The argument has raged for years, should an instructor teach dive tables to entry-level divers or should entry-level divers learn computer use during their certification course? There is still a need to cover basic table procedures for entry-level divers to adequately build the foundations of dive computer use; that statement may upset some members of the dive community.

What that doesn’t mean is actually teaching specific dive table use but the basic foundations of general dive table development. Is there is no need to assess table use? That argument will rage for some time but I argue a better grasp of dive computer use is achieved by knowing how dive computers calculate no-decompression limits.

If a diver is taught the PADI Recreational Dive Planner, NAUI dive tables, Buehlmann dive tables or DCIEM dive tables; are they qualified to plan dives using the BSAC dive tables? The answer is no, all the tables utilise different gas absorption models, procedures and rules. My experience with occasional divers is retention of specific dive table use, many divers can’t plan any further than NDLs for a single dive. They cannot calculate residual nitrogen uptake from previous dives instead planning repetitive dives using first dive NDLs instead of adjusted NDL limits; so the question is, if divers aren’t planning dives correctly using dive tables, why keep using dive tables?

Who really dives with dive tables these days? Sure, I plan square profile decompression stop dives using tables but that falls outside the recreational diving sphere anyway. If I am planning a multi-level dive on a wreck then I plan that dive using a computer or decompression software and execute the dive with the appropriate dive computer. The theory of dive tables supports dive computer usage, why would you limit your diving knowledge to just tables when everyone dives with computers.