They are not basic rec, they are baby tec.
Wisdom of trusting one's dive computer?
- Thread starter CaveSloth
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Not by those agencies' own definitions. Everything taught in GUE's Rec 1 is intended for diving within the same OW limits as the other agencies. I understand how people outside GUE/UTD might see it as you do, but for purposes of drawing an artificial line, it seems to me that the agencies' own perspective should carry the most weight.
Sorry. I can't agree. How do you include the BSAC and CMAS training in your flexible definition of "basic?"
Eric Sedletzky
Contributor
A don’t agree either.
I’ve been around long enough to have been initially trained on tables.
I’ve watched this whole thing from the beginning.
You’re basing everything off the rule of 120 or essentially the Navy tables.
You’re working some sort of depth averaging system within an NDL on EAN 32 (air is off the menu) for dives less than 100’ which unless you’re a walking human calculator there is no way you can accurately calculate to the current accepted standards. So to cover for this you include a series of built in deco stops even on basic recreational dives just to make sure you didn’t screw up, and on top of it you include some deep stops, which BTW have been debunked by leading hyperbaric scholars as causing more harm than good.
And you want all this to be included as mainstream recreational OW so you don’t feel discriminated against?
No thanks,
I’ll stick to my computer and let the pros figure out the algorithms based on the current technology.
I’ve been around long enough to have been initially trained on tables.
I’ve watched this whole thing from the beginning.
You’re basing everything off the rule of 120 or essentially the Navy tables.
You’re working some sort of depth averaging system within an NDL on EAN 32 (air is off the menu) for dives less than 100’ which unless you’re a walking human calculator there is no way you can accurately calculate to the current accepted standards. So to cover for this you include a series of built in deco stops even on basic recreational dives just to make sure you didn’t screw up, and on top of it you include some deep stops, which BTW have been debunked by leading hyperbaric scholars as causing more harm than good.
And you want all this to be included as mainstream recreational OW so you don’t feel discriminated against?
No thanks,
I’ll stick to my computer and let the pros figure out the algorithms based on the current technology.
The thing is, the baby tec stuff applies to less than 10% of divers, at least 90% of the divers I see have absolutely no need or desire for depth averaging back gas deco.
I really question whether new divers even know what they really want out of diving. I see dive shop owners/instructors selling G2 computers, hydros pro with air2 bcd’s and atomic masks - all great stuff but the dudes gonna dive maybe 10 times a year.
I see GUE and these other similar agencies basic classes more as a “new beginning” for a PADI type OW or AOW divers that have 50 or so dives and is starting to figure out how they want to dive.
I really question whether new divers even know what they really want out of diving. I see dive shop owners/instructors selling G2 computers, hydros pro with air2 bcd’s and atomic masks - all great stuff but the dudes gonna dive maybe 10 times a year.
I see GUE and these other similar agencies basic classes more as a “new beginning” for a PADI type OW or AOW divers that have 50 or so dives and is starting to figure out how they want to dive.
“Mainstream” is your word. It’s an alternative way to practice basic OW scuba. Within rec profiles it seems to work fine—it doesn’t seem to be harmful. You could argue why bother, but that’s not the point.
“Pros,” right. Not those clowns leading the way in cave exploration. Nothing for a curious OW diver to learn from them.
PfcAJ
Contributor
But they still work just fine with average depth.
Folks are so spooked because there's fine print on the tables that says to use the 80' table if you hit 71' for a moment. Does that make ANY sense at all to use an 80' table if you go to 71' for a second then go back up to 50' for the next 20minutes of your dive?
The whole premise of this discussion is that the tables aren't good for that sort of example, and that's SOLELY because of that fine print of "use the next deeper table if you go past 70ft". We all know that its preposterous because the human body and nitrogen uptake/ elimination doesnt work like that. Its self evident. Its not at all logical, but it IS very conservative. It only becomes logical when viewed through the lens of a company (cert agency) trying to mitigate its risk.
So people go to computers (which is fine) to keep track of their exposure for them. Putting faith that its calculating accurately (shifting the risk from the cert agency to the computer manufacturer). But using your brain and paying attention to the average pressure you're exposing your body to is somehow a wild and crazy idea?
There's so much variance in tables and computer algorithms (VPM, ZHL, which gradient factors, RGBM and all its variants, DCIEM, Navy, NAUI, SSI, PADI, GUE). They're all different.
Folks are trying to derive incredible precision in an imprecise field.
Check out the NDL time at 100ft between the PADI tables and NAUI tables. 20mins for PADI, 22mins for NAUI. NAUI gives a 10% longer NDL time... Which is correct? If you did 22mins at 100' on the PADI table, you've been a bad monkey and just caught an 8min mandatory deco stop. Do the same dive with the NAUI table and you're good to go. Heck, even a 25min dive at that depth using the NAUI table lands you only a 5min mandatory deco stop.
I think I've got it. It is OK to ignore pretty much anything if you think you know better, and anyway it is all just approximate. And given two guidelines, the more liberal one is the more acceptable. Right?
Stoo
Contributor
- Messages
- 3,505
- Reaction score
- 3,797
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
I can't believe this thread is still going on...
So at the risk of stating the obvious, if dive computers didn't work as intended, wouldn't there be bent people all over the place? I mean the ambulances would be taking people off of every dive boat. I don't think I have ever read a post in the "Near Misses" forum where someone claimed that they took a hit because their computer didn't work properly or failed outright. There have been some that began with "I got bent and my computer said I wasn't...', but invariably, those are posted by old/obese/hungover divers who did their fifth dive of the day 2 hours before flying home. A PDC will always work best on an educated wrist who's owner has a reasonable understanding of the limitations of both the PDC as well as his/her body with regard to decompression.
There's nothing wrong with carrying tables for backup, but those things weren't generated by magicians. They evolved over time and they've gradually become more conservative as "we" learn more. Who remembers Computers are no different.
The one BIG difference between tables and a PDC is that tables can't fail. (They can get lost I suppose, and the bottom timer and watch required to use them might.)
But really, embrace these new-fangled devices. They're one of the best things to ever happen to diving! If you're concerned that yours might fail, get a second one and wear both!
So at the risk of stating the obvious, if dive computers didn't work as intended, wouldn't there be bent people all over the place? I mean the ambulances would be taking people off of every dive boat. I don't think I have ever read a post in the "Near Misses" forum where someone claimed that they took a hit because their computer didn't work properly or failed outright. There have been some that began with "I got bent and my computer said I wasn't...', but invariably, those are posted by old/obese/hungover divers who did their fifth dive of the day 2 hours before flying home. A PDC will always work best on an educated wrist who's owner has a reasonable understanding of the limitations of both the PDC as well as his/her body with regard to decompression.
There's nothing wrong with carrying tables for backup, but those things weren't generated by magicians. They evolved over time and they've gradually become more conservative as "we" learn more. Who remembers Computers are no different.
The one BIG difference between tables and a PDC is that tables can't fail. (They can get lost I suppose, and the bottom timer and watch required to use them might.)
But really, embrace these new-fangled devices. They're one of the best things to ever happen to diving! If you're concerned that yours might fail, get a second one and wear both!
Similar threads
