Definition of technical diving

[VeniVidi]

Hi Curt

Thanks for your clarification - and it is worth more than just two cents. I also think that your definition holds (I particularly like the one with the 30% income spending :lol). Now this affirms my sceptical view on the technical diving industry (i.e. diving orgs, manufacturer). The reason is that, earlier or later, every frequent diver comes to the point where one is confronted with decompression dives. Although the training in the basic and advanced courses do not advocate them, the application of computers and diving tables provide the necessary tools an experienced diver knows to wield.

As for direct surfacing, this is an issue that should have been pounded into the student's head that there is never a direct ascent (controlled ascent excluded), regardless of deco or not. Hence, there is always a virtual overhead. That's the theory as it is not always followed by novice divers. But as one proceeds in his/her diving skills, one learns by experience and constant reading, like the magazines you publish or the books you offer for sale, how to handle things.

The rest is as you say: get training to be capable of using the TOOLS. So why on earth, is there so much noise about accomplishing just some deco dives? If I got you correctly then the industry's definition of "technical diving" would be mainly focused on TOOL training thereby causing the misunderstandings we had all along this thread - and the actual technical diving is then restricted to caves and wreck penetration. If that is the case, I would rather prefer the term "technique diving".

 

[Curt Bowen]

The rest is as you say: get training to be capable of using the TOOLS. So why on earth, is there so much noise about accomplishing just some deco dives? If I got you correctly then the industry's definition of "technical diving" would be mainly focused on TOOL training thereby causing the misunderstandings we had all along this thread - and the actual technical diving is then restricted to caves and wreck penetration. If that is the case, I would rather prefer the term "technique diving".

True and there really should be no noice about accomplishing a normal everyday deco dive. I have done at least a thousand or so and have not made a big deal about any of them. Millions of cave and wreck technical dives are conducted every year with no noice.

The only big deal about doing this type of diving is when new discoveries are made such as a new shipwreck, virgin cave or some type of scientific discovery.

 

[ninjamuzo]

I got the following definitions from my Instructor, as I suspected he had a better answer than I could come up with:

The classic answer to this question about 'what is technical diving' is that
it is any dive carried out using 'non-recreational diving' techniques,
procedures or equipment.

recreational diving is:-
single tank,air, non deco
technical diving is:-
multi-tank, mixed gas, deco, rebreathers, penetration

Although never implied, technical diving used to be anything that PADI
didn't teach. This used to hold until PADI started teaching Nitrox and
Rebreathers as specialty courses to recreational divers.

The best modern definition I can think of nowadays, is that:-

A technical-dive is any dive including at least one of the following 'B2's
unlucky 13' criteria that makes it considerably more dangerous than typical
recreational scuba:-

1. Any decompression obligation
2. Any use of rebreathers
3. Any dive where direct ascent to the surface is not possible.
4. Any dive deeper than 40meters
5. Any dive involving the use of Helium
6. Any dive using Nitrox with greater than 40% Oxygen
7. Any dive using a breathing mix with less that 21% Oxygen
8. Any dive requiring redundant depth and time indication to survive the dive
9. Any cave dive
10. Any wreck penetration dive
11. Any dive in bad viz requiring torches to read gauges
12. Any ice dive
13. Any dive longer than 1hr30min

Hope this helps.
You may forward this to 'the list' if you want.
Steve Burton

 

[H2Andy]

i still like Curt's definiton the best, modified as follows:

Technical Dive: A dive where immediate exit to the surface is restricted due to overhead, distance, or decompression obligations.

 

[chrisch]

How about this:-

There is no such thing as "technical diving" per se. The term once held sway when the equipment was out the ordinary and difficult to buy and expensive. Technical diving in today's terminology is a marketing construct by the industry to persuade the gullable and gadget-obsessed (usually not very good) diver to buy and use things that are (usually) inapropriate for his/her diving i.e. twin tanks at 20M.

There is diving for pleasure and that may require loads of kit and extreme profiles, but it is for pleasure - which is 'recreation' I believe.

Diving skills and development are, or should be, a seamless curve from open water to exploration trimix. Divers should be taking courses appropriate to their needs as and when they develop the skills and confidence to do them and until then staying within the limits of their training.

Sadly this is an ideal world that does not exist. Until it does this (pointless) debate will continue as we all worry about whether we are "techies" or not.

Chris.

 

[H2Andy]

Technical diving in today's terminology is a marketing construct by the industry to persuade the gullable and gadget-obsessed (usually not very good) diver to buy and use things that are (usually) inapropriate for his/her diving i.e. twin tanks at 20M.

and how do you know twin tanks are not necessary at 60 feet?
you can do a lot of cave diving in less depth and you'd better
bring twins along if you want any sort of real penetration.

 

[MikeFerrara]

How about this:-

There is no such thing as "technical diving" per se. The term once held sway when the equipment was out the ordinary and difficult to buy and expensive. Technical diving in today's terminology is a marketing construct by the industry to persuade the gullable and gadget-obsessed (usually not very good) diver to buy and use things that are (usually) inapropriate for his/her diving i.e. twin tanks at 20M.

It's too bad it's marketed this way. I may use more tanks and more gasses than most "recreational" divers but I use was less gadgets. Shoot, I don't even use a computer.

I do use my double at 20M and for the most part they're all I dive. All my single tanks are adorned with stage rigging and I'd have to buy an STA before I could mount one on my back even if I wanted to. Between my son, my wife and I we only have one single tank wing.

Besides that even when doing local shallow dives I can fill my double with 32% out in the garage and dive it all weekend without having to buy more. LOL

There is diving for pleasure and that may require loads of kit and extreme profiles, but it is for pleasure - which is 'recreation' I believe.

Diving skills and development are, or should be, a seamless curve from open water to exploration trimix. Divers should be taking courses appropriate to their needs as and when they develop the skills and confidence to do them and until then staying within the limits of their training.

Sadly this is an ideal world that does not exist. Until it does this (pointless) debate will continue as we all worry about whether we are "techies" or not.

Chris.

I tenf to agree. The destinction between rec and tech is used as an excuse to not teach or require good technique.

Some how the industry has decided that a technical diver should be able to dive well at 20 ft and a rec diver doesn't need to. It's all BS.

 

[roakey]

i.e. twin tanks at 20M.

So what about my hour-long cave dive where I never exceeded 6M (18ft)?

Roak

 

[miketsp]

so... i guess my question is, how do you define a
tech diver?

I put some definitions on thread
http://www.scubaboard.com/t58539.html

I think they're pretty accurate...