, after all), but we would also lose our businesses as we would be unable to buy an insurance policy.

Thus the sky is falling.

Claiming that dive industry professionals wantonly put their students and customers at unreasonable risk is not only ridiculous, but also highly insulting.

All of them? Not at all. The LDS/School I train on is quite respectable, some operations I've dived too. But there are many, that are not as nearly as moral as I would deem acceptable.

Computers do not vary "wildly." All of them provide the same basic information regarding depth, dive time, remaining bottom time. Some have a few more bells and whistles, and different manufacturers use different mathematical decompression models, but all are generally the same in terms of function. The main difference between one computer and the next from the perspective of the user is what sequence of buttons you push to access the information.

Yet they vary more than tables and as what varies is what matters in terms of learning: user interface. Then, yes. There are the ones with 1, 2, 3 buttons, some you have to hold buttons for x and y seconds so that it access some functions, some have its own way to navigate among data, they are not nearly as standard as tables.

Even if you count each table as completely different of the others, how many do you have? 6? And you get to teach only one. For computers there is no such thing, there are dozens of models.

Printed dive tables also vary in how you access the information, and like dive computers, because they are based on different mathematical models, the information you get from one table may be significantly different from the information you get from another. In other words, if you plan a specific dive with two set of tables, you are very likely to get two very different sets of results for bottom times, pressure groups, etc. I get the impression you are not aware of this basic fact.

Are we going for ad-hominen already? Well done samurai...

Yes I do know that there are different math models to determine values for tables or computers, and guess? Surprise, surprise! My computer has 3 configurable, which I chose, of course, the more conservative one, especially because I am a little fat and unfit and thus I probably suck in more N than the average human.

But none this matters, because you teach the user interface and not the algorithm, although I am under the impression that you can't distinguish those things.

As I said, all computers are similar in function, so there isn't any risk of two computers being "potentially very different." If a student has his/her own computer, s/he learns on that one. If not, I have rentals. No, I don't sell computers, but I will take students shopping to buy one, if they wish. During the shopping trip we can look at various brands and models to find the one that best meets the needs of the diver. When they buy one, if it is different from the rental they learned on, the transition is very easy. It's just a matter of learning which buttons to push. I just had a bunch of certified divers from a US naval vessel here diving, and they rented my computers along with BCDs and regs. They had absolutely no problem with the computers, even though they had never used that model before; in fact, it was so easy for them that they switched the units from metric to imperial and simply let me know that they'd done it so I could switch them back before I put them back into the rental locker. You are making a mountain out of a molehill about the minor differences in using one dive computer compared to the next.

Yet, none of this justify dropping tables.

No you don't have to use a table. Here are a couple of options you are apparently unaware of:
1) You could use the PADI ERDP-ML and never have to know how to trace a line on a table or flip a table to side 2 to see residual N2 loads. But then the ERDP-ML is nothing but a dive planning calculator, and you seem to want to reject electronic devices.

Said you. I want reject unnecessary cost, it is you that is putting words in my mouth trying to make it look like as if I am an technophobe, it seems to be a regular strategy around here. I am not, I program computers ever since I am 6, I love every kind of gadget and tend to collect them all.

But I am also not callous and thus I am able to think beyond my own needs and I can see that there is people that would enjoy diving and that would not be able to buy a computer right out of the bat and tables provide them that opportunity. The electronic gizmo, is slightly cheaper but has the same disadvantage.

I am also capable of seem value in knowledge, even when it is not directly apparent or applicable, specially concerning a dangerous activity people should be as informed as they humanly can be, dropping tables from curriculum do not go towards this goal in any form.

2) You could use any one of a number of dive planning software products out there and cut your own dive-specific tables. But then what is a dive computer if it isn't just a portable way of accessing a piece of software?

You seem not be reading what I've wrote as I already refuted devices as iPhones/iPods/Laptops etc. A table I can bring to the boat unconcerned that it will fall overboard or get wet, if somehow I lose it or it gets ruined somehow, it would be a small cost to replace it. I don't want to have to replace an iPod because it drowned.

Besides, are you teaching to plan dives through them? Are they part of the curriculum? What seems to me is that with diving computers, planning is being dropped altogether.

Anyway, even using tables doesn't free you up from doing dive planning between dives.

Erm... Did I EVER said that?

Your actual bottom time/depth/surface interval for a dive you have executed may be different from what you planned before the dive, so you'd need to recalculate anyway. But I'm sure you knew that, right?

Yes and as if this would make the computer less lacking for not being able to plan more than one dive per time.

A diving computer does not answer a simple question: I want to dive for 20 min at 30m, then I want do do second dive at 15m for 30min, how much surface time do I need, is it possible? Or do I have to shorten the first dive in order to do the second one?

Or else, I know how much of a maximum surface time I will have, the boat has a schedule that will not change giving me 45' of surface time, the first dive is a deep dive(30m) but rather uninteresting, the second one is much more aligned with what I like to see and it is a shallow one, I will want to dive it my full cylinder there, that is about 60' leaving the rock bottom for emergencies at depth 10m.

So how much time can I spend in the first dive that I can enjoy the second one to its fullest?

My computer can't do that. It can only tell me after the first dive, how much time I will have for the next one in its "planning" mode. If I overextended my stay at the first one, I will have to cut short my second dive. Rather unpleasant.

 

[Quero]

You presume too much, you assume too much. I did learn buddy briefing and no, I never dove with alternate air supply as I never saw anyone diving with one. And even if we did use it, I would like to learn it, you never know.

Are you sure about that? I don't know of any agency whose standards allow scuba instruction without both students and instructors having alternate air sources ("source" not "supply") as part of their required equipment. You must be confused (again). If you are confused about what an alternate air source is, it seems pretty likely you may also be confused about what buddy breathing is.

What you propose is akin to always using parachutes to leave a plane, they are safe, fast and you would not risk breaking your neck exiting through an ladder. Do you know how many people die in ladders due to human mistakes? Parachutes are safe, we should teach passengers to use them and then be done with disembarking people.

I have to admit, this made me laugh out loud! What in heaven does this have to do with anything? Notivago, I give up. With this last bit of far-fetched thinking of yours, I see the pointlessness of this conversation with you.

 

[Paladin]

Are you sure about that? I don't know of any agency whose standards allow scuba instruction without both students and instructors having alternate air sources ("source" not "supply") as part of their required equipment. You must be confused (again). If you are confused about what an alternate air source is, it seems pretty likely you may also be confused about what buddy breathing is.

The instructor who certified my oldest son, and will be certifying my youngest son soon, requires a mastery of the old-fashioned buddy-breathing technique before he grants a C-card. It's good, too, because I seldom carry a secondary. You see, I am a "vintage equipment" diver. My favorite regulator is a 1959 Aqua-Lung DA Aqua-Master double hose. I bet you couldn't even use one! Yet both my sons are proficient in buddy breathing with me.

He also teaches his classes using PADI TABLES and not a computer. He will sell you a computer and teach you how to use it, but not until after you have passed his class and are certified.

So, you see, all is not lost. There are, indeed, still instructors out there training SCUBA divers!

 

[Quero]

That's an excellent reason to learn that skill, Paladin, and kudos to you and your sons for having the skills you need to match your equipment configuration.

But that doesn't speak to my point in the part of my post that you quote, which is that I know of no agency that allows for instruction without the basic gear set including an alternate air source, and therefore the diver in question must have had one during the course, unless his instructor was breaking standards. And I still think it's possible that the diver in question may be confusing alternate air source use and buddy breathing (particularly since he also seems to be confusing alternate air source and redundant air supply). He is simply very confused.

You, of course, know that alternate air source use and buddy breathing are two entirely different responses to an OOA situation.

 

[ZenDiver.3D]

I teach how to use a computer. I teach tables. they have to understand what the tables mean, how to use them, and how to plan using both teh tables and the computer. We even compare the tables to the computer for their dives. I feel that is neccesary. For those who don't, so be it. But at the end of the day, more knowledge is always a good thing.

 

[Paladin]

I teach how to use a computer. I teach tables. they have to understand what the tables mean, how to use them, and how to plan using both teh tables and the computer. We even compare the tables to the computer for their dives. I feel that is necessary. For those who don't, so be it. But at the end of the day, more knowledge is always a good thing.

Sounds reasonable to me! Acquiring knowledge is never a wasted effort!

 

[Blackwood]

A diving computer does not answer a simple question: I want to dive for 20 min at 30m, then I want do do second dive at 15m for 30min, how much surface time do I need, is it possible? Or do I have to shorten the first dive in order to do the second one?

I believe many if not most computers are capable of planning dive sequences, but since I haven't used a computer in years I'll play along and assume they aren't.

Likewise there are limitations in what a table can tell you when used as intended, and there are principles of decompression which can not be directly demonstrated with a square profile table.

An instructor or dive agency must prioritize. I'm not the former nor do I represent the latter, but if I were I'd give more weight to the tool most likely to be employed by my students. Around here, that is overwhelmingly computers. Perhaps the agencies should offer distinctly different curricula for the various regions with different common practices, but ther couldn't be done without some strong disadvantages.

Maybe the answer is indeed teaching both, but your posts indicate a desire to prevent mandatory usage of computers in basic training for cost purposes.

Time is also a consideration. I've been lucky enough to participate in classes lasting literally more than a year. (So as not to misrepresent anything, the academic/classroom portions were probably roughly 24 hours total; it was in water work and fine tuning that lasted for an extended period.) But most people aren't lucky enough to have access to an instructor willing to devote that much time and attention on students, and likewise many students would likely shy away from it.

 

[notivago]

Are you sure about that? I don't know of any agency whose standards allow scuba instruction without both students and instructors having alternate air sources ("source" not "supply") as part of their required equipment.

I stand corrected, indeed we use alternate air sources(not supply).

You must be confused (again). If you are confused about what an alternate air source is, it seems pretty likely you may also be confused about what buddy breathing is.

For someone that just a couple messages back was whining about being ill treated you are quite eager to bash people yourself. Kudos.

Yes I was taught buddy breathing, although in a passing manner. Exchanging a single regulator among two person.

I have to admit, this made me laugh out loud! What in heaven does this have to do with anything? Notivago, I give up. With this last bit of far-fetched thinking of yours, I see the pointlessness of this conversation with you.

That's most likely because you lack a wee bit of imagination, so I will try to draw it to you, given two gears A and B, they can be used to accomplish a set of functions each, but there is a group C of functions that can be accomplished by both gears although in a slightly different way while C is can be achieved by A in cheap, known way, it can also be achieved by B in an flashy expensive way.

A here would be the ladder or the table, the ladder is used to get out of the plane on a regular way, no emergency as the table is for planning dives, a parachute can be used to get out of a plane on a non-critical situation as the computer can be used to "plan" your next dive but it is really an equipment for monitoring your dive as you go, it is a gauge(at least for now, the less expensive ones), it is good as a redundant way to tell you many things, from depth to air supply and NDL time and speed of ascent, but you can do away with both in most of the cases.

If you have it, it is better, it is cool, one day maybe parachutes will evolve to Jetpacks and they will be cheap enough so that every plane passenger can afford one and people would laugh at those times when you would have to walk down the plane or in emergencies use such primary thing as a parachute.

Diving computers are not cheap reliable Jetpacks yet.