The definition of Recreational Diving vs. Technical.

[DevonDiver]

No. I don't know how you took this from my post.

You used the word "many", which is not absolute. If you used the word "all", then it would have been clearer.

"Many of my friends have dark hair".

"Many people enjoy gay porn".

"Many Christians don't go to church regularly".

"Many species of fish are small".

"Many divers haven't had an emergency on scuba equipment".

 

[DevonDiver]

No. I don't know how you took this from my post.

You used the word "many", which is not absolute. It's not even illustrative of a proportion. If you used the word "all", then it would have been clearer.

"Many of my friends have dark hair".

"Many people enjoy gay porn".

"Many Christians don't go to church regularly".

"Many species of fish are small".

"Many divers haven't had an emergency on scuba equipment".

 

[Deep South Divers]

Yep... I'm with Lamont on my observation about AndrewG's thought process on the word "technical." Yep, the word seems to have been very perverted by now.

One thing is that GI3 isn't around yelling about how all the fundamental skills in DIR diving are simply straight out of the PADI OW1 manual, that if we'd just actually applied, then everyone would be diving DIR anyway.

Hahahaaaa! Trey's a hoot, isn't he? You know, between you and me, I think he was right, too.

Another thing is that there seems to be a bit of a push from the technical side to institute even more of a divide between recreational and technical diving in order to make technical diving more "eleet". All of this has eroded the idea that the lines between tech and rec should be blurrier, but more so because the rec standards need to come up. ]

Yeah, what I see is that once the "recreational" diver, who always had this "barrier" in his mind between "recreational" and "technical" diving, crosses that "line," he feels like he deserves some credit for the "change," and... Well... He becomes elitist for it. Ask this guy if he's a "technical" diver and he'll say, "Yep." It's really entertaining.

I can drive a stickshift. I can even drive a motorcycle. In Ohio. On the road. I've driven on highways with no speed limit, they're so desolate. Well into the triple digits. I am a "technical driver." Prior to purchasing a vehicle capable of these speeds, I was just a "recreational driver."

[sarcasm]
I think that the limit to recreational driving should be 81 miles per hour, which is the average highway speed limit plus six miles per hour, one mile per hour under the courtroom-recognized accuracty of a police radar gun. Everything from 82 mph on up is completely different, and the speed can kill you, so it's reserved for different terminology. You'll die if you go 82 mph or 83, or (God forbid) 84 mph without the proper training. Do not attempt this on your own. I once knew someone that had a car accident at 91 mph because he wasn't properly trained, and he died in the wreck. It's dangerous. Do not ever attempt to drive without a drivemaster telling you what to do...
[/sarcasm]

 

[boulderjohn]

If I am understanding some of the posts correctly (and I admit I am not sure), I think there may be a difference depending upon the perspective of the person viewing the situation.

A diver who has been trained in technical diving can look it from that perspective and see a continuity through recreational diving.

A diver who has had only basic OW training in conventional jacket BCDs, conventional regulators and other, and who only uses the flutter kick looks toward technical diving and sees a big gap into an unknown void.

 

[Deep South Divers]

I would say that's fairly accurate, as a rule. It may not apply in every case, but it's probably the stereotype.

There's reasons, though, why this is so frustrating to many. Firstly, often the "technical" diver gets accused of being "elitist," when he/she doesn't actually see a defining difference. Another is that the recognition of the terms "technical" and "recreational" tend to inhibit growth in one's diving, if only for the mindset. Thirdly, the terms are encouraged by the dive industry, and it's suspected that this is simply a ploy to sell unnecesaary training and two, rather than one, "type" of gear. Imagine progressing in your diving to the point where you realize that you've reached your gear limitations, and you have to purchase all new gear to move forward, redefine all of the "rules," and completely change your entire mindset... When the "technical" gear, training, and mindset would have worked not only for all of your dives, but would have improved all of your diving and dive enjoyment from the beginning. Not to mention the savings in time, effort, and money...

 

[TSandM]

John, I think that's absolutely true. One of the things I really, really like about GUE as an agency is that they do not teach that divide at all. Diving is diving; it all uses the same concepts and the same basic skills. How complicated the planning is, and how much equipment you need may change, but the approach, mindset, procedures, protocols, etc. are just the same. You don't HAVE to go on to any diving you can't do on a single tank, but if you want to, it's an easy step.

 

[lamont]

You used the word "many", which is not absolute. If you used the word "all", then it would have been clearer.

perfectly clear to me. not all his friends had many dives over many years. hence they could not all have many dives over many years without incident.

"all my friends have many dives over many years, without incident" would mean he didn't know a single newbie diver friend, which would most likely be incorrect.

"all my friends [,together,] have many dives over many years, without incident" would make more sense, but it was perfectly clear to me exactly the way he phrased it.

 

[Bob DBF]

If I am understanding some of the posts correctly (and I admit I am not sure), I think there may be a difference depending upon the perspective of the person viewing the situation.

A diver who has been trained in technical diving can look it from that perspective and see a continuity through recreational diving.

And a diver who has dived this continuity since well before "tech diving" was defined in 1991 has another perspective.

A diver who has had only basic OW training in conventional jacket BCDs, conventional regulators and other, and who only uses the flutter kick looks toward technical diving and sees a big gap into an unknown void.

I too have reservations about the knowledge and quality of an OW diver being turned out today but, I am not an instructor. I'm just a diver who helps try to fill in the gaps when I dive with them.

The same business model that sells only basic OW training in conventional jacket BCDs, conventional regulators, flutter kick, and other..., is now selling "tech diving" and you will have to buy all new gear, who would guess.

It has it's up side in that it does make available some good gear at reasonable prices and makes me feel the same as when the SPG became available.



Bob
---------------------------------
I may be old, but I’m not dead yet.

 

[Deep South Divers]

The same business model that sells only basic OW training in conventional jacket BCDs, conventional regulators, flutter kick, and other..., is now selling "tech diving"

A bit terrifying, isn't it? And to think that the major mindset of this agency is exactly that... The business model and making money, rather than your safety... Teaching "tech" diving...

(and you will have to buy all new gear, who would guess)

Funny how that works, hunh? You've seen this before?

 

[Sas]

You used the word "many", which is not absolute. It's not even illustrative of a proportion. If you used the word "all", then it would have been clearer.

"Many of my friends have dark hair".

"Many people enjoy gay porn".

"Many Christians don't go to church regularly".

"Many species of fish are small".

"Many divers haven't had an emergency on scuba equipment".

You're being deliberately obtuse.

lamot, I am not a he