Does defining "technical diving" serve any purpose?

[Eric Sedletzky]

I'm not so sure it completely cut and dry as some people might think it is.
There are many versions of what people think is right or correct when you get up to the technical level.
I've seen training that was/is a holdover from past times that involves deep air and some theories about it along with other differences.
Once past the entry level sport diving world and stepping into the technical world (anything beyond what they train at the highest level of sport diving) there is a whole other world of grey areas and what people think is right etc.
In my opinion there is good tech training and bad tech training just like in sport diving.
I took some tech training that I was not completely thrilled with. I saw the drawbacks and decided based on that not to continue down that path any further until I sought out better training. That never happened and since then I have temorarily abandoned any further efforts to seek out better technical training due to no instructors close by, cost of good training, and lack of funds for proper gear.

It would have been just as easy for me to continue doing dives with the measly training I had thinking I was properly trained when in fact I was smart enough to know I was not.

 

[markmud]

Mike Boswell wrote:
"NO definition will ever be perfect and acceptable to all, but I think the current definition enables us to have an acceptably safe recreational dive industry, and a path for people to progress further if desired."

Hey Mike,

I agree with your response totally and believe that the current defiinitions for Tech diving are right-on.

For me it marks a clear delineation where I should not go. My training, experience, and psychological make-up preclude me from Tech diving unless I were to embark on a commercial or military career where the training is in depth and support staff almost limitless.

Tech diving as a recreational avocation is not in the cards for me. I know my limitations.

markm

 

[markmud]

Hey davetowz,
"To me .. My opinion...flame away if you must. The dividing line happens to be when the surface is no longer an option. This may be a hard ceiling such as a cave dive or a penetration on a wreck or as simple as exceeding NDL, giving you a "soft ceiling"'

No I won't flame you.

I understand your point and agree with it except...

Unless you are diving to only 30 fsw, you do have a "soft ceiling."

Please don't fill your BC with air and fin your way to the surface from 80 fsw!!! No, No, please!

My former-commercial diver OW PADI trainer confirmed this after he certed myself and a co-student. He towed the PADI line during training to keep himself under the PADI liability umbrella. Myself and the co-student kept questioning the NDL that we learned in the book, even though the same book completely contradicted itself.

All dives are decompression dives. Personally, I don't do staged decompression but I do compression diving.

All rec dives to 130 fsw have a "soft celing."

Also, while I rail against PADI over some issues, I believe they did save rec diving.

markm

 

[Thalassamania]

To me .. My opinion...flame away if you must. The dividing line happens to be when the surface is no longer an option. This may be a hard ceiling such as a cave dive or a penetration on a wreck or as simple as exceeding NDL, giving you a "soft ceiling"

Exactly. Technical diving is not defined by the gear or the depth but by the lack of immediate access to the surface and the resulting total dependence on equipment for survival. It is a shift in focus from safety at the surface to safety in what you carry with you.

I think the current definitions as given by the TecRec programs are pretty self-explainatory and easy to understand.

The hard part is getting certain types of divers to accept those definitions and realise that some of the dives that are undertaken or planned are not recreational. Simply exceeding the limits of recreational diving does not make it a technical dive. They are in fact trying to do a "recreational technical dive" (not the greatest description, but you get my drift), beyond their training and/or capabilities.

Limits are there for a reason, be it NDL, penetration, depth etc.and these limits need to be respected and defined.

There are lots of different limits, for lots of different reasons, but to permit the agencies to throw everything that they consider to be too dangerous or too difficult into the technical diving basket, just so that they have an excuse to exclude it from their liability considerations is a bit much.

I also believe any dive with a rebreather (whether deco or within NDL) is considered a technical dive by the various certifying agencies.

Mike D

No, there are clearly SCCR and Oxygen rebreather applications in the recreational diving arena and I can envision ECCR ones too ... it's not the gear, it's the ceiling, there are technical dives to be had in way less than thirty feet.

 

[Wookie]

Because I do not mix types of divers on a charter, I have to define a technical charter versus a recreational charter. Besides the 5 types of dives listed above (deco, cave, wreck, ccr, trimix), I would add nitrox mixes above 40%. I would take away Recreational Trimix (the truly normoxic or hyperoxic, with helium levels below 20%) as they do not change your NDL's from air/nitrox.

 

[Wookie]

No, there are clearly SCCR and Oxygen rebreather applications in the recreational diving arena and I can envision ECCR ones too ... it's not the gear, it's the ceiling, there are technical dives to be had in way less than thirty feet.

Agreed, there are applications for both eccr (Poseidon Mark 6) and O2 rebreathers in the recreational arena. The certifications, however, are still treated as technical for a little while longer. That's about to change. TDI issues a cert. What I can't find out is if SSI issues the cert as a recreational cert or if it is a TechXR cert.

 

[Thalassamania]

Because I do not mix types of divers on a charter, I have to define a technical charter versus a recreational charter. Besides the 5 types of dives listed above (deco, cave, wreck, ccr, trimix), I would add nitrox mixes above 40%. I would take away Recreational Trimix (the truly normoxic or hyperoxic, with helium levels below 20%) as they do not change your NDL's from air/nitrox.

While I really can't see doing it, what would it matter if they breathe heliox (normoxic or richer) within no-D limits, or pure oxygen above 18 feet for that matter?

 

[boulderjohn]

I think the general agreement so far indicates that whether or not there is a fully agreed upon definition, most people know what you mean when you talk about the difference between recreational and technical diving. I further agree that the difference is important, largely for the reason Andy (Devon) articulated. As recreational divers gather skill and experience, they need to know that there is a point beyond which they need further training.

The problem is that such divers can make intelligent decisions based on all the factors they see before them, but without the training they don't see all the factors. That tempts them to push the envelope. They may be successful in pushing that envelope enough to be further emboldened. As long as nothing goes, wrong, they are OK, but they lack the resources to anticipate what can go wrong and the training to deal with those problems.

I will illustrate with an extreme and obvious example. Divers who have gone to a place like Cozumel and swum through long swim-throughs with those coarse sand bottoms frequently may stare at the mouth of a cave and think, "Shoot, we can do this. We'll just go in a little ways and turn around." So they do go in for a while, feeling pretty good with their flutter-kicking selves. They decide to turn around to exit, but all they see is the black cloud of silt they kicked up. They work they way through that cloud, not realizing they just took a branching tunnel....

 

[Rhone Man]

I'm not so sure it completely cut and dry as some people might think it is.

I think the general agreement so far indicates that whether or not there is a fully agreed upon definition, most people know what you mean when you talk about the difference between recreational and technical diving. I further agree that the difference is important, largely for the reason Andy (Devon) articulated.

Yes, I think there are two different questions: (1) is it useful to have a definition or concept of "technical diving", and (2) what should that definition be?

I think they interrelate, but they are not the same point.

 

[boulderjohn]

Yes, I think there are two different questions: (1) is it useful to have a definition or concept of "technical diving", and (2) what should that definition be?

I think they interrelate, but they are not the same point.

I have always agreed with those above who see the existence of a hard or soft ceiling as the primary determining factor. I also agree that a rebreather is only a factor if it is used to extend depth and time and thus create such a ceiling.