I prefer Tic Tec
Poll: Is it Tec, Tek, or Tech diving?
- Thread starter SaltyWombat
- Start date
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
Quoting myself from the February thread What does Tek Lite mean?
Diving is either recreational or professional. Professional includes commercial, scientific, public safety and military diving.
Technical diving is a subset of activities within recreational diving. Divers and certifying agencies have different answers as to exactly which activities fall into that subset. I think the agencies all agree that the following are technical:
- depths over 40m,
- true overheard environments
- trimix, normoxic mixes, over 40% 02
- mixed gas rebreathers
- staged decompression
Opinions differ on the following
- "light" deco using back gas
- minimal overhead in wrecks, caves, under ice
- DPVs
And of course everyone has different definitions of where overheads become overheads instead of swimthroughs or caverns.
Also, these lines change over time. Nitrox and sidemount were once generally considered technical. I have no idea where Angelo's O2 rebreathers fit into the current training standards.
Yes, different people and/or agencies have different opinions as to what comprises technical diving. M2 had an idea when he introduced the term to the masses. And the definition has morphed, it seems, since then. To me:
- depths exceeding 40m? Naw, not technical diving.
- staged decompression (e.g., air dive, air deco)? Naw.
- recreational Nitrox as introduced and promulgated by DR through IAND (before it became IANTD)? Naw.
- solo diving? Naw.
- diving doubles (either independent, or single-outlet manifolded, or dual outlet non-isolation manifolded, or isolation-manifolded)? Naw.
- et cetera
But, as I wrote above, this really doesn't matter to me, personally. None of this is codified, after all.
rx7diver
Jack Hammer
Contributor
Ayisha
Contributor
The person who coined the term "technical diving":
LXD 035 : Michael Menduno - Author, Editor & Technical Diving Forerunner - ScubaGuru
Blackcrusader
Contributor
Well even in my BSAC diving in Brunei when we penetrated wrecks we used a line. That was just diving. We often brought along extra tanks as some wrecks were at 35m depth and deeper. Tanks on the anchor line for deco stops as well. Again not tec diving. I would think using rebreathers is technical diving. TDI advanced nitrox and Deco some may call that technical diving. In the end it matters not what we call it but more that we are properly trained for the dives we do.
@BLACKCRUSADER
It seems that you have an aversion to calling dives technical. Do you see technical dives as sort of more than regular diving? And therefore since *everyone* is doing deep staged deco wreck dives they aren't technical because they are the norm?
It seems that you have an aversion to calling dives technical. Do you see technical dives as sort of more than regular diving? And therefore since *everyone* is doing deep staged deco wreck dives they aren't technical because they are the norm?
I know the question is not directed to me, but I'll answer anyway, in the hope of being relevant :
diving is a technique in itself, we rely on equipment and training, and it demands adaptation of the mind and body, there's absolutely nothing natural about it. So, according to me, all dives are technical, but some are more complex (a good example : deep cave rebreather diving with dsv) and every diver chooses his own level of complexity .
As ever "technical" is a continuum. We all know that a 100m/330' dive is technical. Walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. But to a novice, a deeper dive within NDLs is a technical dive, meaning it's relying on skills they don't have.
PADI has taken a simple view: no ceiling diving, which effectively means there's no deco allowed and a 40m/132' limit. What's good about this is it's simple and clear, possibly too simple as it doesn't stress redundancy in normal diving.
Other agencies, such as BSAC, take a more nuanced view where "light" deco is allowable; 15 mins on backgas (BSAC people to confirm this) and they teach redundancy for deeper diving.
What actually is technical? Dive planning's often the key; but then all dives are planned -- going through some multi-level planning using the RDP table is just as hard as planning for a 50m/165' multi-gas dive using MultiDeco.
So chill. PADI's right in this case, even though we all know it's far more nuanced.
PADI has taken a simple view: no ceiling diving, which effectively means there's no deco allowed and a 40m/132' limit. What's good about this is it's simple and clear, possibly too simple as it doesn't stress redundancy in normal diving.
Other agencies, such as BSAC, take a more nuanced view where "light" deco is allowable; 15 mins on backgas (BSAC people to confirm this) and they teach redundancy for deeper diving.
What actually is technical? Dive planning's often the key; but then all dives are planned -- going through some multi-level planning using the RDP table is just as hard as planning for a 50m/165' multi-gas dive using MultiDeco.
So chill. PADI's right in this case, even though we all know it's far more nuanced.
Similar threads
