PADI tables finally going away?

[The Chairman]

now whats the 120 rule for 32% nitrox?

It's the 140 rule (20% longer).

I know the answer to the question above, but what I dont know is how the rule of 120 changes for consecutive dives. Will it work or is one dive the limit for it?

Do you have a slide rule? It's pretty simple, really.

 

[BettyRubble]

Sorry for the delay in responding - I've been wreaking havic on other threads !

That's the point BR... tables are just another tool as well. If you don't know how to use a table, your death is certainly not imminent. Your understanding of diving physiology is not reduced one whit by learning to use one tool over another.

The dive tables step a person through the process. They make the person think about why they have to track their depth, their bottom time, etc. It is actually more likely to prompt analysis and thinking. Instead of the usual "Hey my computer was beeping when I was down there .. why do you think that is" mentality that happens with computers.

Having said that, as is always the case, there are exceptions. People can learn theory, tables and computers -- CAN but usually Don't. Wth the dummy-down versions of classes now, I don't see alot of emphasis put on the theory nor the tables. It is a quick looksy and then strap on the computer and do what it tells ya.

 

[300bar]

Do you have a slide rule? It's pretty simple, really.

I don't know HOW you work this Voodoo.:voodoo:
But this is what 1st came to my mind when this thread started.

And I do agree,for most rec. divers,tables are VooDoo, even if they [-]understand[/-] know how to use them.
Better train them well in the use of a PDC and let them dive safe.

On the other hand, when one wants to go beyond rescue diver, one should be retrained in table use.As a PADI instructor we only start table theorie at DM level.
In this I concurr with the PADI way of thinking,If one drives a car from A to B and back does the driver have a need to know how his/her carburator works.
Heck most just go down to look at the fishys, at max OW diving depth.

And that "OLD" adagem about PDC failing,been diving several of them for over 20 years,never happened sofar. (knock,knock) Just keep track of the battery indicator and carry a spare when on a trip.

 

[Tigerman]

I do use my tables for references when I dive, as well as my gas consumption..

As far as skipping table training I dont really see why we should. However basic computer usage and how they work should also be taught as they are part of most peoples equipment sooner or later.

 

[b1gcountry]

As I indicated in an earlier post, it should be up to the instructor and their students as to which method they should learn. Instead of proscribing ONLY tables or ONLY PCs, it should be up to us! Just like whether we teach in a snorkel or not. I'm a professional: let me decide how I want to teach my students.

I'll flip it around. Your students are ultimately responsible for themselves, they should be able to decide how they want to dive

Tom

 

[BettyRubble]

Why choose. Why not both.

 

[The Chairman]

I'll flip it around. Your students are ultimately responsible for themselves, they should be able to decide how they want to dive

Which is probably why we see more PDCs in use than tables. Excellent point.

 

[gypsyjim]

I think you would be valid in that, if we were trying to turn out craftman.. we are not.

Think of it this way...they used to build houses using nails and hammers...they don't anymore.. nails sure.. hammers, not so much. They don't start a new guy putting up framing with a hammer.. it takes too long.. they give him and train him with a nail gun.

Tables are not the science.. not the actual math... they are a simple representation of how to plan...so is a dive computer. But while one is a planner, the other is real time.... huge difference. The slide rule (perhaps abacus would be better) is a tool to calculate a value... a calculator does the same thing...so why don't we just keep using that slide rule? After all, the tactile feel and physical movement are essential to knowing the number is correct.

There is, however, something very dark about a dive computer, secretly doing strange calculations and telling you what to do....

I live in a farm house built with hammer and nails. Have had recent work done with air nailers. There is no comparison in quality, (although neither generation seemed to understand square and level) But at least the timbers were cut straight and not splintered by power guns in the hands of instant carpenters.
Considering the slap and dash construction I am witnessing these days I think it supports my point quite well about good basic training of the fundamentals first, and then moving on to the new tools. Both methods get results, but one turns out a better quality product.
Same as some groups of instructors turn out much safer, more competant divers, than others. I am NOT saying the tables/computer issue is the factor in this at all, just that some do a good job of basic training and some cut out too much to crank out instant divers.
No matter what tool you choose to teach a student to use, you can turn out either a good or inferior product. THAT is more the result of thourough competent teaching than what tool one chooses. I like knowing how to use both the tables and my computer.

 

[MSilvia]

First, I don't even own a dive computer anymore, and rarely do any dives, recreational or technical, where I would see much advantage if I did so.

That said, it seems to me that which method is taught has a lot to do with your objective. If you want to teach someone to be able to get in the water, do a dive, and get back out safely, a computer is fine. If all you're interested in is when to end the dive, it'll do.

OTOH, if you want to teach someone to be a knowledgable and self-reliant diver, I personally don't see how you can do that without teaching tables... not just how to use them, but also their limitations and why they work the way they do.

 

[UCFKnightDiver]

It's the 140 rule (20% longer). Do you have a slide rule? It's pretty simple, really.

acctually I think you subtract 20% of your depth which would give you your equivalent air depth not sure if 140 works will have to look at the tables, also adding 20% of 120 to 120 would not give you 140...