PADI tables finally going away?

[Kingpatzer]

1. Don't trust electronics (they will fail at some point, guaranteed).

So will mechanical devices. This means that bottom timers (which are almost all electronic these days) and depth gauges don't get a pass when talking about the use of tables for diving.

2. Every diver should know what to do when electronics fail, so repetitive use of tables and standardising of gasses means knowing what deco you need from memory for every dive.

We're talking about recreational level diving, not diving that requires decompression stops. The bail-out procedures for gauge/computer failure for recreational diving is still taught and students are expected to demonstrate knowledge of that procedure prior to certification.

3. Planning a dive effectively, with your buddy or team, means that you can plan for contingencies together.

Again, recreational contingencies around equipment failures are standard and extensively emphasized in classroom, pool and open water.

4. Dive planning and the correct use of tables is essential for any diver moving towards use of Nitrox or multi-level diving, in order to understand all the issues with oxygen and inert gas tracking, which is crucial for repetitive diving such as on a liveaboard trip.

Not really. Deco for Divers doesn't use tables and I learned more about the subject from that than I ever did from my TDI books and associated tables.

Training should not be solely about making money from the diving community; it should be about fully equipping divers for their diving career.

I'm not aware of a single instructor on this board that disagrees with that statement or fails to live up to the sentiment behind it.

 

[boulderjohn]

I like this it is a good discussion.

How much of it did you read? I ask because you are repeating statements that have been dealt with over and over again in the thread.

Every computer is programed with the same knowledge (TABLES) no matter how much you payed for it. They all run off the info they are programed with. What makes most computers different is the features and options but the math is always the same.

That is not true. Different computers have different algorithms. They really work sifferently from tables.

The tables need to be #1 in class because it is what makes the difference between a good and bad dive.

How so? I myself do not use computers often today for a number of reasons, but I have used them a lot in the past and seen them used by thousands of divers around the world in my travels. I have never once seen anyone on a recreational dive use tables. People seem to be enjoying their dives. I have never seen anyone come up from a dive and say, "Man that was a bad dive. If only I had used tables!"

You're tables can't malfunction but the computer can.

This one has been handled maybe a hundred times on this thread. Your watch can malfunction. Your depth gauge can malfunction.

If you dont know you're tables how can you tell if the computer is out of wack.

As I have said several times, I used to have a dive watch that on several occasions would stop for 5-10 minutes and then get going again. The only way I would know is when I would notice later that it no longer matched real time. How would I know if that happened during a dive?

1. Don't trust electronics (they will fail at some point, guaranteed).

Again, everything else associated with them can fail.

2. Every diver should know what to do when electronics fail, so repetitive use of tables and standardising of gasses means knowing what deco you need from memory for every dive.

We are talking about OW instruction, not deco diving.

3. Planning a dive effectively, with your buddy or team, means that you can plan for contingencies together.

The same planning can be done via computer.

4. Dive planning and the correct use of tables is essential for any diver moving towards use of Nitrox or multi-level diving, in order to understand all the issues with oxygen and inert gas tracking, which is crucial for repetitive diving such as on a liveaboard trip.

Why do you need tables to explain tissue loading? As a matter of fact, showing a computer profile with its graphs showing different tissue loading at different depths and times is more effective.

 

[John_B]

Every computer is programed with the same knowledge (TABLES) no matter how much you payed for it. They all run off the info they are programed with. What makes most computers different is the features and options but the math is always the same.

Not true. Different dive computer manufacturers use different algorithms and even those that use the same algorithms weight certain factors differently. Some even claim their proprietary algorithms give them a competitive advantage.

 

[Paladin]

I keep reading posts where the posters claim to have never seen anyone using tables for a dive. You guys just haven't been to the right places. In my area, everyone uses tables and, as far as I know, I'm the only one in my group of divers who even owns a computer.

Around here, you'll see tables popping out all over the place before a dive.

 

[drrich2]

In my area, everyone uses tables and, as far as I know, I'm the only one in my group of divers who even owns a computer.

Around here, you'll see tables popping out all over the place before a dive.

I've got a question, not to argue your point but just to satisfy my curiosity. What sort of diving are folks doing in your area? Are we talking mainly quarry dives, lake dives, coastal charter boat dives, an even split or what? Are most people doing 2 tank dives?

I'm trying to get a sense of whether there's another factor in play, or whether a computer's built-in 'multi-level' nitrogen loading allowance for not spending your whole dive at its greatest depth would be an asset for the diving folks do there, compared to tables, or not.

Richard.

 

[Paladin]

I've got a question, not to argue your point but just to satisfy my curiosity. What sort of diving are folks doing in your area? Are we talking mainly quarry dives, lake dives, coastal charter boat dives, an even split or what? Are most people doing 2 tank dives?

I'm trying to get a sense of whether there's another factor in play, or whether a computer's built-in 'multi-level' nitrogen loading allowance for not spending your whole dive at its greatest depth would be an asset for the diving folks do there, compared to tables, or not.

Richard.

Naturally it varies from diver to diver but, generally, the dives pretty much run the gambit from quarries, rivers and lakes to weekend runs over to the coast. One of our state's most popular dive spots is Summersville Lake with depths up to 300 feet (not that anyone actually goes that deep). Two and three tank dives are common and the average dive in the lake is to a depth of 70 feet. The deepest I've been is to 130 ffw but I usually limit my depth to 80 ft or less.

Divers from around here often go over to the coast to dive the NC and SC wrecks, and Florida is a popular destination for dive trips, as is Lake Erie.

The old skills are still very much alive with the divers I associate with. Multi-level dives can be planned using tables with a few, simple steps that are learned in OW class. The instructor at the LDS I go to (and who certified my son) teaches the tables exclusively and the instruction is thorough. Students don't do their open water dives until they can demonstrate an adequate proficiency in the use of tables. The dive computer is mentioned during training as a convenience but students are cautioned to rely on their skills rather than technology when planning and executing dives. If, after certification, a student wants to buy a computer, the LDS will order one, but their purchase and use are not pushed on students.

I'm sure that there are divers outside of my personal circle that have computers. I just haven't come across any.

It is common around here to see divers hunched over tables before a dive. Myself, I have both the Navy tables and the more conservative PADI tables. If I'm diving with my son or someone else who hasn't been diving very long, I use the PADI tables. If I'm diving solo, I'll just whip out the Navy tables. In a pinch, I'll use the old "Rule of 120."

I bought my computer mostly out of curiosity because of all the hype I've read here on the board. After I got it, I took it with me on a few dives, planned multi-level dives using the tables and made my dives according to my plans. I compared the results after the dives and found there wasn't a significant difference.

But for most of my diving, I just plan a simple square profile based on the deepest that I plan to go. Diving a steel 72 or an AL80, it usually works out that I end the dive with an adequate air reserve in the tank. I do my surface interval according to the tables (regardless of whether I've used my computer or not) and plan my next splash accordingly.

I admit that computers might be convenient in some situations, but they certainly aren't an absolute necessity, IMO.

 

[Carsten Wolff]

I've been diving since 1979 and done around 1600 dives worldwide. At work we have dive computers, but are not allowed to use them (!) as primary dive management tool, as we are legally bound to use DCIEM tables. Personally, I've been using dive computers since about the mid-90's, but the tables are now so engrained in my head that I know when I'm done for the day anyway.
- just my 2 cents. What I'd like to add is both technologies have merits and should be seen as complementing each other. Nothing wrong with fail-safe!
Take it easy guys!

 

[diverrex]

I keep reading posts where the posters claim to have never seen anyone using tables for a dive. You guys just haven't been to the right places. In my area, everyone uses tables and, as far as I know, I'm the only one in my group of divers who even owns a computer.

Around here, you'll see tables popping out all over the place before a dive.

On boat dives in Southern California the divemaster will usually ask "Anyone not using a computer?" Out of 20 - 30 divers usually zero or maybe just 1 are not using computers. Now many of the DIR crowd out here don't use them but I suspect they just don't bother speaking up when the DM asks that question.

 

[Rubber Duckie]

There is a lot of talk about what if the computer craps out on you? If mine failed in the water then I would end the dive. I also keep a set of the dive tables in my dive box so I could use them if needed.

Someone mentioned writing the NDL's on a slate. I have never done that but that sounds like a good idea.

 

[The Chairman]

1. Don't trust electronics (they will fail at some point, guaranteed).

I had to laugh out loud at this. To date, I have not lost a single dive to faulty electronics. I do know, without a doubt, that most of my buddies have been narced below 80. Back when I used tables, many of them forgot to set their watch as they submerged, or checked it as they surfaced. A few of them SCREAMED to the surface, completely blowing off a safety stop. A few groups of them encountered a deeper than planned dive and ended up surfacing with an unplanned and missed deco obligation. I could go on and on about all of the HUMAN errors I have seen while diving.

But really: not one PDC (Personal Diving Computer) error that cost anyone a single dive. No, not one!

2. Every diver should know what to do when electronics fail,

They won't if they don't learn and train for it.

so repetitive use of tables and standardising of gasses means knowing what deco you need from memory for every dive.

Sounds like a lot of needless work: a solution in search of a problem.

3. Planning a dive effectively, with your buddy or team, means that you can plan for contingencies together.

This is true for those diving PDCs as well.

4. Dive planning and the correct use of tables is essential for any diver moving towards use of Nitrox or multi-level diving, in order to understand all the issues with oxygen and inert gas tracking, which is crucial for repetitive diving such as on a liveaboard trip.

Shenanigans! Make that a double shenanigans. Tables are not essential for any of that.

Training should not be solely about making money from the diving community; it should be about fully equipping divers for their diving career.

Nor should training be confined to using old, antiquated methodologies to bolster your ego. Divers should be taught to use the tools that they will be using while diving. The survey says that the bulk of active divers use a PDC to plan and execute their diving. Forcing tables on them while denying them the training they need to use PDCs puts them at a distinct disadvantage in terms of fun and safety. Suggesting that they only teach differently from you is "solely about making money from the diving community" only shows how skewed your perspective has become. In short, I find that kind of vitriol short sighted, inflammatory and ignorant. You should be ashamed for suggesting that kind of tripe.