Are dive computers making bad divers?

[kelemvor]

It is becoming more and more frequent that I find myself with divers who are extremely computer dependent. Since computers are becoming a dime a dozen, I am not sure if this is a bad thing. I asked one of the divers I was with if she was able to plan and conduct dives without a computer and she told me that she has over 200 dives but was never trained on tables.

How many of you guys do dives without computers? For those senior divers who have been diving since before the computer revolution, do you feel that the new generation has been idiotized by computers, or no.

Absolutely! Computers, Buoyancy compensators, and SPG's are all a crutch that real divers don't need! Don't even get me started on that voodoo gas stuff you kids are using these days...


Now, get off my lawn!

 

[Bubble_blower87]

I'm pretty new to diving, cant say one way or another. I do have to say since it's cold and I am not currently diving, I have enjoyed learning the tables since it's just something else to do to keep me interested. If anyone has any other information I could do or learn just for fun, I am all ears. Being that I was certified with SDI....not to much time was spent on tables at all.

 

[Rusty Roo]

computer does not create a bad diver. reasoning, power steering in a car doesn't make you a bad driver just makes parking easier.

 

[NAM001]

cmputers take the thought process away rom the diver. Its most positive aspect is that it is dynamic second to second. square round curly Q profiles is handled by the puter better than any table can do.

Story a friend (fellow chief in the navy bought a truck used, the speedometer was metric and had miles / hr in the small print of the face. we went out drinking and afer last call we headed home. I lost him on the highway, left him in the dirt doing the speed limit. turns out he was driving 60 km/hr and I was driving 60 miles / hr. he tried to keep up but was afraid to driver 90. so he stayed at 60. CHP stopped him for suspicious driving (40 mph) and got him for DWI.

Moral is that he did not recognize that when all traffic was passing him that perhaps his speed was faulty and not everyone elses. He did not look at the scenery to see if he felt he was going faster or slower than what the speedometer said he was. He got a DWI lost his license and more because he did not understand his instrumentation and that the interpretation of that instrumentation was wrong.

 

[Storker]

Tables are stupid.

They are? I've never tried to strike up a conversation with one, so I guess I'll have to take you on your word there.

Tables are antiquated.

Oh, crap. I guess I have to throw mine away, then, if I want become one of the cool kids.

Tables aren't responsive or flexible.

Which is a good thing, since they'd be crumpled up beyond recognition and completely unreadable after only a small handful of outings.



Tables are also much quicker and easier to use for planning than the computer is. I can plan a simple rec dive on my PADI RDP before you've even turned on your computer. You'll still be pushing those buttons to get into planning mode when I've put my table back in my bag and started assembling my kit. I can even plan a multilevel dive (albeit only two depths, but that's good enough for the level of planning I feel comfortable with) on it with decent conservatism. Somewhere between my 50th and my 100th dive, I had collected enough experience to remember the approximate no-stop times at different depths to plan my dive from memory rather than using some kind of aid - usually my tables.

I'll admit, though, that a computer was one of the first things I bought when I started to buy my own gear, and I haven't dived on tables since I certified OW. But I still use them for my time/depth pre-dive planning. As I said, I find my tables a lot quicker and easier for that purpose than my PDC. Push a button, wait, read, push a button, wait, read, push a button...

I would teach tables only if a student begged me to teach them and my opinion of that student would drop accordingly. People who feel tables are important to learn are just as deluded as those who feel that the Commodore is still a viable computing platform.

I can only assume that you're deliberately here.

---------- Post added November 26th, 2015 at 01:09 PM ----------

He got a DWI lost his license and more because he did not understand his instrumentation and that the interpretation of that instrumentation was wrong.

Oh. I though he got a DWI because he was, like, DWI...

 

[The Chairman]

Tables are also much quicker and easier to use for planning than the computer is.

Your brain is far quicker. The rule of 120/140 is far easier and I don't have to even find a table. Tables can't help you gas plan either. It's better to think through the dive than blindly follow anything.

I can only assume that you're deliberately here.

No, I'm not. Tables are to decompression as PDCs are to decompression. They're equal in that regard and neither do an adequate job. Decompression theory is so much more than either. However, complicating the discussion with letter groups simply leaves most students dazed and confused. I'm going to train my students with the equipment they are most likely to use.

 

[Neilwood]

Just as a matter of interest - for those experienced with tables, how would you work out your no stop times more accurately for a typical shore dive similar to the one I posted a couple of pages back (copied below for info)?

A sample shore dive (one I have done on a computer) -45 minute duration max depth 18m. Surface swim to buoy at A, descend to 5m, swim to 18m following the slope down to point B, run parallel to the shore at 18m to point C, ascend to 5 following the slope to D and return to A swimming at 5m.

Genuine reason for asking is that, doing that profile with tables and assuming the bottom depth of 18m and total dive time gives a pressure group of S on Padi tables. However you are at safety stop level for 1/4 of the dive and ascending for a further 1/4 (assuming a square circuit). Would you have to work it as a 4 step multilevel dive with your maximum depth of each leg and the corresponding time?

 

[Storker]

The rule of 120/140 is ...

only valid for you non-metric 'murricans

Tables can't help you gas plan either.

Agreed. I've made myself a cheat sheet with min gas times at different depths, based on my logged gas consumption. Sometimes I use less gas than average and have to monitor my nitrogen time more closely, sometimes I use more gas than average and have to monitor my gas reserves more closely. But usually those two times are pretty well correlated.

It's better to think through the dive than blindly follow anything.

Totally agree.

 

[The Chairman]

only valid for you non-metric 'murricans

And you thought that metric was some how superior.

 

[Insta-Gator]

The real question is "Can you properly plan your dive with your computer?"

Tables are a valid tool, but not every dive is a square profile dive. For 99% of the divers out there, computers are exactly what they need. For the remaining 1%, we know what tools to use to plan our dives. Should every diver know how to use tables? Probably, but most forget quickly after certification because it's not something we use every day.

I don't think computers make bad divers. I think bad instructors make bad divers. I think divers who don't care make for bad divers. I think divers who don't understand what exactly their computer is telling them, how to properly use, set and follow their computers are bad divers. I'm not saying every diver has to understand deco theory, the science of off-gassing or how to plan deco stops. I am saying they need to understand the information on the screen, how to set the computer for air or nitrox, how to set the various alarms, and most importantly they understand that they need to check and follow their computer.

Should all drivers know how to operate a vehicle lacking power steering and an automatic transmission? In my old fogey world, I'd say yes. But in the practical world, the answer would be no. Early adopters of new technology should always know how to get along without it. With time the technology will prove itself to be reliable or not. With time the technology will become more reliable, more functional, less expensive. Depending on a computer is no more hazardous than depending on your SPG and a watch. Either could fail.