Are you a recreational, rectech or technical diver.

[Walter]

I'm glad you're happy. Why instead of :þ ?

 

[Blackwood]

Why instead of :þ ?

Nice one. What's the alt+xxx combination for that gem?

 

[Thalassamania]

I prefer 13: "... an unusual or singular deviation from the normal or parent type; mutation."

 

[Walter]

Alt 0254

 

[Teamcasa]

With the refreshing viewpoint (I'm a diver) typified by Walter and many others here, why is it not a prevailing view across the board?

 

[Matt S.]

In what way is it useful? What is the accepted definition? This isn't one. There are several conflicting definitions accepted by various parts of the diving community. Even if one definition were accepted, what purpose would it serve? The definitions I've seen tend to lump different types of diving together as technical. An expert in one is often clueless in another.

OK, fine. But there is one important way that all the "tech" dives are the same: they are unsuitable for people with only OW/AOW training.

So you MIGHT do a gas switch, etc etc--if I know you are doing any of those things, I know you aren't someone I should be diving with that day. I don't have that training.

So while the label "tech" might not help you tell a cave diver from a wreck diver, if you call a dive a "tech dive" that would tell all the rest of us less advanced pretty fish divers that it isn't a dive for us. I maintain that is a useful shorthand for the less experienced guy, even if it's insufficiently detailed for you.

If someone styles themselves a "rec diver," that paints an even more clear picture of what their limitations are because there isn't a galaxy of very different specialties as in tech diving. You may not know from "rec" if they are fit to dive to 30' or 130' (because we all know the true test is seeing them in the water, not the card they carry) but you know darn well that they aren't going to be carrying a deco bottle at least.

I think the tech/rec distinction is often more useful than it is misleading. It's not the sole means of communication. It's just a possible starting point.

 

[Blackwood]

With the refreshing viewpoint (I'm a diver) typified by Walter and many others here, why is it not a prevailing view across the board?

Same reason music and movies are sold in genres, I suppose.

By using sub-categories of "diving" we can more efficiently convey something meaningful. While my meaning may be different than yours, if that is the case it's easily remedied.

 

[Matt S.]

^ What he said.

 

[Thalassamania]

The term "tech diving" was an outgrowth of the concept of "technical" climbing. What it meant (at its origin) was diving that required reliance on equipment and equipment using techniques for survival as a result of a physical or physiological ceiling. It was a useful definition because, by and large, the entire industry looked askance at planned staged decompression diving, and cave diving or wreck penetration, well ... what could you say about the poor fools who did that. The term gave all those pursuits and variations creditability and organized voice.

 

[JeffG]

Also: in before Walter says "there's no such thing as technical diving. It's just a term made up to boost egos."

I'm a tech diver.