Confused about REC vs TEC for "certain" activities!

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!

XS-NRG

Contributor
Messages
373
Reaction score
109
Location
Canada
# of dives
100 - 199
After doing a bit of research I think I'm more confused than when I first started in the topic of what some divers and agencies classify rec and tec diving. In particular I'm referring to penetrations and overhead confined areas.

As I'm strictly a PADI diver (so far) it looks like: Wreck, Cave/Cavern and Ice diving is rec diving but having seen various pictures of people doing these activities they appear to have multiple tanks like a tec diver does. I realize the risk of overhead areas as you can't directly ascent to the surface should an issue arise but is it just that there is more training and the use of accessories such as reels, lights, drysuits (if applicable) rather than strictly different gases?

It seems to me that unless you are going really deep you wouldn't need various tanks for different gases and staged decompression but rather as a backup system/redundancy.

Quite frankly the idea of tec diving in general (using different gases to go way deeper than 130ft and having to do many stops and for long periods of time) doesn't sound like my idea of a good time. I can see why some would want to do it to go see a really deep wreck site or explore a long or deep cave but at this point in time I really don't see myself ever getting into it and if wreck pen, cave and ice are considered tec then I guess those are a few activities I'll never do even though they are somewhat intriguing to me. I'd also really like to try out a CCR but only within rec limits so I can sit quietly and just observe fish and sharks without scaring them off with bubbles etc. I'm told that a CCR is tec diving so again, it looks like it's something I won't be able to do.

Hopefully someone can help alleviate my confusion and if I've been misinformed they can point that out. :cool2:
 
...//...Quite frankly the idea of tec diving in general ...//... doesn't sound like my idea of a good time. ...//...

I thought so too, in diving, always be prepared to be wrong.

article-1218037-06B13B7D000005DC-625_634x411.jpg


Cavern will open new worlds, intro to cave will get you onto the gold line. Mindblowing...
 
It is worth pointing out the rule of thirds when dealing with penetrating overhead environments one third of the gas supply is planned for the outward journey, one third is for the return journey and one third is a safety reserve, this obvious reduces the amount of time or extent of the penetration so many divers choose to use a double tank setup.
 
Double tanks with an isolation manifold are primarily for redundancy not just more gas.
 
Decompression does not only arise from going deeper than 130 feet. The majority of my dives are shallower than 100 feet yet the majority of my dives do have decompression obligations because I'm in the water beyond the no decompression limits. Any dive in which you cannot ascend directly to the surface can be considered a technical dive and require multiple cylinders. But not all of those dives will result in decompression obligations. I've done 3 hour long dives with a maximum depth of 40 feet in a cave with no decompression obligation. Penetration was about 4500 feet from the entrance. I consider that more than a recreational dive.
 
XS-NRG:6244907:
After doing a bit of research I think I'm more confused than when I first started in the topic of what some divers and agencies classify rec and tec diving. In particular I'm referring to penetrations and overhead confined areas.

As I'm strictly a PADI diver (so far) it looks like: Wreck, Cave/Cavern and Ice diving is rec diving but having seen various pictures of people doing these activities they appear to have multiple tanks like a tec diver does. I realize the risk of overhead areas as you can't directly ascent to the surface should an issue arise but is it just that there is more training and the use of accessories such as reels, lights, drysuits (if applicable) rather than strictly different gases?

It seems to me that unless you are going really deep you wouldn't need various tanks for different gases and staged decompression but rather as a backup system/redundancy.

Quite frankly the idea of tec diving in general (using different gases to go way deeper than 130ft and having to do many stops and for long periods of time) doesn't sound like my idea of a good time. I can see why some would want to do it to go see a really deep wreck site or explore a long or deep cave but at this point in time I really don't see myself ever getting into it and if wreck pen, cave and ice are considered tec then I guess those are a few activities I'll never do even though they are somewhat intriguing to me. I'd also really like to try out a CCR but only within rec limits so I can sit quietly and just observe fish and sharks without scaring them off with bubbles etc. I'm told that a CCR is tec diving so again, it looks like it's something I won't be able to do.

Hopefully someone can help alleviate my confusion and if I've been misinformed they can point that out. :cool2:

First, tech diving isnt just overheads and deeper then 130. You can do a deco dive well above 130 or you can do no stop dives by doing gas switches. Second, just because a diver has multiple cylinders doesnt mean he has multiple mixes. The diver may want to stay at depth for a longer amount of time then one or two cylinders allows him. Third, yes tech training does involve reels, lights and drysuits and many more pieces of equipment but there are many more things covered. Diving injuries, gas managment, equipment considerations, and dive planning are just a few things you will encounter during a tech diving class.
 
After doing a bit of research I think I'm more confused than when I first started in the topic of what some divers and agencies classify rec and tec diving. . . . As I'm strictly a PADI diver (so far) it looks like: Wreck, Cave/Cavern and Ice diving is rec diving but having seen various pictures of people doing these activities they appear to have multiple tanks like a tec diver does.
First, I am not sure that double tanks automatically implies technical diving, as several posters have mentioned. Having more cylinders than that - doubles plus addtional bottles - may be. But, just because someone elects to do a decompression dive on a shallow wreck doesn't mean that diving that wreck is strictly / solely within the province of technical diving, as several posters have also pointed out. I think many recreational divers consider themselves wreck divers. Or, maybe many wreck divers consider themselves recreational divers. Cavern is a recreational dive activity, while cave is considered technical.
I realize the risk of overhead areas as you can't directly ascent to the surface should an issue arise but is it just that there is more training and the use of accessories such as reels, lights, drysuits (if applicable) rather than strictly different gases?
Well, many (possibly most) 'technical' divers use different gases to accelerate decompression. SOME use different gases to allow dives deeper than what would be considered to be within the safe limits for normoxic (air) diving. There is clearly more requisite training associated with more demanding, and risk-rich, technical diving, although I would also suggest that much of the training that is included in 'technical' dive training is directly applicable to virtually any dive environment. For me, the line of distinction is not necessarily rigid.
I really don't see myself ever getting into it and if wreck pen, cave and ice are considered tec then I guess those are a few activities I'll never do even though they are somewhat intriguing to me.
Don't focus on a distinction between 'rec' and tec'. Pursue the diving YOU want to do, and gather information on what people already doing it agree is required.
I'd also really like to try out a CCR but only within rec limits so I can sit quietly and just observe fish and sharks without scaring them off with bubbles etc. I'm told that a CCR is tec diving so again, it looks like it's something I won't be able to do.
Traditionally, CCR would be firmly placed in the tec domain. But, now several certification agencies seem to be promoting initial OW certification using CCR, as well as recreational rebreather diving in general, so I don't believe the previous distinction is as applicable any longer.
 
After doing a bit of research I think I'm more confused than when I first started in the topic of what some divers and agencies classify rec and tec diving. ...//...

IANTD's "Intro to Tech" would be an interesting, cost effective, course for you.

-then call the NACD, or GUE if you are so inclined...
 
Well there has been some good info so far but I'm not ready to jump in just yet. Could be a very long time if ever. Tec diving appears to demand alot of attention to detail and alot of respect, both of which I'm willing to give/do but not anytime soon. I'd love to go cave/cavern diving and ice/iceberg cavern diving but only if they are well within the limits. I think a cave at 40ft that went about 50-100 feet would be very cool but I'm not into staying great lengths of time or going 4500 ft from the entrance. Maybe I'm just cavalier or ignorant but I don't really think of SCUBA as an "Extreme" sport but I think doing a cave dive that long or really deep certainly is very extreme. Night diving is definitely getting more into the extreme end and I plan on doing that but as for the rest, for me, I'm just not sure yet if the risk is worth the reward.....

Cavern is a recreational dive activity, while cave is considered technical.

So what is the actual difference then? Is it considered a cavern because you are still in the light zone whereas cave is pitch black? Or is there a size requirement? If I came across a big open space the size of "one" movie theater would you consider that a cavern whereas the exit hallway would be a cave? To be honest, they both pretty much look the same to me and in either case you're still under an overhead. Where is the differentiation? What dictates the shift and how is either one really different from the other?
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom