GUE goes tabular

[rjack321]

IMO, the fact that we can have a discussion of PADI vs. NAUI vs. NOAA vs. Navy vs. GUE tables is due to the fact that at one point we all learned tables. Skipping that step completely in a recreational course would be omitting a useful point of reference.

Most of us (all?) learned on air too. GUE seems to be skipping that tho.

Some agencies (SSI?) now have tables as an option to computers from the get go.

 

[Scott L]

The Rec 1 book unfortunately is even worse. It's set up for screen resolution (72 dpi) only. It's readable if printed, but not great.

Just a pet peeve of mine. Other than download size, there is absolutely no reason to electronically publish in so-so resolution. Especially when you must know that most people will print to read.

Henrik

Geez, I checked again, it is clear to me and I wear 225's now. If you want to talk small font the fundies syllabus is absurdly small IMO. I am not kidding that I purchased a magnifying glass to read. JJ is into his 40's now so hopefully different formats will be chosen in the near future...

 

[HenrikBP]

Geez, I checked again it is clear to me and I wear 225's now. If you want to talk small font the fundies syllabus is absurdly small IMO.

I know I'm picky and you're spot on about the Fundies syllabus.

Henrik

 

[lamont]

Some agencies (SSI?) now have tables as an option to computers from the get go.

So GUE should promote the use of computers from the start?

 

[TSandM]

I think Richard is just saying that having tables because everybody else has tables is a bad reason to have tables

 

[rjack321]

I think Richard is just saying that having tables because everybody else has tables is a bad reason to have tables

Its not much reason at all, esp. copying a 32% only table when an air table -20% EAD derived from their own software is fairly well established (which you pointed out, although it will have an "incorrect" ascent shape).

 

[Trace Malinowski]

I don't know where GUE got the tables, either ...

I thought GUE tables were made by Black & Decker and came from the hardware store.

 

[M_Bipartitus]

I thought GUE tables were made by Black & Decker and came from the hardware store.

They work, but you need to modify them so that they can be cut apart in an emergency.

 

[Jarrod]

Greetings,
This thread came to my attention. It is unfortunate we struggle to find time to contribute on these forums because in general they provide a potentially great source of information. I am in the midst of travel (wifi in planes is a great advent) and likely not able to do much back and forth but I thought I would speak broadly to some of these points.

From my perspective all divers need to learn and be familiar with tables. I regularly use tables to this day as guesstimates are silly with aggressive and/or complex decompressions. In general I don't accept the idea that using a computer or any iteration of ratio relieves this responsibility. I believe divers should understand where this information comes from, be able to work a basic set of tables and understand how to make basic comparisons between strategies and/or algorithms. Various methodologies (ratio, PC, other tables, computers etc) are reasonable choices to be made by educated divers but I think they should be able to refer to a basic foundation to make comparisons with a relatively well known baseline. This is the reason we are teaching tables (along with our other strategies) and why we refer to Decoplanner when teaching ratio deco. Our tables are not meant to be aggressive and when paired with a slow ascent and the stops we require as part of our training I think they represent a fair compromise. They are basically NOAA tables in origin and build upon a well proven historical record with current GUE principles interwoven.

We have roughly a dozen GUE Rec 1 trained divers. I am not the least bit disappointed with this especially given the newness of the program, the limited number of instructors, the careful process we use to create instructors, the lack of a "crossover" in our agency and the huge departure this class represents (cost and time). Having finalized the Rec 3 program and fleshing out the last of the R2 program has helped us refine areas that we can spread out some of the academic content (part of the plan since the beginning) so I expect this class to be slightly shorter over the midterm. We decided to bulid the full program, teach for a bit and then evaluate areas where student quality would not suffer from adjustments. We always prefer to overteach and slowly refine the program over time.

As for the tables we will produce them for classes in the near term and I will look into the low res comments mentioned by some. My apologies for any inconvenience.

Best,

 

[Kevrumbo]

<snip>From my perspective all divers need to learn and be familiar with tables. I regularly use tables to this day as guesstimates are silly with aggressive and/or complex decompressions. In general I don't accept the idea that using a computer or any iteration of ratio relieves this responsibility. I believe divers should understand where this information comes from, be able to work a basic set of tables and understand how to make basic comparisons between strategies and/or algorithms. Various methodologies (ratio, PC, other tables, computers etc) are reasonable choices to be made by educated divers but I think they should be able to refer to a basic foundation to make comparisons with a relatively well known baseline. This is the reason we are teaching tables (along with our other strategies) and why we refer to Decoplanner when teaching ratio deco. Our tables are not meant to be aggressive and when paired with a slow ascent and the stops we require as part of our training I think they represent a fair compromise. They are basically NOAA tables in origin and build upon a well proven historical record with current GUE principles interwoven.<snip>

USC Catalina Hyperbaric Chamber

There's no digital computer controlling the hyperbaric chamber, nor tracking the N2 loading of patient, tender & physician here --it's all human analog control of chamber machine, pressure mechanics & breathing gas delivery plumbing; manual base 60 arithmetic for elapsed time calculations; handwritten data-logging, patient charting and hard copy referenced dive & treatment tables --the rationale being that an emergency hyperbaric oxygen treatment at this remote onsite Advanced Life Support Facility at the west end of Catalina Island should never depend upon primary electronics that may be incapacitated by a mainline power failure. [Jarrod and GUE have a similar philosophy regarding electronics vs manual control in the operation of Rebreathers].

You must know and already be familiar with the basic methodolgy of working with dive tables (especially this one: http://college.usc.edu/hyperbaric/documents/hugi.pdf), if you ever want to work/volunteer at the above recompression chamber. (It's also good in general to be familiar with tables as well, should you ever have to be treated in one ). . .They'll always be useful despite rhetorical attempts to label them as archaic or obsolete compared to the algorithms and convenience of the modern dive computer --(got that Pete /NetDoc??)

The point is from my perspective and experience:

A good grounding in fundamental dive tables will always serve you, especially when that dive computer --or that laptop/desktop/PDA computer loaded with Decoplanner software-- goes kaput . . .(or you screw-up with a "silly guesstimate, aggressive and/or complex decompressions" on your Ratio Deco profile).

Regards & Good Diving,

Kevin Rumbaoa
Volunteer Crew Intern
USC Catalina Hyperbaric Chamber
Los Angeles County General Hospital/USC Medical Center
Dept of Emergency Medicine