OP
Ugh GUE goes tabular
- Thread starter rjack321
- 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
Blackwood
Contributor
lol, and the Halcyon ERDPML.
[ mod: copied this over from the other thread in the DIR forum on the same subject -- Lamont ]
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,
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,
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
DIR- GUE
GUE Compatible BPW
