Going Deeper than 130'

[TSandM]

There were a lot of people at our local dive site yesterday with long hoses . . . I knew most of them, and about half of them were in no way, shape or form DIR.

And probably every group in the world has its share of jerks.

Please don't make decisions that discard an entire system of diving, based on the rude behavior of a couple of individuals, especially when you aren't even certain that those individuals had any affiliation with any group that would be termed "DIR".

But yes, guilty as charged; I really LIKE the way I've been taught to dive, which is why I dive that way. I wish more folks were taught some of the things I've been taught, even the four-dive-a-year vacation people. They'd have a lot more fun, and fun is what it's all about!

 

[explorer08]

There are a lot of good recommendations in this thread and the TO would do good to listen careful to them.
But there is one point I don't agree with. It's the following.

A dive to 160 feet is a decompression dive and, by definition, a technical dive.

I can agree with the first half of this statement.
Although non decompression dives to 160 ft (50m) are possible, according to some dive tables (e.g. French MN90 52m - 5min, British BSAC88 51m - 8min, German Deco2000 51m - 5min), I consider this being more theoretical than realistic.

But I can't agree with the second half.
By who's definition is a decompression dive a technical dive?
I didn' t know before that a general accepted definition of this kind is existing.
For example for the French CMAS federation (FFESSM) dives to 60m (200ft) are normal Rec dives, done on air. However for dives deeper than 40m their minimum certification requirement is a 3* diver. And for CMAS divers decompression theory and planning of decompression dives is part of their training from 2* diver level on.

So what I want to point out for the TO is that definitions often are just a result of a specific point of view. And for my opinion between Rec-diving and Tec-diving there is a broad grey zone, where you can dive with Rec-equipment as well as with Tec-equipment, but never without a thorough knowledge of what you are doing and how to do it.
So before you make a decision for any agency, look around and try to learn a lot about them and than see, which agencies philosophy and approach does match best with your needs.

Anyway 'Deco for Divers' by Mark Powell is an excellent book to start with.

 

[buckaltc]

Blackwood--You are right, an in depth discussion of this might be better reserved for the DIR Forum. If I cannot get some good answers locally I will look there. In the mean time I want to add I'm asking because I don't know. I am going to look at DIR. We just got off to a rocky start.

 

[rongoodman]

By who's definition is a decompression dive a technical dive?

Once you have a decompression obligation, you no longer have access to the surface in case of a problem, at least not without a distinct risk of injury. Problems have to be solved where you are. Sounds technical to me.

 

[explorer08]

Once you have a decompression obligation, you no longer have access to the surface in case of a problem, at least not without a distinct risk of injury. Problems have to be solved where you are. Sounds technical to me.

It may sound technical to you, but as you can see at my example with the french guys, it doesn't sound like that to everybody.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

It may sound technical to you, but as you can see at my example with the french guys, it doesn't sound like that to everybody.

... you can't change basic physics ... no matter how much wine you drink ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[explorer08]

... you can't change basic physics ... no matter how much wine you drink ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Perhaps you are so kind to explain what basic physics have to do with the definition of a dive as technical or not.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Perhaps you are so kind to explain what basic physics have to do with the definition of a dive as technical or not.

By definition, "technical" is a dive that either exceeds recommended recreational depth limits or exceeds no decompression limits.

The reference to physics implies what doing a dive beyond those limits does to your body. That isn't dependent on where you dive, or who trained you ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[PfcAJ]

I'll go out on a limb here and say since NAUI, NOAA, GUE, PADI, IANTD, TDI, UTD, and a bucketload of others call a deco dive a technical dive (to include dives past 130'), that a deco dive can be called a technical dive.

Could be a little off base here, though...

But my guess is that you want to try to argue in attempt to outsmart other posters. Guess what? Its not working.

 

[explorer08]

I'll go out on a limb here and say since NAUI, NOAA, GUE, PADI, IANTD, TDI, UTD, and a bucketload of others call a deco dive a technical dive (to include dives past 130'), that a deco dive can be called a technical dive.

Could be a little off base here, though...

You are true, the majority of the certification agencies call a deco dive a technical dive.

But this is neither a question of physics, nor is it a gods law, nor is it a topic for a democratic decisison. It is simply a man made decision. I don't say, that this decision is not reasonable. I just say that another decision is possible and reasonable as well.
And I don't think that it's of base here.
The TO is new to the topic of deep dives, so he should become aware that there are different approaches to that topic. Also he should become aware of something, much more people should become aware of - that things are not always just white or black, but that there are a lot of shades of grey as well!

Anyway, however we call it, I think we all agree that dives deeper than 130ft (40m) are demanding dives, for experienced divers with good knowledge of what they are doing only.