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

[cerich]

I agree completely, once I plan a deco dive, if I dive the plan I have a ceiling and handle it as a "technical" dive. All I was getting at is that a grey area of time/depth pairs exist that one person may call a recreational dive and yet others may, legitimately, see as a technical dive.

diving a single tank with planned deco means diving without any options but to bust deco if something goes wrong with your single. It's bone dead stupid

 

[Thalassamania]

I do so hate being down to one option, especially when it may be bowel, bladder and/or sexual function on the line.

 

[DevonDiver]

actually I disagree. 10 mins deco on a single is silly.

I agree also - that's the basis of my article. However, there are arguments that 'light' deco is acceptable for recreational divers, in recreational kit - again, I referenced and responded to those arguments in the article.

 

[rx7diver]

Are you proposing that decompression diving is within your recreational boundaries? I'd be curious to hear more about that program...

Mathauck,

No, I'm not proposing such. It's quite simple, really: My view of diving is not so dichotomous as your question suggests; I do NOT believe that what is NOT recreational diving must necessarily be technical diving. I've remarked about this on SB before, most recently here: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ad...ing-recreational-technical-4.html#post6121830.

My own experience learning to deco dive in the Great Lakes led me to technical diving: I simply wanted t get out of that very cold water faster! But the fact remains that I was decompression diving before I began technical diving.

Safe Diving,

Rx7diver

 

[DevonDiver]

I think it's a false proposition to state that 'only accelerated deco, is technical' - which is essentially what you are saying.

It's also a good reason why there shouldn't be 'grey' between rec and tec diving.

Deco - No-Deco is an easy line to understand.

Light deco, recreational deco etc..... these are subjective terms.

Depth and deco... two issues where, once you cross the line, it's easy to keep stepping forwards and telling yourself it's safe.

Doing deco safely requires an integrated, holistic approach. That is technical diving. Having the core skills to maintain situational awareness, ascent rates, accurate stops. Having the right equipment and redundancy, because the surface isn't an immediate option for problem resolution. Having access to appropriate gasses for the depth you will dive. Having the capacity to plan those dives precisely and then follow that plan equally as precisely.

 

[rx7diver]

I think it's a false proposition to state that 'only accelerated deco, is technical' - which is essentially what you are saying.

I'm saying that doing a decompression air dive and decompressing entirely on air does not necessarily make the dive a technical dive. And, I'm saying that doing a decompression NOAA Nitrox I (or II) dive and decompressing entirely on that same bottom gas does not necessarily make the dive a technical dive.

To get up from those cold Great Lakes dives faster, I went the technical nitrox route: I sometimes used a non-recreational nitrox bottom gas but "always" used at least one different decompression gas. To my mind, using these is what made my dives "technical dives", not the fact that the dives were decompression dives.

However, I think I understand your point. I think we're using different definitions for "technical dive."

Safe Diving,

rx7diver

 

[DevonDiver]

I understand what you're saying, I just disagree with it.

It's possible to argue about the definition of technical diving, but the definition of recreational diving is much easier to define - 'permits direct ascent to the surface'.

If a dive doesn't permit direct ascent to the surface at a constant, pre-determined ascent speed, then it isn't a recreational dive. That speed should enable safe off-gassing from the dive planned, whilst being of sufficient speed to reasonably allow an 'average' capability diver to surface in an OOA situation.

That leaves us with a clear definition of 'recreational'... and then,... everything else beyond that.

My proposition is that everything else is 'technical'. That can comprise of many things - but, at the end of the day, it's just a word. However, for the sake of universality, I stuck with the main definitions of 'technical diving', as used by the major training agencies,stated in the technical diving publications I've read and listed on Wikipedia etc.

Whilst any individual has a right to apply their own definitions to something, it's very subjective and not general enough for commonality on an article published on a website with a global readership. Simplicity was the goal - and you can't get much simpler than A or B.

Not that any of that really matters to me - the aim of my article was to explain the need for limitations and boundaries for recreational divers.

 

[rx7diver]

My proposition is that everything else is 'technical'. That can comprise of many things - but, at the end of the day, it's just a word. However, for the sake of universality, I stuck with the main definitions of 'technical diving', as used by the major training agencies,stated in the technical diving publications I've read and listed on Wikipedia etc.

Whilst any individual has a right to apply their own definitions to something, it's very subjective and not general enough for commonality on an article published on a website with a global readership. Simplicity was the goal - and you can't get much simpler than A or B.

It behooves us to be a little careful here. The definition I am using for "technical dive" stems from what I was taught in the mid-1990's when I was learning how to technical dive. I hope we can both appreciate that definitions and word usage can change over time (which is why my English lit prof urged his students to purchase a new dictionary every five or so years!). I imagine that there might be several "correct" definitions for "technical diving" floating around in different ScubaBoarders' heads depending on when, where, and by whom they were trained.

I can already see that maybe my definition of recreational diving might need to be revised, though: There was no mention of "recreational tri-mix" when I was being introduced to technical diving in the mid-1990's.

Best,

Ronald

 

[DevonDiver]

For sure.. I do agree. I was doing deco dives long before I was tech qualified. I started with BSAC and that training allowed progressive development into deco, as per the '88 tables. Whilst not governed by a strict set of criteria, the overall diving standard was probably far higher than the average entry-level tech graduate. To put that in perspective though...at the time, BSAC had little or no technical diving inclinations as an organisation. A few individuals trying to push it forwards... but those were balanced against some individuals who still believed that nitrox shouldn't be allowed in their clubs. They do have that technical capability and structure now - so I won't be surprised if they eventually (with all their normal alacrity) phase out their non-tech deco diving. Or maybe not...

Technical diving really is becoming quite 'mainstream' now. That's a theme in my article. PADI have the bit between their teeth and are going to sell the heck out of it. Also, the 'tekking up' of recreational diving will really blur an important safety-based distinction...so it's one of the reasons why, IMHO, it helps to now define what 'tech diving' is.

By "tekking up" I mean everything from common-place use of doubles and side-mounts, to recreational trimix, to 'fundies' courses, to multi-gas dive computers, to the plethora of 'tech-style (?) jacket BCDs with umpteen d-rings and an 'attitude'. Without a defined line, there may well be a lot of unprepared divers who want to push into areas that they aren't prepared for - on the basis of equipment and over-confidence alone.

 

[Akimbo]

The article formulates that there's no need for deco diving at a recreational level...

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.