Confused about REC vs TEC for "certain" activities!

[geoff w]

Did you run a line into that wreck? :shocked2:

Yes. I was the only student in the class who was a non-pro. All the rest were PADI instructors doing their specialty so they could teach the wreck specialty. On one of the penetrations, we went into the wreck following a line. With or without a line, all the penetrations were an overhead environment

I didn't realize there is a recreational trimix certification now. I guess that no longer counts as outside the realm of recreational diving

 

[Jax]

Yes. I was the only student in the class who was a non-pro. All the rest were PADI instructors doing their specialty so they could teach the wreck specialty. On one of the penetrations, we went into the wreck following a line. With or without a line, all the penetrations were an overhead environment

I didn't realize there is a recreational trimix certification now. I guess that no longer counts as outside the realm of recreational diving

Good on you for having a line. However, I would consider going into a wreck as that borderline. However, to DO that dive, you needed to do all the risk assessment and planning and gas management . . . you might want to consider that as "tec". At least beginning tec.

 

[Ozwald]

Curious if we have cleared this up for the OP ?

 

[Dive-aholic]

I didn't realize there is a recreational trimix certification now. I guess that no longer counts as outside the realm of recreational diving

IANTD has had a recreational trimix course for several years. It's not a new thing.

 

[DevonDiver]

Another perspective, which takes the issue of depth out of the equation is to define technical/recreational simply by how the dive is planned and conducted.

A diver can bounce down to 60m/200ft with a single cylinder, on air, flying their computer, with no redundancy. Depth is irrelevant - THAT is a recreational dive. A dangerous one.

The same diver can dive to 60m/200ft with double cylinders, on trimix, with a pre-calculated deco schedule and ample redundancy. THAT is a technical dive. A safer approach.

The same diver can dive at 30m, but opt for double cylinders, with nitrox, doing deco on back-gas. The equipment could be used to define the dive, but really it is the diver's overall approach to the dive - whether the choice of cylinders, gasses and redundancy is decided upon the basis of carefully calculated planning and management - or whether it is just a recreational 'plunge and play' that just happens to be in 'tech' configured kit. There's a whole world of difference between the two scenarios - even though depth, equipment and gasses may be identical.

The same is true for wreck/cave penetration. Being under an overhead doesn't define the dive... how the diver approaches that challenge is what defines it.

A recreational wreck course barely scratches the surface in preparing a diver to mitigate all foreseeable risks on a penetration. In contrast, a technical wreck course provides detailed instruction on the skills, drills and procedures needed to allow the diver a reasonable assurance that they can survive the worst case scenarios. Most recreational wreck divers (and instructors) don't even comprehend what those worst case scenarios are.

All the rest were PADI instructors doing their specialty so they could teach the wreck specialty.

Am I the only person who finds this truly scary? Wreck diving is one of the highest risk diving activities you can partake in. Does 4 training dives on a wreck (one penetration, one guideline practice dive) REALLY qualify someone to teach divers to survive in this dangerous environment.

PADI Cavern Instructors require a full Cave qualification, plus substantial experience, before allowed to teach cavern courses. Wreck instructors need virtually no experience. Given comparable risks between the overhead environments... this is a ludicrous double standard.

 

[BluewaterSail]

Another perspective, which takes the issue of depth out of the equation is to define technical/recreational simply by how the dive is planned and conducted.

A diver can bounce down to 60m/200ft with a single cylinder, on air, flying their computer, with no redundancy. Depth is irrelevant - THAT is a recreational dive. A dangerous one.

The same diver can dive to 60m/200ft with double cylinders, on trimix, with a pre-calculated deco schedule and ample redundancy. THAT is a technical dive. A safer approach.

The same diver can dive at 30m, but opt for double cylinders, with nitrox, doing deco on back-gas. The equipment could be used to define the dive, but really it is the diver's overall approach to the dive - whether the choice of cylinders, gasses and redundancy is decided upon the basis of carefully calculated planning and management - or whether it is just a recreational 'plunge and play' that just happens to be in 'tech' configured kit. There's a whole world of difference between the two scenarios - even though depth, equipment and gasses may be identical.

The same is true for wreck/cave penetration. Being under an overhead doesn't define the dive... how the diver approaches that challenge is what defines it.

A recreational wreck course barely scratches the surface in preparing a diver to mitigate all foreseeable risks on a penetration. In contrast, a technical wreck course provides detailed instruction on the skills, drills and procedures needed to allow the diver a reasonable assurance that they can survive the worst case scenarios. Most recreational wreck divers (and instructors) don't even comprehend what those worst case scenarios are.



Am I the only person who finds this truly scary? Wreck diving is one of the highest risk diving activities you can partake in. Does 4 training dives on a wreck (one penetration, one guideline practice dive) REALLY qualify someone to teach divers to survive in this dangerous environment.

PADI Cavern Instructors require a full Cave qualification, plus substantial experience, before allowed to teach cavern courses. Wreck instructors need virtually no experience. Given comparable risks between the overhead environments... this is a ludicrous double standard.

I really like Andy's post, because I think that he addressed that overlap area that always confuses the issue when people try to separate rec from tech in a clear definition. It's so easy for a fearless adventurous recreational diver to push the envelope of their equipment and training and do something that has exponentially increasing risk. And some of the agencies are cheering them on. I only wonder, as far as agency policy goes, if they truly haven't a clue, or they have made concious decisions based on expected profit$$$$ from customers who trust them.

If every diver and every agency believed that the best approach to any dive was understanding the risk in any particular environment, and doing whatever was necessary to mitigate that risk as much as possible with appropriate training and equipment, BEFORE THE DIVE, then I think that there would not be such a fuzzy overlap.

 

[SeaCobra]

PADI Cavern Instructors require a full Cave qualification, plus substantial experience, before allowed to teach cavern courses. Wreck instructors need virtually no experience. Given comparable risks between the overhead environments... this is a ludicrous double standard.

well said.

 

[Aqua-Andy]

I used to think the rule of thirds was too conservative. I do not feel that way now.

I agree totally.

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.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong(This is ScubaBoard after all, If any word of this is wrong I will be jumped for it). The way I understand it is the rule of thirds was created in the caves with an outflow that will quicken your exit from the overhead environment. The idea is you use one third going in and going out you use less than one third because you were fighting a current going in and coming out you will be assisted by the current thus using less air. The last third is not for you but for your buddy, that is his gas not yours, just in case he looses all of his gas. What is left over from the second third while the current is assisting your exit is used for a reserve because after all if the poo really hit the fan and your buddy lost all of his gas you will not be breathing as relaxed as when you went in and you will be using more air. Now I know some of you are getting exited and want to jump all over me for this but too bad, I will clear this up now. This rule of thirds came about before side mount and everyone was diving manifold doubles, so yes under a different configuration and environment this rule of thirds may be just fine. Now after reading this would you want to go into a cave or wreck using the rule of thirds? I wouldn't. I would use a more Conservative approach or make sure we have enough "community gas" which brings up a whole other heated discussion.

On the OP's question? I like the way my instructor described the difference between rec and tech. in tech diving you have no direct ascent to the surface weather it be a hard overhead surface or a deco obligation, if something bad happens you have to deal with it where you are at or suffer the consequences. As for doing a 200' bounce dive on an alu 80 being a rec dive? We will just have to see what Darwin thinks of that one.

 

[DevonDiver]

The way I understand it is the rule of thirds was created in the caves with an outflow that will quicken your exit from the overhead environment. The idea is you use one third going in and going out you use less than one third because you were fighting a current going in and coming out you will be assisted by the current thus using less air. The last third is not for you but for your buddy, that is his gas not yours, just in case he looses all of his gas. .... This rule of thirds came about before side mount and everyone was diving manifold doubles, so yes under a different configuration and environment this rule of thirds may be just fine. Now after reading this would you want to go into a cave or wreck using the rule of thirds? I wouldn't. I would use a more Conservative approach or make sure we have enough "community gas" which brings up a whole other heated discussion.

I think the 'rule of thirds' is a successful gas strategy that mitigates risks from a variety of potential incidents. 1/3rd in and 1/3rd out... with 1/3rd in reserve. That reserve accommodates gas loss by the primary diver or his buddy/a team member. That is especially true if independent/sidemount cylinder configuration is used, but is also effective where gas is lost prior to shutdown of failed regulators on a manifolded system. It also somewhat accommodates for delays in exit (loss of viz, entrapment or entanglement) and/or accelerated gas consumption due to an incident.

However, it's important to note that it is only likely to deal with 1 circumstance. It won't mitigate against multiple incidence of the above mentioned issues.

When considering gas-sharing exits - the rule of thirds needs to be tempered with more precise 'gas matching' calculations - to ensure that any disparities between individual diver air consumptions are accommodated.

How Do You Cave Dive?

Gas Planning 101: Continued « Doppler's Tech Diving Blog

 

[Aqua-Andy]

I think the 'rule of thirds' is a successful gas strategy that mitigates risks from a variety of potential incidents. 1/3rd in and 1/3rd out... with 1/3rd in reserve. That reserve accommodates gas loss by the primary diver or his buddy/a team member. That is especially true if independent/sidemount cylinder configuration is used, but is also effective where gas is lost prior to shutdown of failed regulators on a manifolded system. It also somewhat accommodates for delays in exit (loss of viz, entrapment or entanglement) and/or accelerated gas consumption due to an incident.

However, it's important to note that it is only likely to deal with 1 circumstance. It won't mitigate against multiple incidence of the above mentioned issues.

When considering gas-sharing exits - the rule of thirds needs to be tempered with more precise 'gas matching' calculations - to ensure that any disparities between individual diver air consumptions are accommodated.

How Do You Cave Dive?

Gas Planning 101: Continued « Doppler's Tech Diving Blog

Thanks for the links, I have seen Doppler's before but not the cave diving site. As for the rule of thirds in my original post I mentioned doubles with manifold and that the ruled change with sidemount. I still plan more conservative in our overhead environments we have as there is no flow. I have never been in the florida caves with flow but what I posted is how I understand it. If you have no flow and you breath one third going in that leaves you with two thirds left to get situated sharing air and swim out sharing air. If your buddy looses his gas at the deepest penetration you are cutting it very close. In fact I don't think you will make it, in an air sharing sanerio I don't think anyone will be as comfortable and relaxed as in a normal dive(going into the cave).