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

[DevonDiver]

Edward... it's been a while since I was actively in the BSAC fold... so could you explain:

Deco @ Sports Diver level... this isn't available directly after SD qualification? The diver has to progress through incremental depth increases, each assessed and signed-off by club/instructor?

Mixed Gases... typically this term means mixed gases on a single dive... i.e. two or more gases used to accomplish a specific diving plan. Single-gas nitrox use (<40%), or even normoxic trimix, isn't generally considered 'mixed gas' diving.

Multiple cylinders... I don't think anyone has tried to define 'technical diving' by any reference to the size or number of cylinders used?

 

[rx7diver]

Multiple cylinders... I don't think anyone has tried to define 'technical diving' by any reference to the size or number of cylinders used?

DevonDiver,

My first tech instructor (mid-1990's) maintained that if a diver used one or more stage bottles to increase his gas supply (to extend his dive), then he/she is tech diving. So, for example, doubles (manifolded or independent) + stage, all containing the same bottom gas, total bottom gas supply used for planning the dive = tech diving. (Stage bottle not to be confused with buddy bottle or bailout bottle or pony bottle or decompression bottle, I think.)

Safe Diving,

rx7diver

 

[explorer08]

Deco @ Sports Diver level... this isn't available directly after SD qualification? The diver has to progress through incremental depth increases, each assessed and signed-off by club/instructor?

What has that to do with the question Rec or Tec? Fact is they do it as Rec, no matter if they do it on entry level or on instructor level.

 

[DevonDiver]

My first tech instructor (mid-1990's) maintained that if a diver used one or more stage bottles to increase his gas supply (to extend his dive), then he/she is tech diving. So, for example, doubles (manifolded or independent) + stage, all containing the same bottom gas, total bottom gas supply used for planning the dive = tech diving. (Stage bottle not to be confused with buddy bottle or bailout bottle or pony bottle or decompression bottle, I think.)

I don't see how having a second bottle of the same gas would constitute 'technical diving'. I think things have progressed a long way since the mid-90's. In the UK, indie doubles are quite commonplace.... as is diving with a pony. However, use of a pony is generally not considered for 'extending dives', but rather as a fall-back redundancy that doesn't feature in the gas management plan except for the contingency of OOG emergency ascent.

I don't see any 'technicality' in having multiple cylinders with the same gas. Likewise, I don't see how the bottle can be a 'stage' if it contains the same mix as back-gas. What is 'staged' about that?

 

[DevonDiver]

What has that to do with the question Rec or Tec? Fact is they do it as Rec, no matter if they do it on entry level or on instructor level.

What it has to do... is raise the issue whether the training is appropriate, or not. Are they taught sufficient and specific skills for that decompression? My experiences lead me to believe not. That's why the same agencies also run specific training within their technical programs.

Rec Deco existed before specific 'technical' training was commonly available. Times change. Technical training is now common, freely available and sensibly priced.

Why does Rec Deco persist? I can only think that it is because certain agencies have neither the willpower to modernise or the vision to admit that their training is now insufficient for the task, when compared against the alternatives.

As you say... "they do it". As I say..."they aren't being trained to do it".

I did deco as a 2*/Sports Diver... but I had no specific procedural training to complete the dives that I did. With the benefit of hindsight, and further specific training, I now view that diving as unacceptably risky. In fact, that revelation took only 2 days in a British quarry with Mark Powell on a TDI Advanced Nitrox course. It caused me to ponder on a dozen factors that I had neither been trained, nor educated, to consider when deco diving... it gave me a more appropriate skill-set to conduct those dives safely.

Is deco diving being done/being taught at recreational level? Not really... some agencies permit divers to enter deco without a now commonly available skill-set and procedural approach to the diving... but, hey,... that's no different to a PADI AOW diver going off and plunging to whatever depths he wants. The only difference is that some agencies are stuck in the 1970's...and others are less resistant to change.

The fact is... if I were a 2* diver that got hurt on a deco dive... I'd be looking to sue the agency that sanctioned me to do that deco dive... and I'd be waving a big list of training skills and knowledge that I wasn't given before that agency told me I was 'ok' to do the dive. Skills and knowledge that are now 'reasonably expected' before completing dives of that nature. Legal issues might not be a consideration in Turkey... or France... but elsewhere in the world I think a good lawyer would cause sufficient financial damage to get such polices amended quickly.

 

[Edward3c]

What IMHO is coming through is your personal view of what is 'technical'.

BSAC SD are taught and assessed on SO3 to undertake dives involving decompression stops. However, for those that want to push the limits we offer additional training, see here under the Technical Banner. SD being the entry level.

 

[DevonDiver]

Edward: Understood. So what specific skill-set, procedural training and equipment requirements are SD given to offer reasonable safety when operating at depth with a deco obligation?

 

[explorer08]

What it has to do... is raise the issue whether the training is appropriate, or not. Are they taught sufficient and specific skills for that decompression? My experiences lead me to believe not. That's why the same agencies also run specific training within their technical programs.

Rec Deco existed before specific 'technical' training was commonly available. Times change. Technical training is now common, freely available and sensibly priced.

Why does Rec Deco persist? I can only think that it is because certain agencies have neither the willpower to modernise or the vision to admit that their training is now insufficient for the task, when compared against the alternatives.

As you say... "they do it". As I say..."they aren't being trained to do it".

I did deco as a 2*/Sports Diver... but I had no specific procedural training to complete the dives that I did. With the benefit of hindsight, and further specific training, I now view that diving as unacceptably risky. In fact, that revelation took only 2 days in a British quarry with Mark Powell on a TDI Advanced Nitrox course. It caused me to ponder on a dozen factors that I had neither been trained, nor educated, to consider when deco diving... it gave me a more appropriate skill-set to conduct those dives safely.

Is deco diving being done/being taught at recreational level? Not really... some agencies permit divers to enter deco without a now commonly available skill-set and procedural approach to the diving... but, hey,... that's no different to a PADI AOW diver going off and plunging to whatever depths he wants. The only difference is that some agencies are stuck in the 1970's...and others are less resistant to change.

The fact is... if I were a 2* diver that got hurt on a deco dive... I'd be looking to sue the agency that sanctioned me to do that deco dive... and I'd be waving a big list of training skills and knowledge that I wasn't given before that agency told me I was 'ok' to do the dive. Skills and knowledge that are now 'reasonably expected' before completing dives of that nature. Legal issues might not be a consideration in Turkey... or France... but elsewhere in the world I think a good lawyer would cause sufficient financial damage to get such polices amended quickly.

Come down, back to earth with your feet!!!

That is your personal view.
Don't you think that all the agencies which are teaching Rec Deco consider their programs being safe and prudent?:headscratch:

And in fact these dives are done to thousends every year worldwide with a signifcant low number of decompression incidents. I am quite sure, the number of incidents amongst Tec divers is much higher. And - as a lawyer myself - I don't share your legal concerns too!

 

[rx7diver]

I don't see how having a second bottle of the same gas would constitute 'technical diving'. ...

I don't see any 'technicality' in having multiple cylinders with the same gas. Likewise, I don't see how the bottle can be a 'stage' if it contains the same mix as back-gas. What is 'staged' about that?

I'm not sure I ever learned why my instructor felt that diving doubles + stage (all containing the same bottom mix) necessarily means technical diving. I assume it had to do with the additional level of complexity introduced.

Planning a dive for doubles (manifolded or independent) is straightforward. However, perhaps he felt that planning a dive that involves breathing off of a stage initially, then breathing off back-mounted doubles, then switching back to the stage to finish up the dive is sufficiently more complex (than simply planning a dive for a set of doubles) as to constitute technical diving.

 

[DevonDiver]

Come down, back to earth with your feet!!! That is your personal view.

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'.

Don't you think that all the agencies which are teaching Rec Deco consider their programs being safe and prudent?

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.

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

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.

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.

And in fact these dives are done to thousends every year worldwide with a signifcant low number of decompression incidents. I am quite sure, the number of incidents amongst Tec divers is much higher.

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 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.

And - as a lawyer myself - I don't share your legal concerns too!

Then you can supply some precedent and/or explanation of how conducting deco dives, without deco training, is safe and prudent?

I'm not sure I ever learned why my instructor felt that diving doubles + stage (all containing the same bottom mix) necessarily means technical diving. I assume it had to do with the additional level of complexity introduced.

I think that back in the early/mid-90's, 'technical' was just about anything that wasn't specifically taught in a rec training class. This was a time when several agencies were still wrestling themselves into acceptance of nitrox as a 'safe' backgas for rec use... when trimix was in its infancy and few formal training courses existed to train for it... A lot changed in 20 years.