Interesting - my local LDS (Diver Dan's in the Bay Area) provides console mounted Oceanic computers for all rentals and OW classes. I thought that in 2009, that this was standard fare here in the US...
PADI tables finally going away?
- Thread starter jgros79
- Start date
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
I am not going to pick nits or get in spitting contest with you, but the fact is I did not see you at work today at the US Dept of Education and last I knew you had not spent any significant portion of your career in Higher Education, or working with high school students transitioning to college, or evaluating education programs for effectiveness and performance.
You are also trying to confuse the issue. Regardless of when your kids were told to get calculators, they learned the basic mathmatic and algebraic operations without them and the fact remains that the graphing or algebraic functions of today's more advanced calculators are not generally allowed in the initial phases of the average algebra or calculus class as the teachers and profs what to ensure students know how to actually do it rather than just enter numbers in a calculator. Students may have them and use them in classes, but it is an addition to instruction in the foundation skills.
With regard to diving, the use of tables does not require math beyond substracting one or two digit numbers from each other, but math is not the issue, understanding the concepts of decompression is. Tables remain an effective way to teach them regardless of whether the student goes on to use a computer.
You are a scuba instructor, don't over state the case. There is just not much time to cover a substantial amount of learning theory in the average instructor course, so being a professional scuba instructor does not make you an expert on learning theory.
I certainly support your right to teach your class any way you want, but I have always been big on informed choice and I think its important for any potential students reading this thread to understand the potential downsides of a computer only class.
There is a difference between churning out divers and producing capable, knowledgeable and confident divers and today's OW courses make that especially difficult, opting not to teach tables is a further move in the wrong direction.
Wow! When I started reading this thread I never realized how strong the opinions would be!
I personally dive with a redundant system - having both a standard console and a separate computer. I always run my tables for my plan so I have a starting base for all dives. - find it much easier than messing with the computer.
I teach the NAUI tables and spend a lot of time on them. And I stress the importance of understanding the tables because I know most of my students are not going to buy - they are going to rent - and they are not going to get a computer when they rent. Our rental gear has both computer reg setups and standard. I give one of each to buddy pairs so they learn both.
Most of my dive buddys have computers but don't know anything but the little line that goes up the side and the number that says "times up." I find that most divers are not self sufficient because they don't truly understand theory (which comes with understanding tables) so they become followers and slaves to those computers.
On my recent trip to Bonaire with a group that was diving computers, not one of them understood the concepts of planning for repetitive dives and nitrogen loading. They just wanted to dive as deep and as long as the computer let them for the current dive - and then were surprised when the next dive only gave them 20 minutes at 40 feet.
So I'm not sold on computer only learning. One more vote for the tables.
I personally dive with a redundant system - having both a standard console and a separate computer. I always run my tables for my plan so I have a starting base for all dives. - find it much easier than messing with the computer.
I teach the NAUI tables and spend a lot of time on them. And I stress the importance of understanding the tables because I know most of my students are not going to buy - they are going to rent - and they are not going to get a computer when they rent. Our rental gear has both computer reg setups and standard. I give one of each to buddy pairs so they learn both.
Most of my dive buddys have computers but don't know anything but the little line that goes up the side and the number that says "times up." I find that most divers are not self sufficient because they don't truly understand theory (which comes with understanding tables) so they become followers and slaves to those computers.
On my recent trip to Bonaire with a group that was diving computers, not one of them understood the concepts of planning for repetitive dives and nitrogen loading. They just wanted to dive as deep and as long as the computer let them for the current dive - and then were surprised when the next dive only gave them 20 minutes at 40 feet.
So I'm not sold on computer only learning. One more vote for the tables.
The Chairman
Chairman of the Board
Since when has Scuba been considered "Higher" education? Deeper maybe, but not higher!
You don't need to be a professor to teach the somewhat simple concepts that comprise diving. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you can't provide ANY studies linking the understanding of decompression theory with the teaching of tables. Talk about trying to CONFUSE the issue. You are attacking me rather than attacking the FACTS and the PREMISES that I have presented. The issues stand or fall on their own, and have little to do with my lack of academia.
You have yet to demonstrate that computers are NOT an effective way to teach deco theory. I merely suggest that we teach students to use the tools they are going to employ while diving.
I am a PROFESSIONAL. Please do not denigrate me or my profession.
You assume a LOT and have yet to make a real correlation between your assumption that somehow tables are the only (much less best) way to learn deco theory. You are couching your opinion as something much more than that.
Thanks. I'll let it stand at that. I simply don't buy into your superannuated practice of teaching on antique equipment.
As an aside, what I see here is nothing short of technophobia. People are apprehensive of these gadgets and have translated their fears into shouting about how these advances will "rot your brain" or debilitate students into mere shadows of those divers who learned the "proper" way of diving. Google technophobia and see if you don't fit into the definition here. I promise you this: you won't die! At least, not because of a computer.
Eric Sedletzky
Contributor
I'm sure the way things are going tables will be a thing of the past at some point in the near future. Too bad really, I think it's a simple and economical way to go if someone doesn't have the money for a computer right away.
I used to dive with a computer and became quite reliant on it. Then one day I had a mishap and lost it in the ocean, so I went back to tables. I've been diving tables now again for about 3 years and haven't seen the need to buy another computer yet, besides, I'm too cheap.
For the type of dives I do a computer really isn't necessary.
If I had the time and money to go to faraway lavish dive vacations on live aboards then maybe I would have to get one to make them happy, but I'm so used to doing it in my head I would probably forget to even look at it.
Who knows, maybe if all the agencies dump the tables then they will become the hot new vintage thing along with double hose regs and oval masks.
We'll have to make laminated copies of navy tables then have secret classes in someones basement to teach all the infidels and deviants how to use them.
I used to dive with a computer and became quite reliant on it. Then one day I had a mishap and lost it in the ocean, so I went back to tables. I've been diving tables now again for about 3 years and haven't seen the need to buy another computer yet, besides, I'm too cheap.
For the type of dives I do a computer really isn't necessary.
If I had the time and money to go to faraway lavish dive vacations on live aboards then maybe I would have to get one to make them happy, but I'm so used to doing it in my head I would probably forget to even look at it.
Who knows, maybe if all the agencies dump the tables then they will become the hot new vintage thing along with double hose regs and oval masks.
We'll have to make laminated copies of navy tables then have secret classes in someones basement to teach all the infidels and deviants how to use them.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think anyone is afraid of the awesome technology in a dive computer. I don't have a dishwasher but it's not because it's too high tech for me to figure out.
I think there's a lot of arguments all the way around that are off point.
I think there's a lot of arguments all the way around that are off point.
brutus_scuba
Guest
Here's my two cents worth:
Teaching tables vs. Computers gets down to a more fundamental principle in my mind. We aren't teaching enough in Open Water classes.
-Do you use different sizes and style tanks in your class? Or do you mandate that they are only certified do dive Aluminum 80s after certification?
-Are OW dive classes covering gas cooling in the first stage as the drop from Supply Pressure to Intermediate Pressure occurs and why that's a bigger issue in fresh water than salt water?
-Should you need to take a new class when you get a new BC since we want to teach the gear you're going to be diving.
The reason it's okay to use an Aluminum 80, and students don't need to get recertified every time they buy a new BCD is because we teach the general concepts, and allow students to promote their education themselves. We give students the information they need to dive safely. The hard part is deciding what the minimal amount of knowledge should be.
I would teach the tables, for the same reason that I wouldn't use double-95s to teach an OW student. If they stay within the tables it is safer, and as they progress to deeper diving they will learn the techniques required and educate themselves and slowly build.
Net-Doc you said that students don't know what to do when the alarms go off on their computer because they were never taught how to use the computer? What alarms are you talking about?
-Accent alarms? The student should not be learning assent rates from their computer they should be learning them from the instructor. Watching good examples of slow accents, and gaining the feel for what a 30ft/min accent feels like.
-PP02 warnings? I hope you don't have OW students that deep?
-NDL Limit? Have you taken OW students into DECO, or even approached a 3 minute warning alarm? Did the computer explain to them at that point how to calculate their off-gassing depth.
I am looking at the IANTD tables and at 60feet a diver has a NDL of 51 minutes. A new diver is going to run out of air at 60 feet before they hit 51 minutes. After just one hour the student would have 25 minutes of RNT, leaving them with another 26 minute dive, after two hours the diver has 37 minutes at 60 feet. This is at the maximum depth for the OW diver. On the RDP these times would be even longer.
I want tables to be in a new divers mind because if they mind the tables during their first couple of dives they'll see the discrepency in time that a computer allows and maybe that will trigger the thought in the divers head "Just because I make a dive and the computer tells me I'm A-Ok, doesn't guarantee me anything" I need to be careful at all times, not push my limits too far, balance the computer and the tables. I want divers to understand that these tables and computers are theories and alogorithims not laws, and they need to own their risk. Computers will let you dive longer, deep, and that increases your level or risk and they should understand that.
Divers should not be diving close to NDLS their first couple of dives anyway so use the tables to regulate dive times, and let them explore and learn with the computers, maybe an AOW class, or a lecture when you buy a computer is exactly the right time to learn. Or maybe we should do more than 4 OW check out dives and let the divers expierence both there.
Teaching tables vs. Computers gets down to a more fundamental principle in my mind. We aren't teaching enough in Open Water classes.
-Do you use different sizes and style tanks in your class? Or do you mandate that they are only certified do dive Aluminum 80s after certification?
-Are OW dive classes covering gas cooling in the first stage as the drop from Supply Pressure to Intermediate Pressure occurs and why that's a bigger issue in fresh water than salt water?
-Should you need to take a new class when you get a new BC since we want to teach the gear you're going to be diving.
The reason it's okay to use an Aluminum 80, and students don't need to get recertified every time they buy a new BCD is because we teach the general concepts, and allow students to promote their education themselves. We give students the information they need to dive safely. The hard part is deciding what the minimal amount of knowledge should be.
I would teach the tables, for the same reason that I wouldn't use double-95s to teach an OW student. If they stay within the tables it is safer, and as they progress to deeper diving they will learn the techniques required and educate themselves and slowly build.
Net-Doc you said that students don't know what to do when the alarms go off on their computer because they were never taught how to use the computer? What alarms are you talking about?
-Accent alarms? The student should not be learning assent rates from their computer they should be learning them from the instructor. Watching good examples of slow accents, and gaining the feel for what a 30ft/min accent feels like.
-PP02 warnings? I hope you don't have OW students that deep?
-NDL Limit? Have you taken OW students into DECO, or even approached a 3 minute warning alarm? Did the computer explain to them at that point how to calculate their off-gassing depth.
I am looking at the IANTD tables and at 60feet a diver has a NDL of 51 minutes. A new diver is going to run out of air at 60 feet before they hit 51 minutes. After just one hour the student would have 25 minutes of RNT, leaving them with another 26 minute dive, after two hours the diver has 37 minutes at 60 feet. This is at the maximum depth for the OW diver. On the RDP these times would be even longer.
I want tables to be in a new divers mind because if they mind the tables during their first couple of dives they'll see the discrepency in time that a computer allows and maybe that will trigger the thought in the divers head "Just because I make a dive and the computer tells me I'm A-Ok, doesn't guarantee me anything" I need to be careful at all times, not push my limits too far, balance the computer and the tables. I want divers to understand that these tables and computers are theories and alogorithims not laws, and they need to own their risk. Computers will let you dive longer, deep, and that increases your level or risk and they should understand that.
Divers should not be diving close to NDLS their first couple of dives anyway so use the tables to regulate dive times, and let them explore and learn with the computers, maybe an AOW class, or a lecture when you buy a computer is exactly the right time to learn. Or maybe we should do more than 4 OW check out dives and let the divers expierence both there.
Scared Silly
Contributor
The tables teach about nitrogen loading for a square profile, the wheel teaches about nitrogen loading for a multi-level profile. A computer does all of the calculating automatically. So from my perspective the tables are tool for understanding theory while the computer is a tool that calculates everything without providing the theory (i.e. it is a black box).
Similarly, I can find the square root of a number using several methods. Newtons is probably the easiest. I can also grab a calculator and press the sqrt button.
The problem I have with dive computers is that they are terrible teaching tools. Perhaps I have not thought about it well enough but given that most computer's simulation is limited to a square profile I find it hard to get across the idea of multi-levels and getting credit when you go up. The best I can do is say if you see yourself getting close to a deco (by whatever mechanism your computer displays) go up 15-30 feet.
As for that silly little bar graph on the side of many computers that shows your nitrogen loading. Worthless information IMHO.
Similarly, I can find the square root of a number using several methods. Newtons is probably the easiest. I can also grab a calculator and press the sqrt button.
The problem I have with dive computers is that they are terrible teaching tools. Perhaps I have not thought about it well enough but given that most computer's simulation is limited to a square profile I find it hard to get across the idea of multi-levels and getting credit when you go up. The best I can do is say if you see yourself getting close to a deco (by whatever mechanism your computer displays) go up 15-30 feet.
As for that silly little bar graph on the side of many computers that shows your nitrogen loading. Worthless information IMHO.
deco_martini
Contributor
In the accidents forum I posted a thread linking the recently released DAN report for last year.
Tidbit:
The most commonly reported equipment problems involved dive computers (1.3% of dives).
I haven't used tables since I was OW certified. However, tables do work 100% of the time. No reason to drop them from the curriculum. If PADI still uses the mega-tables, maybe they could scale back and use nasds/ssi tables. The ssi tables are succinct enough to remember cookie cutter dives and deco stops, which is nice when you are the 1.3 percent guy.
Tidbit:
The most commonly reported equipment problems involved dive computers (1.3% of dives).
I haven't used tables since I was OW certified. However, tables do work 100% of the time. No reason to drop them from the curriculum. If PADI still uses the mega-tables, maybe they could scale back and use nasds/ssi tables. The ssi tables are succinct enough to remember cookie cutter dives and deco stops, which is nice when you are the 1.3 percent guy.
Similar threads
