big PADI mistake

[MikeFerrara]

Diver0001 once bubbled...


Well Mike, I'm not quite sure how to respond to this except to ask a couple of rhetorical questions:

- Do you serious think that table usage (I'm not talking about the theory, just how to use the tables) is really the basis for becoming a responsible diver who doesn't need a DM to babysit?

IMO, it's the beginning of understanding decompression issues which is an integral part of dive planning. In order to dive without supervision one does need to understand dive planning.

or put another way

- Do you seriously believe that if someone knows exactly how to use a computer but can't find their way around a table that this says anything about the level of supervision they need?

R..

That's just it. I don't believe they can understand how to use a computer without understanding some decompressio theory.

 

[sheck33]

Diver0001 once bubbled...


PADI's standards are not poor. The standards, the setup of the courses and the materials all offer a good instructor excellent tools to work with.

I'm sure some would disagree.......

 

[Scuba Chip]

All the certification agencies teach dive planning, decompression theory, and decompresion procedures. (They wouldn't be able to get Instructor Liability Insurance without it, and they wouldn't be very professional if they didn't). They also teach that an entry level certification course DOES NOT qualify a diver to engage in staged decompression diving. The procedures are taught so the negligent diver will have a shot at saving his/her proverbial a** when they do get in trouble. Being exposed to dive tables and decompression theory in class, one immediately understands how little a basic course graduate really does know upon course completion. That's why there are DM's!

Having said that, we all should be reminded that somewhere in the vicinity of 80% of the divers who require chamber treatment for DCS are WITHIN the allowable limits of tables and computer algorithms in their depth/duration equation.

A Professional Instructor - regardless of agency - will impress upon his/her students that the cert card is the beginning of their dive education, not the end.

There's my 2 cents

 

[sheck33]

Scuba Chip once bubbled...
All the certification agencies teach dive planning, decompression theory, and decompresion procedures.

Being exposed to dive tables and decompression theory in class, one immediately understands how little a basic course graduate really does know upon course completion. That's why there are DM's!

Having said that, we all should be reminded that somewhere in the vicinity of 80% of the divers who require chamber treatment for DCS are WITHIN the allowable limits of tables and computer algorithms in their depth/duration equation.

No they do not. Unless you consider 'be back at the boat with 500 PSI' and 'stay with your buddy' diveplanning!
Being in the same ocean at the same time doesnt make somebody your buddy.

none of PADI's recreational classes from OW to AI include even the most basic air management training. Even the TDI deco procedures course is far from impressive.

And NO, DM's are not there to compensate for insufficient training and poor overall standards.

There is more to getting or not getting DCS than being within allowable computer/table depth/duration limits.

ascent rates, poor hydration, lacking airmanagement skills and lacking buddy awareness are big factors when it comes to DCS accidents.


notice: no mention of DIR in the above post

 

[Diver0001]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...


IMO, it's the beginning of understanding decompression issues which is an integral part of dive planning. In order to dive without supervision one does need to understand dive planning.

That's just it. I don't believe they can understand how to use a computer without understanding some decompressio theory.

OK, on these points we agree. But is understanding how to find your way around the tables the same as understanding decompression theory and dive planning?

The tables are only one of many imaginable ways to implement the theory. The theory is important, the tables are not.

PUt another way Haldane underpins the tables and many computers. Why teach tables to begin learning Haldane? That's like reading a book backwards to see how it begins. Why not just get to the core of the issue and then say at the end of it all "these are the tables" (implementation number 1) "and this is a computer" (implementation #2). It's not rocket science. Surely most people can learn things at this level of abstraction.

//

I'll follow you a long way on the idea that showing dive planning with tables is easier than showing it with computers though. This is probably the strongest point in favor of retaining tables in the system if you ask me. Dive planning with a computer (the way many people do it) seems to reduce down to get-in-the-water-and-do-what-your-computer-tells-you (this is the main problem faced by the guy who started this thread and by his own admission he reached divemaster level before he realised it...). You'll never learn "plan your dive and dive your plan" from blind reliance on a computer.

However, one of the other underpinnings of dive planning is gas management which is entirely skipped at the OWD level (aside from the abort at 50bar thing). Maybe approaching dive planning from the point of view of gas management with an eye on Depths & NDLs would provide good results. Then at least you have your two basic limiting factors on the table (NDL's & air). As it is, we teach one side of the equation and essentially abort every dive on air. Especially at the OWD level when overstaying your NDL is much less likely than running out of air. It seems paradoxical to focus so much attention on NDL's and ignore gas planning at the OWD level when air is the big issue, doesn't it?.

I mean why do you think recreational divers are made to think going into deco is like lighting yourself on fire? Is it because we do such a good job of teaching dive planning?

Wouldn't it be nice if a fresh OWD had some idea of simple patterns that could be applied to break a dive into legs, watching pressure per leg and so forth that went further than what they have now? Confidence will grow more by planning a dive and executing it as it was planned, arriving at the exit point with the air you thought you would have than it will by just not getting bent and aborting (maybe way off the mark) when you're out of air. Don't you think?

Even a simple " out and back " pattern with turn around at 125bar would be a big improvement...... I mean, anybody can learn that....

You see this theme everywhere on the forums. Just to pick an example, people are freaked out about surfacing well away from the boat and not being found...... why is that, do you think? Might it be because they never learned how to plan a dive to end where they wanted to be and they're getting lead around by the nose by their pressure gauge? That's my guess. At least thats a big part of it. And no amount of table theory is going to close that gap. We need more.

In fact, I'd be more in favour of teaching "Haldane for dummys" to start with, showing how the tables work as a curiosity and to get them ready for more tables at AOW level, going in to some depth on dive planning with a computer and spending the rest of the time you didn't have to spend on table theory (which you *know* 95% of them won't use anyway) talking about gas managment for beginners (which you *know* they all need eventually ). That strikes me as a more balanced package for OWD.

//

Just aftre re-reading that.....Another acceptable approach to the gas management thing would be to teach tables at the OWD level and gas management in some detail at the AOW level, maybe in combination with multi-level. This one bit of added value would probably be all it takes to transform AOW from what it is now into something with real added value. Just a thought.

R..

 

[Charlie99]

Diver0001 once bubbled...
PUt another way Haldane underpins the tables and many computers. Why teach tables to begin learning Haldane? That's like reading a book backwards to see how it begins. Why not just get to the core of the issue and then say at the end of it all "these are the tables" (implementation number 1) "and this is a computer" (implementation #2). It's not rocket science.

Surely most people can learn things at this level of abstraction

Maybe; maybe not. Remember that this thread was started by a guy for whom "direct continous ascent" was a difficult concept.

There are different philosophies on how to teach divers. One is to put everyone one might possibly need into a very long course that graduates fully experienced divers ready for just about anything. This one is mostly held by already certified divers who do not have any responsibility for teaching and qualifying others.

Another philosophy is emphasize the most important items, even at the expense of other useful information, assuming that this additional information can be learned through experience or additional courses. All courses I know of are more towards this end of the scale. When you have people that are having a hard time grasping the basics, it is best NOT to go beyond the basics.

Safe diving can be done with little or no knowledge of decompression physics, as long as you "obey the rules"; the same way that one can drive a car without understanding the operation of an internal combustion engine. In this world view, the main purpose of decompression lessons in OW is to make very clear why there are rules, and the penalties for violations.

Someone into more advanced diving will be motivated to learn more, the same way that someone into racing will learn more about car mechanics.

[/philosopher mode OFF]

Charlie

 

[miguel sanz]

ok! now we´re talking! I agree pretty much with what has been said in the last reply, except for the last one. I´m not sure if it¨s the same the diving theories or mecanics.
The problem is not about the sentence (which is in fact very clear, and it has always been for me) but about the tippe of education, it´s about certifing and making money. I don´t agree that the system has to be "to follow the rules", if so, what if you find your self in a new situation, what if you forget a little part of a rule, this can lead to a dissaster even thinking your a safe diver. No, as and exemple following the exemple I discribed at the begining, I think it should be clearer that when you go to a shallower deph it doesn´t meen your offgassing, what as alwys been clear for me, since I was tought so, and as a physician I hace alwys been interested in diving physiology
good night
nabadei

 

[MikeFerrara]

Diver0001,

Your preaching to the choir gas management isn't tought often enough either. The advantage tables have in teaching decompression theory is it lets you see what's hapening somewhat and at the same time relate it directly to a tool that you can use to plan a dive.

Charlie99,

You said...

Safe diving can be done with little or no knowledge of decompression physics, as long as you "obey the rules"; the same way that one can drive a car without understanding the operation of an internal combustion engine. In this world view, the main purpose of decompression lessons in OW is to make very clear why there are rules, and the penalties for violations.

The problem here is that I give students one set of rules in their class and try to prepare them to dive within those limits. Then they go dive with some resort DM and follow him/her beyond the limits of their tables, not to mention depths and environments they're not prepared for like overheads. All of a sudden the rules have changed. instead of doing what they were told they are now doing what others do because "It must be ok".

 

[Charlie99]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...
The problem here is that I give students one set of rules in their class and try to prepare them to dive within those limits. Then they go dive with some resort DM and follow him/her beyond the limits of their tables, not to mention depths and environments they're not prepared for like overheads. All of a sudden the rules have changed. instead of doing what they were told they are now doing what others do because "It must be ok".

Obviously the above is PADI's and YOUR fault for not sufficiently emphasizing personal responsibility <g>.

Seriously, though, I can't really think of a way to minimize the problem you describe other than just hammering away on the concept that each diver is responsible for his own safety, and more emphasis on "dive within your limits".

A related problem is the "once a year on vacation" diver that forgets most of what he was taught. They also rely heavily upon others for their safety.


BTW, I also agree that gas planning doesn't get the review it needs in OW. A review of accidents shows OOA as far too frequent an occurrence; and perhaps appropriate turning/ascent points is a worthwhile addition to OW.

The most important lesson is one that people either have already learned before OW class, or will probably not ever learn:

....... RULE 0, DON'T DO STUPID THINGS.

Charlie

 

[jiveturkey]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...
Of course I'm being carcastic but I have many times heard of divers renting equipment at resorts and not getting depth gauges or computers. The boat crew knows the depth and controls the time. Everything is preplanned.

From what I've seen, this seems to be the norm, not the exception. Especially, at resorts that offer the 3-4 days ow courses. They teach the students the tables but really it's just a formality. They aren't even given a bottom timer when they do their required dives. They are just told to stay above the intructor because he's the one with the computer and he's the one who'll tell them when it's time to go up. Sad but very true.