PADI tables finally going away?

[DiveNav]

computers are useless trinkets.

Any computer or just dive computers?

 

[DevonDiver]

In the accidents forum I posted a thread linking the recently released DAN report for last year.

Tidbit:
The most commonly reported equipment problems involved dive computers (1.3% of dives).

I haven't used tables since I was OW certified. However, tables do work 100% of the time. No reason to drop them from the curriculum. If PADI still uses the mega-tables, maybe they could scale back and use nasds/ssi tables. The ssi tables are succinct enough to remember cookie cutter dives and deco stops, which is nice when you are the 1.3 percent guy.

Exactly.

If computers experience problems on 1.3% of dives, then the diver needs one of two things as a contigency...

1. A back-up computer.
2. A table...and an understanding of how to use it.

Only last week, I experienced a complete computer failure (Apeks Quantum just died), but it was no issue, because I was also wearing my D9. If that had also failed, then I can rely on my knowledge of tables. I know that my 18m/60ft had a max BT of 56m (PADI Tables)...and I know what my BT was when my computer failed.

For deep recreational dives, I have a set of site-specific tables/profiles laminated (from the GAP dive software) that I stick in my wetsuit pocket. Even in the worst case scenario, I have these tables to cover every contingency and make a safe ascent.

 

[DiveNav]

...... As an aside, what I see here is nothing short of technophobia. People are apprehensive of these gadgets and have translated their fears into shouting about how these advances will "rot your brain" or debilitate students into mere shadows of those divers who learned the "proper" way of diving. .......

And then we drive cars that have tens of computers in them (microcontrollers) and we live in houses with hundreds of computers inside and we use the Internet that is controlled by billions of computers

Hopefully Faggin is not reading this thread

Alberto

 

[DiveNav]

There are tools and there is knowledge.

If the student learns the knowledge and theory . . all is well. But I suspect too many rely on the tool and not on their own wisdom. .......

When I was young ..... my italian math professor was always telling me: "Chi sa', sa' fare, ma non sempre chi sa' fare sa'" ....
translation:"The one who knows (that has know how), he knows how to do (something), but, the one who knows how to do (something), not always knows (has the know how)" ....

So, if a student knows how to use the tables does it mean that he really knows decompression theory?

I am advocating that we should NOT teach the tables to OW students .... but we teach them instead how the Buhlmann (or VPM or RGBM) algorithm works and then we ask them to compute final nitrogen loading - for each of the 16 compartments - for several real multilevel dives (of course with a sampling rate of 1Hz).

Only when they pass THIS test then they will be allowed to use the tables (or a dive computer).

Alberto
P.S.
I really like this thread

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

The tables teach about nitrogen loading for a square profile, the wheel teaches about nitrogen loading for a multi-level profile. A computer does all of the calculating automatically. So from my perspective the tables are tool for understanding theory while the computer is a tool that calculates everything without providing the theory (i.e. it is a black box).

Similarly, I can find the square root of a number using several methods. Newtons is probably the easiest. I can also grab a calculator and press the sqrt button.

The problem I have with dive computers is that they are terrible teaching tools. Perhaps I have not thought about it well enough but given that most computer's simulation is limited to a square profile I find it hard to get across the idea of multi-levels and getting credit when you go up. The best I can do is say if you see yourself getting close to a deco (by whatever mechanism your computer displays) go up 15-30 feet.

As for that silly little bar graph on the side of many computers that shows your nitrogen loading. Worthless information IMHO.

Tables are based on square profiles unless you have taken it a step further and learned to depth average. Depth averaging is not taught in open water, but many experienced divers (including DIR) have been using depth averaging techniques for a long time, combined with deep stops which many computers do not allow for.

The human brain is the most complex computer ever invented, people just need to learn how to use it.

 

[DiveNav]

.....The human brain is the most complex computer ever invented ......

Yes, ... but it is soooo sloooowwww when it comes to complex computations .... and not even that good at multitasking ... but very good making visual associations

 

[DevonDiver]

The only problem with using dive computers is that we wont be safe underwater...when the machines take over the world!

 

[LiteHedded]

The only problem with using dive computers is that we wont be safe underwater...when the machines take over the world!

your silly dive computer won't save you from the impending robot apocalypse. that's for sure.

 

[The Chairman]

The human brain is the most complex computer ever invented, people just need to learn how to use it.

The most complex and the least reliable. My computer doesn't get narced.

 

[The Chairman]

Tidbit:
The most commonly reported equipment problems involved dive computers (1.3% of dives).

I would suggest that more common than PDC errors are pesky human malfunctions.

I haven't used tables since I was OW certified. However, tables do work 100% of the time.

Tables don't "work"... humans do and as I have pointed out, the human brain is easily disrupted.