Article: Technical versus Recreational Scuba Diving: Why is there a need for Limitations?

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Correct, but given that this is a comments thread, relating to my article, that is natural surely?

I've never attempted to imply that these were anything more than a personal view. I have, however, attempted to justify that view, on the basis of available training, 20 years of personal multi-agency experience and a common-sense argument that 'training should equate activity'.

I understand, so all these people worldwide, conducting and teaching Rec Deco are newbies without any experience, who don't know what they are doing?


What they consider safe and prudent is irrelevant. There's a dozen factors that could influence their 'considerations', many of which are not necessarily rooted in the best interests of the student divers.

Yes, I know from many threads here on SB - only your point of view is relevant, everything else is irrelevant.


I'd be interested in what a legal system would consider 'safe and prudent'.

In legal terms it might be called "state of the art". And just because you call Rec Deco being not state of the art, that doesn't mean that a judge or a jury may not decide completely different.


I'd also be interested to know why those agencies believed it was 'safe and prudent', when they also offer technical courses to accomplish the same goals.
1. Not all agencies offering Rec Deco training, are offering Tec courses as well.
2. Ask them, I am not their spokesman.


I'd also be interested to know how something considered 'safe and prudent' based on the diving training system in the 1970's can now still be considered safe and prudent' 40 years later, when the scuba training community has evolved beyond anything that was available, or known, 4 decades ago.
Things are not automatically bad, because they are done the same way for a long time. And not everything which is new is automatically good, just because it's new.


Can you supply any statistics to support that claim? Or are we just going to fly in a realm of assumption and fantastical hypothesis?
I am not interessted in searching the web now just for you. But can you supply any statistics to support that there are more incidents on Rec Deco than on Tec dives?


I don't think the UK has a 'significantly low number of decompression incidents'. For a small diving population, diving infrequently, the statistics far outweigh those from much more high volume diving locations (where, incidentally, divers aren't permitted to do rec deco). The UK has more DCI incidents in a summer month that the whole of the Philippines has in a year. In the Philippines, deco is the preserve of technically trained divers. Same for Thailand, Malaysia etc. Very few dive operations would allow deco without appropriate technical training and equipment.
I think diving in UK and in SEA is very difficult to compare and you have to go much into the details to get a valuable result. May be Edward3c may give you are more detailed response on that.


Then you can supply some precedent and/or explanation of how conducting deco dives, without deco training, is safe and prudent?
I never said anything about conducting deco dives without deco training. All the agencies doing Rec Deco are training their students therefor and they do it much longer than the term "Rec Deco" does exist. Somewhere above you mentioned yourself a bit how BSAC for example is doing that. Your problem is only that you don't consider their training being sufficiant, but that is just your personal opinion - and yes I know, just your opinion is relevant. But your problem is that other people may see that different!!!
 
DevonDiver, I forgot, I would like to recommend you an article from 4th edition Tech Diving Mag Tech Diving Mag | Free online technical diving magazine . It's "An anatomy of a diving lawsuit", written by Bret Gilliam. It is not about Rec or Tec Deco, but it is a lot about responsibility for yourself and that is very important for every decission with regards to scuba diving.
 
I understand, so all these people worldwide, conducting and teaching Rec Deco are newbies without any experience, who don't know what they are doing?

"All these people"... the handful of CMAS/BSAC divers who conduct a handful of deco dives....

I didn't say they were newbies without experience - in fact, I've argued the opposite; that they represent a well-experienced and internally controlled/peer reviewed quality of diver.

However, one of my arguments is that good, core diving skills are not sufficient, by themselves, to merit a safe approach to decompression diving. Specialist training, techniques, procedures and skills are needed. Those are not provided in recreational level diving courses; as illustrated in the CMAS 2* curriculum.

Yes, I know from many threads here on SB - only your point of view is relevant, everything else is irrelevant.

Again... this is a COMMENTS THREAD related to my ARTICLE. It isn't part of the board forums. Get it? I wrote an article and you choose to make comments to dispute it. I am defending my personal views made within my article.

Genius.... sigh.....

In legal terms it might be called "state of the art". And just because you call Rec Deco being not state of the art, that doesn't mean that a judge or a jury may not decide completely different.

I'm thinking more along the lines that complete and reasonable training is freely available. Such training is recognised as a benchmark by the major certification agencies for deco diving. 'State of the Art' is one thing. Negligence is another. I would argue that it was negligent not to provide divers with a complete and comprehensive set of skills, procedures and knowledge for the dives that are being 'authorised'.

Exactly what procedures does a 2* diver learn for the following deco scenarios:

Emergency leading to deeper/longer dive than planned?
Computer/gauge failure at depth?
Regulator first stage failure at depth?
Cylinder valve failure at depth?
Missed/omitted decompression?
Dive rescue with deco obligation?

I could go on...and on.... but lets start with those ones... please quote the syllabus...

I've made the point several times already (which you ignored) that technical deco training is now commonly available globally, ffrom the vast majority of scuba agencies. That hardly makes it 'state of the art'.

It might have been 'state-of-the-art' in 1981... which seems to be around the point that CMAS et al entered a state of suspended animation and ignorance of developing trends in the scuba community. It isn't now - in any way.


1. Not all agencies offering Rec Deco training, are offering Tec courses as well.

Translates as 'CMAS' doesn't do any technical training. BSAC does. That exhausts the list.

Things are not automatically bad, because they are done the same way for a long time. And not everything which is new is automatically good, just because it's new.

True. But in the case of rec deco... it is bad. It's lazy, stuck-in-the-mud and counter-progressive.

Basically... it's an acceptance of risk, for the sake of not bothering to institute effective education. To me, that's unforgivable irresponsibility.

I am not interessted in searching the web now just for you. But can you supply any statistics to support that there are more incidents on Rec Deco than on Tec dives?

Then don't make claims that you cannot support. Why should I source statistics to prove or disprove your claims.

Jeez,.... you want me to make your dinner and do your laundry also?

Maybe you can get your Mom to do it for you?

I think diving in UK and in SEA is very difficult to compare and you have to go much into the details to get a valuable result. May be Edward3c may give you are more detailed response on that.[/QUOTE}

Having dived for 13 years in the UK and 7 years in SE Asia.... I don't see what is so difficult to compare. Or is it a case that you don't want to compare... because you know the inevitable conclusion of such?

I never said anything about conducting deco dives without deco training.

Yes, but I have... and you've dodged that incessantly.

Show me the syllabus that specifically trains and prepared these divers to deal with all reasonable deco contingencies, without reliance on others, within the aforementioned recreational diving programs...

Your problem is only that you don't consider their training being sufficiant, but that is just your personal opinion - and yes I know, just your opinion is relevant. But your problem is that other people may see that different!!!

My opinion reflects that of the majority of training agencies, both recreational, technical and specialist. Agencies that represent in excess of 95% of the dive industry. They are also agencies that don't 'hide behind' any non-profit or charity status... and expose themselves to a full spectrum of legal and liability issues - thus having to comply in detail with the concept of 'reasonable prudence'.

You try and imply that I hold some sort of a radical minority view. Get real....

suf·fi·cient (s -f sh nt). adj. 1. Being as much as is needed.

What is needed for deco diving? The ability to plan and conduct dives, where the completion of planned deco is absolutely critical and inviolate. Thus requiring the diver to possess the methods, means and capability to deal with all reasonable and foreseeable contingencies that may arise, which would otherwise force the diver beyond their deco ceiling prematurely.

On the basis of 'sufficiency'... please explain how the 2* diver course prepares its divers to sustain their deco obligation against ALL reasonable and foreseeable contingencies.

If you can't, please cease this idle spiral of unsupported, meandering twaddle and just admit that it doesn't.
 
Again... this is a COMMENTS THREAD related to my ARTICLE. It isn't part of the board forums. Get it? I wrote an article and you choose to make comments to dispute it. I am defending my personal views made within my article.

Sorry, now I got it!
Why didn't you clarify from the very beginning that you just want to state your personal opinion and that you don't want to discuss it, because your own opinion is already the only opinion of relevance for you?

Ok, I do you the favour and step out here. It already wouldn't make sense to continue. Even after one year of discussion we would end up at the same point!

One final remark. What do you think how todays technical diving developed? By sticking to limitations set by some training agencies?
Limitations are tools for agencies to reduce their liability risks. For the divers they may serve as guidelines and all the rest is responsibility for themselves!
 
Last edited:
"All these people"... the handful of CMAS/BSAC divers who conduct a handful of deco dives....
BSAC is not part of CMAS and hasn’t been for at least 15 years.

Exactly what procedures does a 2* diver learn for the following deco scenarios:

Emergency leading to deeper/longer dive than planned?
Included as part of dive planning at all grades. Part of normal dive planning – Just deeper, just longer and worst case [Page 6 of BSAC 88 Nitrox Decompression Tables].
Computer/gauge failure at depth?
Pity basic:
Computer failure, have depth and time instruments plus write dive run time. A slate to do this is provided with BSAC 88 Tables [Ocean Diver Theory Lesson 4, page 36] [Sports Diver Theory Lesson ST4, 49].
Gauge failure, I’ve never seen or heard of a depth gauge failure – so negligible.
Contents failure, terminate dive – included in theory lessons on dive planning (all grades).
Regulator first stage failure at depth?
Invoke OOG action, taught, practiced and assessed at all diver grades.
Cylinder valve failure at depth?
As above, but if safe turn off cylinder.
Missed/omitted decompression?
Included in dive planning and management lessons, its one of the reasons O2 is recommended to be on site/boat.
Dive rescue with deco obligation?
Included in all rescue lessons, theory and practical. A diver suffering deco can be treated a drowned diver can’t.

I could go on...and on.... but lets start with those ones... please quote the syllabus...
BSAC Diver Training Syllabus 2008.

Translates as 'CMAS' doesn't do any technical training. BSAC does. That exhausts the list.
BSAC is not part of CMAS, BSAC training is ISO certified CMAS is not.
I think diving in UK and in SEA is very difficult to compare and you have to go much into the details to get a valuable result. May be Edward3c may give you are more detailed response on that.

Having dived for 13 years in the UK and 7 years in SE Asia.... I don't see what is so difficult to compare. Or is it a case that you don't want to compare... because you know the inevitable conclusion of such?



I’ve got nothing better to do this Saturday afternoon.

Comparison of UK and Philippines diving, can it be done?

What is the predominant method of reporting diving incidents in the Philippines?

In the UK the rescue services and most chambers submit incident reports to BSAC, so its not surprising there are more reports of diving issues in the UK than elsewhere. Overseas incidents involving BSAC divers go into our report, other agency divers involved in incidents overseas don’t, but all UK diving incidents (BSAC, PADI, etc) are included.

In addition UK Charters are providing a ‘taxi’ service and have no responsibility for the conduct of diving from their boats. Therefore, incidents are not linked to a boat or skipper's reputation. My experience, from holidays in the Caribbean, US and Thailand is that dive operators and their boats/skippers are responsible for the conduct of diving, so there is a reputational driver not to advertise incidents as they may affect future business.

Regards
 
Hi Edward, thanks for the reply.

What are your personal feelings about the continuance of recreational 'deco' diving, now that BSAC has created a comprehensive system of technical training?

Why does BSAC need to allow non-technical deco diving, when it has a system for training divers more comprehensively to conduct what must be acknowledged as a more risk-prone level of diving? Has there been any official discussion on that subject?

Obviously, the allowance of 'recreational deco', based upon the '88 tables is something that has been in place since before BSAC embraced the concept of formalised technical diving training. In that sense, it could be viewed as a 'relic' that has since been superseded by the availability of dedicated deco training. Has BSAC considered re-adjusting the training program to take account of those newly available training programs. If it has, what is the rationale behind maintaining 'light deco' at a non-technical level? If it hasn't... will it?

Thanks for your clarification on the training for deco diving. What I'm interested in is the differences between what BSAC teaches for deco diving in its 'recreational' programmes and it's 'technical' programmes. I assume that the entry-level technical courses introduce new material and skills. I also assume that those entry-level technical courses don't substantially increase the depth/deco limitations on divers transitioning from SD/AD level.

So, all things being (roughly) equal how does BSAC justify the continuation of 'rec deco' when it also acknowledges that specific, advanced training is necessary for deco diving?

BSAC is not part of CMAS and hasn’t been for at least 15 years.

Understood...writing "BSAC/CMAS" wasn't meant to imply they were the same organisation... more of an 'and/or', because the training progression, limitations etc are very comparable and have linked origins.

Included as part of dive planning at all grades. Part of normal dive planning – Just deeper, just longer and worst case [Page 6 of BSAC 88 Nitrox Decompression Tables].

I remember that... but I don't remember that comprehensive gas management was part of that contingency planning. I did most of my BSAC training within the military club environment (ah, fond memories of Bovisands..).. so I'm trying to differentiate what was taught as BSAC standard and what was taught as military (fun) diving standard.

Computer failure, have depth and time instruments plus write dive run time. A slate to do this is provided with BSAC 88 Tables [Ocean Diver Theory Lesson 4, page 36] [Sports Diver Theory Lesson ST4, 49].

To confirm, a full set of back-up (analog or digital) gauges is required by all divers SD and above? Along with back-up tables and contingency plans?

Invoke OOG action, taught, practiced and assessed at all diver grades.

What is the OOG action for divers in a deco obligation? What steps are taught to ensure that pre-diving planning covers the contingency of an OOG emergency, especially in regard to gas management/planning to ensure that divers have sufficient gas to share for a 'worst-case' deco obligation?

What I'm thinking here is preparation for a worst-case scenario - divers with full deco obligation (max dive on '88 tables for their level).. one diver runs OOG just prior to ascent. OOG issue causes possible deeper/longer profile. Both divers need to ascend whilst sharing air and completed extended deco. Potentially on a single cylinder?


As above, but if safe turn off cylinder.

Single cylinder? Or are doubles (indie or manifolded) statutory for deco dives? Or other effective redundant gas source (pony)?

Included in dive planning and management lessons, its one of the reasons O2 is recommended to be on site/boat.

What I meant was; are divers taught a specific set of procedures for situations where deco is missed/omitted. Say, for instance, actions within X minutes and actions beyond X minutes. Also actions that may be dependant on which stops were missed. Procedures for re-descending and adding X, Y or Z extra time depending on the circumstance?

Included in all rescue lessons, theory and practical. A diver suffering deco can be treated a drowned diver can’t.

So basically, normal rescue procedures are applied and potential DCI in the rescuer and victim is assumed - and will be fixed afterwards?

What are divers taught for diving in areas where swift evacuation and hyperbaric treatment may not be available?

Are student divers taught to make special considerations for their own safety? If so, what discussion is there about decision making / risk assessment for the rescuer who has deco obligation?

Comparison of UK and Philippines diving, can it be done?

I think to a large extend that it can. Water conditions aside, there are definite 'styles' to the conduct of diving activity. As you stated, in the UK divers are more independent and tend to charter 'taxi' boats to dive sites. Outside of the club environment, they have more (total) responsibility for their own safety. This may lead to a more general trend for aggressive diving? In the Philippines (and other 'holiday' locations) divers tend to participate in organised diving activities, where the provision of a dive leader (divemaster) ensures that a basic foundation of safety is provided. This can serve to stifle individual divers development of personal responsibility, but also ensures that less aggressive, more controlled diving activities take place.

What is the predominant method of reporting diving incidents in the Philippines?

Fatality, VSI, SI and lost divers reported to Coastguard. DCI treatments in the chambers also reported to authorities and DAN. Minor incidents and near-misses, not requiring hospital or hyperbaric treatment probably not recorded (although individual agencies require it - I doubt it happens in most minor/near-miss incidents).

There is a government body here to regulate recreational/technical scuba diving, with the mandate to ensure and increase safety within scuba diving. The Philippines Commission on Sports Scuba Diving is that body.

Here is the mandate: http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/43673767!.pdf
 
Hi Edward... I wasn't intending a tennis match. I thought you could give an insight into the thinking of BSAC with regards to the differentiation between rec and tec. I'm relatively familiar with the BSAC website, but haven't really found anything there that answers the questions I have posed.
 
There is never a need for decompression in recreational or technical diving, only a desire. Technical diving is recreation. If you are being paid, it becomes commercial and there is a job that needs to be accomplished.

"Technical" diving has become such a loose term in the last ten years. I have personally witnessed numerous times where a diver purchases a harness and backplate with a wing and now assumes he is a "techie". In the commercial diving field where I spent 12 years on rigs both in the Gulf and North Sea, combined with my sat diving experience, "decompression diving" was part of nearly every job. Between my years as a US Navy diver, commercial diver and over 27 years of all types of diving, it has been my experience that whatever title you may have or term you want to describe yourself with it all comes back to the experience that you alone have in the water. I just recently gained some ANDI certs in the "technical" field and was amazed at how basic the information was compared to my prior training. I found out that I was breaking the "rules" for many years according to the guidelines set forth. Most of these new "techies" have to have the high tech computer programs to plan their dives. Forget asking them to plan their dives with Dalton's t-formula or figuring out their own RMV and SAC rate, by hand.
I still beleive to this day that what makes a good diver is a disciplined diver. Plan your dive, dive your plan, and for pete's sake dive your limitations and your training regardless of what you want to call it
 

Back
Top Bottom