Does defining "technical diving" serve any purpose?

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!

There needs to be some clean and clear reason for the demarcation. 130 feet doesn't cut it, there's nothing different at 131 that was not there at 129. But when there is a ceiling there is a difference, granted there should be some consideration of deco-light (at least for the one step over the line contingency plan).
 
There needs to be some clean and clear reason for the demarcation. 130 feet doesn't cut it, there's nothing different at 131 that was not there at 129. But when there is a ceiling there is a difference, granted there should be some consideration of deco-light (at least for the one step over the line contingency plan).

The main problem is turning out OW divers that would understand any reason for any demarcation except a rote repetition of OW 60', AOW 100', and deep 130' without having any understanding of why it may not be in their own best intrest to dive to those limits regardless of what card they have in their pocket.

One saying goes "A little knowledge is dangerous", my contention is that OW training at minimum standards is that little knowledge.

It is a good thing that most newbees are in awe of authority and other than "trust me dive" issues they follow the party line. Once away from the party line however, they do not have the tools to expand their diving envelope safely, unless they do some serious reading and practice.


If You and the Ocean are on opposite sides of a chess game, you might be a Tech Diver
( appologies to Jeff Foxworthy )


Bob
-----------------------------------
I may be old, but I’m not dead yet.
 
Are you suggesting that as standards drop we should continuously change out definitions and guidelines to accommodate the worst common denominator? That doesn't sound like you.
 
Markmud, I agree that every dive is a decompression dive and even within the limits of a "REC" dive a dive may take a hit if they do ascend too rapidly, however, I will still stand by me definition and state that if I happened to be at 120 FSW for 5 minutes and had an issue I could head for the surface ( at an acceptable or maybe a bit faster pace) and live to dive again, however if I had spent 40 minutes at the same 120 FSW and ascended directly to the surface at the same acceptable rate, it would most likely result in a bit of hurt. However the rest of the industry defines, I will stick to the " soft or hard ceiling" as my defining point. Simply..whenever the surface is not an option.
 
One saying goes "A little knowledge is dangerous", my contention is that OW training at minimum standards is that little knowledge.

Bob... I guess that I apply the same sentiment to the concept of educating novice/inexperienced divers about deco, depth, overheads etc. There's a limit to how much they can absorb. There's also a limit on what they can cope with underwater, in respect of physical, mental and psychological task loading.

For me, the 'K.I.S.S' principle really applies whenever a diver progresses the limits of their diving. That is especially true for novice divers, who are progressing from 'nothing' to being independent, qualified divers.

It's not unknown for me to occasionally level some fierce criticism against agencies like PADI.. but...one thing I do agree with is their modular and progressive approach to scuba training. Of course, this may have originated for the wrong reasons ('put another dollar in') - but the outcome is that divers engage in a system that allows progressive training, in line with the progressive accumulation of experience - which is then appropriately linked to the progressive development of diving limits. Of course, that system only works if the divers themselves respect the system and abide by the recommendations the agency gives.

It's a 'one-step-at-a-time' approach. Thus, divers must take things 'one-step-at-a-time'. If a diver prefers an 'all-or-nothing' approach, then a different training system would be more appropriate for them. Such a system would need an extensive and forward-balanced training bias - comprising one, or more, very intensive, very in-depth and very lengthy (and very expensive?) entry-level courses.

The question really boils down to: What really needs to be educated, to keep 99% of divers safe?

Recognising that the vast majority of divers opt for a 'one-step-at-a-time' system of education, I'd venture that the answer, in principle and practice, to this is:

1) Recognise that many scuba diving risks/dangers are not immediately apparent or obvious. Common sense & instinct are not enough by themselves.

2) Dive conservatively and respect the recommendations given by your agency that are relevant to your level of training.

3) Establish and maintain prudent personal limits for your diving, especially with regards to depth, expand those limits slowly and progressively.

4) Ensure you have appropriate practical skills and knowledge to safely utilise the equipment and procedures you will dive with.

5) Don't enter overhead (or virtual overhead) environments without specialist training and equipment.

6)
Always absolutely guarantee your ability to return to the surface alive. Recognise the value of a direct ascent. Don't deny yourself that value, unless you are certain that your training, skills and equipment will allow you to deal with every contingency at depth.

7) Be aware of the relationship between your dives & the skills/knowledge you possess. Rectify skill & knowledge deficiencies through appropriate training.

8) Seek a qualified second-opinion on your preparedness to progress the limits of your diving, before doing those dives.

9) Judge your own capabilities based on your performance under the worst-case scenarios, not on when everything goes smoothly.

10) Don't attempt any dive that you wouldn't be realistically confident to complete without support/guidance/protection from others.
 
Recreational Trimix (the truly normoxic or hyperoxic, with helium levels below 20%) as they do not change your NDL's from air/nitrox.
By that logic, a dive with 21% O2 and He up to 35% should also be removed as a mix such as that would still be the same as an air dive table wise.
 
I think that a complex definition to most means nothing. To use in a definition diving types to those who dont know what they are is a futal idea. It does however make sence to do as they do now, and say from this point is technical diving. Everyone has some sence of deco and deep and overhead in the most broadest terms and can relate to those aspects. If you cant go straight up with out decompression you are doing something you have not been given the skill set to do. Everyone knows what a commercial drivers license is, They dont know what all they can do with one but if they are told that they need a cdl to operate the vehical they know oeration requires a higher knowledge level that the general dl. Like driving an 18 wheeler or hazmat ot public trans. I think our current definition is more than adaquate. Any one can tell you that a bar stamp that says under 21 is a limit... Whether there is an over 30 or over 50 stamp is moot so long as one proudly sports thier under21 stamp.
 
Are you suggesting that as standards drop we should continuously change out definitions and guidelines to accommodate the worst common denominator? That doesn't sound like you.

My point is that definitions and guidelines are being changed and used instead of knowledge and skill. This will work OK as long as the divers stay on the reservation, once off they have no way of understanding of the jackpot they can swim into.


Bob... I guess that I apply the same sentiment to the concept of educating novice/inexperienced divers about deco, depth, overheads etc. There's a limit to how much they can absorb. There's also a limit on what they can cope with underwater, in respect of physical, mental and psychological task loading.

Certifying an OW diver with a few hours class work, a couple of pool sessions and four dives is the limitation. May be we go back to certifying a student with that training as a Scuba Diver as was done previously. It would also generate more revenue.

It is not the student's limit, it's the limit made by the instructor and agency.





Bob
---------------------------
I may be old, but I’m not dead yet.
 
You are right.. Those in the position to set limits are doing so not on common sence but on litigation exposure. It is a numbers game at the industry level. So long as the litigation department thinks they could get bit by using a word or a certain punctuation or grammer, that bit will be excluded. The litmus then becomes....If any claim to the agency is made , can it be answered with, "damage was incurred as result of miss-application of the training and not as result of the training. As long as students think in the aspect that diving is a right and the agency has to lower standards to sell a course the legal department will adjust the limits that thier training will provide for.

My point is that definitions and guidelines are being changed and used instead of knowledge and skill. This will work OK as long as the divers stay on the reservation, once off they have no way of understanding of the jackpot they can swim into.




Certifying an OW diver with a few hours class work, a couple of pool sessions and four dives is the limitation. May be we go back to certifying a student with that training as a Scuba Diver as was done previously. It would also generate more revenue.

It is not the student's limit, it's the limit made by the instructor and agency.





Bob
---------------------------
I may be old, but I’m not dead yet.
 
Are you suggesting that as standards drop we should continuously change out definitions and guidelines to accommodate the worst common denominator? That doesn't sound like you.

Bob... I guess that I apply the same sentiment to the concept of educating novice/inexperienced divers about deco, depth, overheads etc. There's a limit to how much they can absorb.
Interesting thoughts.

About 40 years ago I was a counselor for First Aid merit badge. Years later I was a high school coach and was required to have first aid certification. Today I am an instructor for first aid through EFR. In each of those three phases, I saw a decrease in the amount students were required to learn. This was a conscious decision by the different first aid organizations. Research has shown that all too frequently the graduates of a first aid course freeze and do nothing when they come upon an actual emergency requiring their action. That is because there was so much to learn in the course and so little opportunity to practice it in the intervening time that they have forgotten enough to make them afraid to act for fear of making a mistake. They therefore have adopted the "less is more" theory--people who are overwhelmed with information remember less than those who are given a more more manageable load to remember. This is part of Interference Theory.
 

Back
Top Bottom