PADI tables finally going away?

[The Chairman]

The reason they don't plan their dives is that some sold them a PDC for OW dive #5 and told them they can forget about tables because the computer will do the thinking for them.

Unfortunately, that was probably told to them by their instructor. You can tell by the dismissive attitudes that are prevalent (even on this thread) that the importance of using the PDC as a tool has been trashed by a number of instructors. It's no surprise to me, we are our own worst enemies.

Let's face it: tables are a sacred cow to many instructors today. The reasoning behind requiring tables for the OW student is mostly emotional with little or no actual logic or facts to back them up. We even have one instructor mutilating the English language to support his unmitigated resolve that tables are good while PDCs are evil. At this point, we seem to be chasing our collective tails and getting frustrated at our apparent lack of progress. Those who hold tables as a quintessential part of OW diving will probably continue to do so. Those of us who have evolved so far, are probably looking for the next improvement to adopt. To that end, we will appeal to different types of students. Teach in peace, my friends!

 

[boulderjohn]

I am reminded of a story from my past.

Years ago I taught in a year round high school in which students and teachers had staggered vacation schedules. I became the journalism instructor for the terms the regular instructor was off, and when she got very ill, I took over altogether for quite some time. In those early years, we used the AP system for designing headlines. In that system, you would decide what style and size font you wanted for a headline and then consult a table called a headline schedule to determine how many "counts" you could get per inch of headline. Each letter was worth a different count for space. For example, a capital W had the highest count, and an i, a comma, or a blank space the lowest count. A writer would create a draft headline and then add up the counts to find the total. The goal was to come as close to a perfect fit as possible. After many trials and errors, the writer would have something that was supposed to fit. Then the planned headline was sent off to the typesetter, and sometimes it actually did fit without having to be rewritten and reset.

While I was still doing that, computer-based desktop publishing came into being. With that system, we could design the exact pages we were creating right in front of our eyes. We could see what the headline looked like as we typed, and we could instantly make changes if things didn't fit. If it looked right on our computer screens, it looked right when we printed it off on our own printer. It was a truly revolutionary change.

I moved on after that, and years later I had occasion to visit that old school and my old friend, the other journalism teacher. When I went to her classroom, her journalism students were taking a test on the AP headline counting system.

What on Earth for, I asked. No one anywhere uses that system any more.

She was quite adamant in her response. The headline counting tables have always been an important part of journalism, and she was not going to lower her standards because of some technical innovation. Besides, when students used the computers to make headlines fit perfectly, it was important that they know the system upon which it was based.

But the computer program is not based on that system, I responded. It uses something different altogether.

It didn't matter. She was certain students could not truly understand the concept that a headline had to fit in a certain amount of space on the computer screen unless they first learned how to count headlines by hand.

I don't know if she is still teaching today, but I suspect that if she is, her students are still counting headlines using the old AP method. She felt it was just that important.

 

[rickdean]

Gosh this thread has a LOT of pages. I read the first couple, then jumped to the end. Dive tables round things off and are very conservative, computers are way better, but still "monitoring" theoretical stuff. . .you know what might be the next generation???. . .may already be here. . .is a computer that is designed for each diver, with heart rate monitor, pulse oximeter, age and physical ability, hydration levels, or whatever??? (don't flame me on details, here, as I don't know what it would need to read) integrated so it is really customized and much more accurate for each individual diver. I love my Aeris Elite T-3, but I know it will read the same info for any diver doing the same profile, who has that baby strapped on. . . 16 year old kid in top physical form or an 80 year old person, with multiple physical problems.

That would be a "dream" computer, to me.

Rick

 

[EastTNDiver]

Gosh this thread has a LOT of pages. I read the first couple, then jumped to the end. Dive tables round things off and are very conservative, computers are way better, but still "monitoring" theoretical stuff. . .you know what might be the next generation???. . .may already be here. . .is a computer that is designed for each diver, with heart rate monitor, pulse oximeter, age and physical ability, hydration levels, or whatever??? (don't flame me on details, here, as I don't know what it would need to read) integrated so it is really customized and much more accurate for each individual diver. I love my Aeris Elite T-3, but I know it will read the same info for any diver doing the same profile, who has that baby strapped on. . . 16 year old kid in top physical form or an 80 year old person, with multiple physical problems.

That would be a "dream" computer, to me.

Rick

Well, it's closer than you might think. The Uwatec Galileo Sol does integrate a heart rate monitor, and uses it in conjunction with your breathing rate (it's an AI computer) to adjust for workload and such.

I support continuing to teach tables for one basic reason...computer failures aren't necessarily limited to simple working/not working scenarios. As someone else posted, it might be important to be able to at least recognize if your computer is giving you invalid numbers. In other words, if you know the tables, then you can recognize if your computer is reporting an abnormally high NDL for your profile. Of course, for this example, "knowing the tables" could simply mean knowing the NDL limits, and not necessarily how to "work" the tables. I can't say that I've ever heard of a computer failing in this fashion, so it may be an invalid concern of mine.

 

[fjpatrum]

I support continuing to teach tables for one basic reason...computer failures aren't necessarily limited to simple working/not working scenarios. As someone else posted, it might be important to be able to at least recognize if your computer is giving you invalid numbers.

Pardon me for chopping the rest of your quote, but wouldn't knowing your computer give you an idea whether or not it was giving bad numbers? IE, if you dive it regularly, and assuming you're doing something close to the same profile, you should have some idea whether or not the numbers look shady.

Either way, learning the equipment you're using is appropriate. Having backups is always a good idea, be they in your head or otherwise.

 

[EastTNDiver]

Pardon me for chopping the rest of your quote, but wouldn't knowing your computer give you an idea whether or not it was giving bad numbers? IE, if you dive it regularly, and assuming you're doing something close to the same profile, you should have some idea whether or not the numbers look shady.

Either way, learning the equipment you're using is appropriate. Having backups is always a good idea, be they in your head or otherwise.

And, if you're diving that profile with that computer for the first time? What is your reference point? Remember, you don't start out with a "history" with your computer...especially if you're a freshly minted diver. How would you know that 60 minutes NDL at 70 feet is wrong if you never learned it in class, and wasn't taught how to look it up? Like I said, I've never actually heard of a computer failing in this manner...just call me old fashioned and paranoid...but, I think it is important to learn the why's behind the sport, rather than just trained to "push this button" and "listen for the beep".

 

[diverrex]

I'm surprised so many people have such support for tables. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with tables being taught but just find them not that useful. Most dives we do are not just a little mutilevel but a lot multilevel. Do that many of you really dive fairly square profiles? We tend to look for critters, sometime they are on the reef at 60 feet, sometimes we have to move into the kelp at 20 -30 feet. Maybe we go back deep awhile. Maybe some of you want to spend your time calculating that with tables but not me. I understand the theory of what my computer is telling me, but I'm more than willing for it to do the calculations for me. And I suspect that computer failure is much less prevalent than human error with tables. I dive with two computers. I haven't had one fail, only once a low battery discovered just before jumping in, no problem the other one was fine.

 

[lamont]

947 posts???

is whalerkyle going to shoot a PADI table with a high powered rifle or something?

 

[DiveNav]

947 posts???....

I bet we get to 1,000 before the labor day week-end is over

 

[Quero]

One more post in the countdown (countup?) to 1000...

...just call me old fashioned and paranoid...but, I think it is important to learn the why's behind the sport, rather than just trained to "push this button" and "listen for the beep".

I agree entirely that it's important to understand the "why's". But how does tracing your finger along a line on a table teach the "why" any more than pushing buttons on a computer? Instructors have been teaching the theory and illustrating it with the data on the tables for so many years that in the minds of many tables and theory have become confused as being one in the same thing. They are not. Both the data on tables and the data on computer displays are the result of calculations based on the theory. Neither tables nor computers are the "why." One way to work towards divers not simply "listening for the beep" is to actually instruct them in the use of their computers so that they know what functions are available and get them into the habit of accessing these functions for dive planning before they hit the water.