Sport Chalet Instruction...new rules

[The Chairman]

This is demonstrably false. Divers don't fail every time they get to 100 ft either. If you are going to try to argue that using a computer is safer you should present some data.

Dear Mike,

When you descend below 80fsw you are indeed impaired. Only a fool would contend that they are operating at the same mental proficiency as if they were on the surface. Are you saying that you are impervious to Nitrogen Narcosis? If so, welcome to the diver's favorite river: Denial.

You really think my discussion of dive training is griping?

Yes. A discussion would necessitate some sort of resolution. I don't see that, just continued "The Sky is Falling" rhetoric that seems to try to put you above the rest of us poor peons who ARE doing something about it, one student at a time. Everyone knows you think that scuba instructors are the slime of the earth, and quite a few of us bristle at the broad strokes you use. Few are willing to point it out but I grow tired of the same over generilzations.

 

[The Chairman]

It's not computerphobia. Maybe we don't have to tune them up as often but when they break no one can fix them

I fix them all the time, including mine. Best you hold off on driving until you learn the technology Mike. They're just not teaching drivers the way they used to. Hardly anyone is fit to drive anymore.

If mechanics can't understand points and condensors, how do you expect them to understand something that's almost completely computer controled?

They don't need to understand points to fix them. Our friend indicated that HE KNEW just how a condensor works with the points, and I would challenge him to post that here or to PM me his explanation. Odds are he only THINKS he understands points, just like students only THINK they understand decompression theory after assimilating all the rules to run tables. Bull crap. Students are just trying to figure out how to pass the class.

 

[The Chairman]

I'm not sure why you keep going back to talking about sliderules.

Because dive tables are just as cumbersome and obsolete for the vast majority of divers. A table is a tool, just like a computer. You are allowed to hold on to your tools of antiquity, just don't expect the rest of the world to march to your drummer. Many divers have already grown tired of tables and even though they can not afford a computer they have still rejected tables.

 

[The Chairman]

What are the real basics of diving?

I would suggest that tables are not one of them. I can (and have) made thousands of dives without the use of a table. Ergo, tables can not be essential to diving.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Dear Mike,

When you descend below 80fsw you are indeed impaired. Only a fool would contend that they are operating at the same mental proficiency as if they were on the surface. Are you saying that you are impervious to Nitrogen Narcosis? If so, welcome to the diver's favorite river: Denial.

Dear Pete,

Thanks. I have some experience in managing narcosis down to about 300 ft. Not only am I not impervious to it's effects but I'm something of a light-weight. However, a dive computer isn't amoung the things I use to address the issue. Are you saying that a computer is the only way? If you are, I submit that you are demonstrably mistaken.

Yes. A discussion would necessitate some sort of resolution. I don't see that, just continued "The Sky is Falling" rhetoric that seems to try to put you above the rest of us poor peons who ARE doing something about it, one student at a time. Everyone knows you think that scuba instructors are the slime of the earth, and quite a few of us bristle at the broad strokes you use. Few are willing to point it out but I grow tired of the same over generilzations.

I have offered many pages of descriptions of the solutions that I employed when I was teaching. As you very well know I spent a fair amount of time teaching and doing it one student at a time too.

I don't think that dive instructors are slime and I never said any such thing and you know it. I said as much earlier in this thread in response to another post youi made. Content in context Pete. My statements on training are generally in reference to standards and we can procede to review them line by line if you wish to see how accurate those statements are.

I know you grow tired of it...so tired that you always resort to charactor attacks/insinuations rather than argueing content. That's because you don't have a contextual argument.

You sir, are the king of straw-man arguements. You put words in my mouth (ie that I think dive instructors are the slime of the earth) and then argue against those words that I never said...ie, that I don't offer solutions...review your own board and read what I've writen. I usually propose a solution. You don't have to like it or agree with it but to say that I don't offer them is a lie.

 

[IslandCowgirl]

I personally wear redundant computers. One on my console and one on my wrist. When diving with students (I am currently a DiveCon), I use my computers during the dive - but the students use the tables to plan redundant dives. I think that it is important to know how to use BOTH.

H

 

[Thalassamania]

The points that are being missed in the computer/table discussion amaze me.

By the nature of the ways in which they are used, an assumed square dive, table have a “built in” safety factor of unknown size (the more square your dive, the less safety fator).

When computers first came out (e.g., the Edge) they gave a lot more bottom time for non-square dives. Basically they permitted recreational divers to make dives in which their nitrogen loading started to resemble that of commercial and military divers who were working square profiles.

This increased nitrogen loading translated into increased bends cases, which resulted in “dialing back” almost all the parameters of recreational diving nitrogen loading, both for table and computers including ascent rate, no-D limits, M0 values, etc.

Divers who understand decompression started getting frustrated by the inane level of built in safety that dive computers started featuring and shifted back to tables (and not table with similarly inane safety factors).

The camps divided and have been arguing ever since. Frankly the entire argument seems rather silly to me. There are lots of computers out there; all have models today that offer an acceptable level of risk. Some have models that provide more protection than I want and don’t give me enough bottom time, so I do not use them. All computers have to potential of failing, though that seems to happen less and less frequently as batteries get better and the devices draw less and less power. To not be prepared for a computer to fail is like jumping without a reserve chute, chances are you’ll be OK … but do you want to take the chance? So what’s an acceptable “reserve chute?” An identical back up computer will likely do it, or a set of tables used to help plan a contingency ascent.

So, as I see it, a diver needs to know how to use his or her computer, and how to use a set of tables and how to use them together. In a “default” mode the table users win because you can dive just fine without a computer, but you can’t (at least in my view) dive with just a single computer.

Now I don’t think that people have become stupider in the two decades. It is not hard to teach/learn table use, unless you’re trying to cut the course down to an absolute minimum. If the industry would just stop trying to certify all divers as equal and would accept the fact that there are a lot of folks out there who do not want to be DIVERs (in caps) but who just want to make a few guided dives a year we could likely put this discussion to rest.

 

[JahJahwarrior]

IF I dove to 120 feet, stayed for two minutes and started ascneding slowly, my tables tell me I should be fine. I can stay at 120 for a whole 12 minutes. If I stayed for as long as 30 minutes, a 15 minute hang at 15 feet would be perfectly adequate. I don't know how fast the poser of the question has me ascending, but if we assume 15 feet/minute, I should have no problems and have no need for any deco, though I will make a safety stop. All that time I'm ascending, I'm offgassing the nitrogen I picked up at 120 feet, which should make this an extremely safe dive, especially if I take even a 3min stop at 15ft.

 

[The Chairman]

You put words in my mouth (ie that I think dive instructors are the slime of the earth)

No Mike, it's how you paint the entire cadre of instructors. I am not the only who seems to think that you indeed believe this. If you continually cry "Wolf", don't be surprised that others begin to ignore it.

and then argue against those words that I never said...ie, that I don't offer solutions...review your own board and read what I've writen. I usually propose a solution. You don't have to like it or agree with it but to say that I don't offer them is a lie.

No Mike, you don't usually propose a solution. I can't recall one instance where you have done so. Please don't expect me to go research YOU on this board. If you contend that you always post a solution, then fine: so be it. I simply can't recall a single one. I especially don't see where you have presented a solution in this thread. Do you?

But this is about Sport Chalet's decision on tables. I honestly agree with them and don't see this as "dumbing down" the instruction, but rather that it makes it more useful and contemporary.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Now I don’t think that people have become stupider in the two decades. It is not hard to teach/learn table use, unless you’re trying to cut the course down to an absolute minimum.

But isn't this exactly what the decision boils down to ... an attempt to make scuba diving more attractive by reducing the effort it takes to get into doing it?

Offer 20 people a choice to get certified either through a comprehensive 3-week class or a basic 3-day class and see which one the majority will choose. I think we all know the answer ... a few will choose the more comprehensive class, but the majority will choose "quick and easy".

I have no issue with teaching computers in OW ... but I think they should do it IN ADDITION to the dive tables. Diving's as much about mental approach as the activities involved, and dive planning is something that basic dive training is notoriously short on. Use of the tables provides a good way to show people not just how to approach dive planning, but why ... i.e. the relationship between how long you stay down, how long you stay out between dives, and the "payment" and "interest" that comes with these two choices. It has value as a practical exercise for the beginner diver ... even if that diver never looks at a table after the class is concluded.

Skipping that aspect of training isn't bad if the instructor chooses another method to include those concepts into their basic training ... but how many will, unless they are required to?

On the other side of the issue, too many divers use computers today without understanding what the numbers are telling them ... they know how to "ride" the NDL readout, but that's about it.

I see comments in this thread that tell me clearly that the people making them don't understand the basic relationship between depth, dive time, ascent rate, and nitrogen loading ... even as it applies to simple recreational dives. A good presentation on this subject would be of value ... both in general and as it applies to using dive computers.

As with every other topic covered in a basic scuba education, the effectiveness of any such presentation is going to depend on how the instructor approaches it ... and whether or not it's a rote exercise or one that emphasizes the concepts behind the topic. As with any topic, the measure of that effectiveness will depend on whether or not the student can apply it to their specific circumstance from dive to dive and understand why they are doing so.

Arguing the subject is silly ... a better discussion would focus not on whether or not dive computers should be taught, but how to do so in a way that enhances the learning process and provides a context in which a new diver can apply the knowledge to their everyday diving experience.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)