Does defining "technical diving" serve any purpose?

[stuartv]

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

The price tag on this bottle of helium would beg to differ... LOL

 

[Wibble]

That bottle of heilium and my tiny diluent cylinders... What a great combination

 

[stuartv]

That bottle of heilium and my tiny diluent cylinders... What a great combination

Shall we petition to change your screen name to "TinyTanks"?

 

[Subcooled]

The price tag on this bottle of helium would beg to differ... LOL

Hydrox might be cheaper. More bang for your buck.

 

[Wibble]

Ahh, but is it green or blue hydrox?

 

[Subcooled]

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

What's the point?

Corollary: What's the point with tec/rec separation then?

 

[Subcooled]

Ahh, but is it green or blue hydrox?

I was thinking of something more dynamic than nutrients or slime removers

 

[boulderjohn]

Corollary: What's the point with tec/rec separation then?

I think the value in contrasting the two is to emphasize to recreational divers that they should have additional training to do technical dives. There is indeed something of a gray area in transition between the two, but as you move through that gray area toward true technical diving, the need for that training becomes more and more critical.

I think it is that gray area that causes the most confusion, and I think it is because of the number of people and agencies who like to pretend it does not exist. For example, open water divers are told never, ever go into overhead environments, so they do not have guidance to help them differentiate between the simple swim throughs they experience immediately after OW certification and a cave. One they can do easily without further training; the other will likely get them killed.

 

[Subcooled]

I think the value in contrasting the two is to emphasize to recreational divers that they should have additional training to do technical dives. There is indeed something of a gray area in transition between the two, but as you move through that gray area toward true technical diving, the need for that training becomes more and more critical.

I think it is that gray area that causes the most confusion, and I think it is because of the number of people and agencies who like to pretend it does not exist. For example, open water divers are told never, ever go into overhead environments, so they do not have guidance to help them differentiate between the simple swim throughs they experience immediately after OW certification and a cave. One they can do easily without further training; the other will likely get them killed.

It is true indeed that tec/rec is an oversimplification.

A trimix dive to 190 feet is probably considered by most to be a "technical dive", but how about a dive to 30 feet with an imminent entanglement hazard? Or a zero viz dive in a river - with all the risks involved? Or ice diving at three feet, or dives in high current, or if there are crocs or hippopotams in the water? How about rec dive peer pressure to breathe the tanks dry? There are copious amounts of diving scenarios that are "not tec" but could actually be more dangerous.

More training and practice is required for all new types of diving, not just for "tec".

I would stress new environment and new gear and existing hard limits more that "technicality". An immediate ascent is not possible in cave diving, mine diving, ice diving, deep diving (with mandatory decompression stops) etc. but there are many more factors in diving that require thought, planning, and care.

Just my opinion.

 

[Angelo Farina]

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"

I agree almost entirely, but with a small modification.
Modern computers allow divers to conduct variable-depth dives "riding" the edge of the NDL.
As they see that just a few minutes remain before the NDL, they ascend some meters. Doing so, the computer shows more time before the NDL. Continuing with this approach, the diver ascends slowly (which is good) but systematically loading the body's tissues to the maximum allowed amount of Nitrogen, just below the limit which is supposed to avoid DCS.
This practice, for me, is quite dangerous and should not considered "rec". In fact, as soon as this approach became widespread, and following a number of "undeserved" DCS cases, almost all agencies started to recommend, or even to make mandatory, a safety stop (typically 5 min at 5 meters).
This means that this kind of dives is actually a dive with decompression.
It is not the "staged" decompression which I was trained to plan and execute following the US Navy tables, but it is still a variable-depth deco.
If something bad happens towards the end of such a variable-depth dive, and the diver resurfaces quickly "as a cork", the risk of a DCS is quite relevant.
This way of diving "within the NDL", in my opinion, is less safe than diving with short planned staged deco, which was what I did learn as a purely recreational student 40 years ago.
Most rec divers nowadays think that staying within the NDL they do not need the capabilities and the equipment recommended for short deco stops, hence perform a dangerous dive on the edge of NDL. This kind of diving should be discouraged, the safe limit for rec diving should not be set at the NDL, but below the NDL by at least 5 minutes.
So, even if the dive must be suddenly interrupted, ascending directly to the surface without the (recommended, but almost mandatory) safety stop, the risk of DCS remains quite low.