Does defining "technical diving" serve any purpose?

[Eric Sedletzky]

I dive the most minimal configuration that I possibly can.

When we have a DVD that I can engage in a dialectic with then I will consider it as a replacement for a good human instructor. How you back that instructor up and provide more depth and breath, be it book or DVD I really don't care. BTW: I have not seen a black and white textbook in a long, long, time.

That is true, and I do not expect there to be a on-line system that approaches what I teach, at least in terms of the scope of the material, so the discussion is moot.
Forget about the business model of dive shops and resorts, it doesn't "fit" a rapidly changing environment like the Ocean. I see it kinda like the story of the oak and the willow. UTD and GUE standards are high, their student's skills are excellent, but their approach is rigid with a limited suite of "right" responses. It is sort of like totalitarian central economic planning, I refer to it as "cave blind:" the promulgation of a single "best" response, descended from the single "best" response of diving in the ultra stable environment of the Florida caves. I much prefer a non-systematized approach that is less dependent on gear configuration and specific technique and more dependent on establishing the highest possible degree of comfort in the water combined with more generalist approach to gear and technique. As someone who stands rather to the side of the whole rec, tec, DIR thing, I understand how the DIR self-congratulatory attitude comes about, but I fear that it stems as much from comparing themselves to the abysmal failure of much of the recreational community to produce a quality product, as from anything else.

You said it way better than I ever could have.

 

[scubadollar]

Love this thread.
I have only been teaching for around 20 years so really got started when the agencies were lowering course standards and breaking them up into easy access levels to try and encourage more entry level divers and graduate them through the system one course at a time. I worked alongside a lot of the
'Old Grizzled' type who were often ex military and saw the old methods of training in comparison, similar to boot camp.
Can totally see both sides of that argument, it can be an unforgiving environment and as Thessalamania has mentioned, rigidity in training and the "One Way" to do it approach have always seemed counterintuitive to me.
I have never been interested in Tech and have always let my students know very clearly that we are engaged in Rec diving and that Tech diving is a distinct difference and tried to very cleary describe that difference and let them know that training and experience are the two things that will allow them to graduate to that level if so desired.
I have also always reinforced self reliance, adaptability and tolerance of all the different ways that things can be done. Most importantly, know your equipment, know your buddies equipment and know your limits (and don't reach for them on every dive).
That being said, I want to go to Bikini Atoll, and think I may have to get a bit tech in order to do so.

 

[Bigbella]

Does defining "technical diving" serve any purpose?​

Only when you wake up and use the proper hipster-doofus spelling of "technical" as "tek" or "tec"; otherwise, it's largely meaningless . . .

 

[Subcooled]

Just following on from this thread, I was thinking about the argument that having a definition or a label is potentially unhelpful, and I was mulling that separate thought.

I think overall my own view is that having a definition, or at least a description (accepting that many people disagree on what it should be) does have a value for two reasons.

(1) For the general sport diving population, it provides some kind of definition for the class of things which "you know that you don't know". I was recently re-reading the PADI diving encyclopedia and they list five "types" of tec diving (from memory: deeper dives, trimix (as a separate category), cave penetration, wreck penetration, rebreathers), which I thought was pretty sensible: if you want to do these five things, get more training.

(2) Until the end of time, there will always be a breed of divers who want to try and prove something by "going beyond". In a world where tec diving didn't exist, those are the people that will try and do the deep bounce bounce dives or plunge headlong into caves. If you can deflect at least some of that macho-ness into doing courses so that they can brandish macho cards rather than trying to do macho things (untrained), we may save a few lives.

As humans we need to define, identify and classify things to make sense of the universe - and diving.

The tec/rec division is one possibility, but how about:

A. Professional diving, i.e. for salary or other income (sorted alphabetically)

A1 Commercial diving
- experimental diving
- inspection diving
- recovery diving
- sewer diving
- underwater construction and repair
A2 Diving instruction
A3 Guiding (DM)
A4 Military diving
- attack diving
- clearance (e.g. defusing mines)
- experimental diving
A5 Public safety diving
A6 Scientific diving
- archaeological
- biological
- many other fields
A7 Other professional diving

B. Non-professional diving

B1 Adventure diving (all kinds of exciting/exploratory dives)
B2 Dive instruction as a hobby (read: CMAS)
B3 Recovery diving (not for pay)(includes cleanup dives)
B4 Recreational diving (relax)
B5 Spear fishing
B6 Sport diving - as in "sport" (competitive or not, there must be goals)
B7 Other non-professional diving

Note that there are other categorizations too (e.g. freediving, OC S.C.U.B.A, CC S.C.U.B.A, surface supplied air, diving bell, ...)

So, why are we talking so much about technical versus recreational diving?

 

[Bigbella]

As humans we need to define, identify and classify things to make sense of the universe - and diving.

The tec/rec division is one possibility, but how about:

A. Professional diving, i.e. for salary or other income (sorted alphabetically)

A1 Commercial diving
- inspection diving
- recovery diving
- sewer diving
- underwater construction and repair
A2 Diving instruction
A3 Guiding (DM)
A4 Military diving (can be subdivided further)
A5 Public safety diving
A6 Scientific diving
A7 Other professional diving

B. Non-professional diving

B1 Adventure diving (all kinds of exciting/exploratory dives)
B2 Recovery diving (not for pay)(includes cleanup dives)
B3 Recreational diving (relax)
B4 Spear fishing
B5 Sport diving - as in "sport" (competitive or not, there must be goals)
B6 Other non-professional diving

Note that there are other categorizations too (e.g. freediving, OC S.C.U.B.A, CC S.C.U.B.A, surface supplied air, diving bell, ...)

So, why are we talking so much about technical versus recreational diving?

Looks like a menu in a Chinese restaurant. I'll take an A5, B3, tea, and lychees.

What's the point?

 

[Jack Hammer]

Should point out this thread is 10 years old.

That said, Technical Diving has allowed me to fit a much larger condom catheter than I could while just doing recreational dives.

 

[Subcooled]

Looks like a menu in a Chinese restaurant. I'll take an A5, B3, tea, and lychees.

What's the point?

Perhaps there is no point?


Categories can be usefull when describing what we do. Agreeing on a canonical categorization might be impossible, though. So let's just use keywords or tags?

 

[scubadollar]

Looks like I have awakened a dead thread.

 

[Wibble]

Looks like I have awakened a dead thread.

Who said Voldemort? Or was it Beetlejuce...

That being said, I want to go to Bikini Atoll, and think I may have to get a bit tech in order to do so.

You can't do "a bit tech" -- it's all or nothing.

Maybe not that bad, but from all the screaming and shouting over the years one would think so.

Start with reasonable to good core skills (buoyancy, trim, finning) and then sign up for ANDP (Advanced Nitrox & Deco Procedures). Then you can be "a bit tech". Or is that a bit "tec"/"tek"...

No, get a rebreather!

 

[Subcooled]

Looks like I have awakened a dead thread.

People die, ideas never!