Recreational, techreational, or technical: Deeper sport diving

[TSandM]

My husband has hinted at this, but I want to wade into it.

This class we just took was a class for RECREATIONAL divers. It was stressed again and again that the decision making algorithms we were being taught were to a fairly large extent dependent on the idea that we were RECREATIONAL divers -- meaning that our depth/time product was within certain limits, and the surface was almost always going to be a better option than remaining underwater in the face of major failures or problems.

Given this orientation, which was explicitly stated, we practiced toxing diver rescue, post failures, SMB deployment in midwater, and accurate ascents with stops from depth. We studied gas planning and gas management in exquisite detail, including how to assess the likelihood of getting two safe dives out of a set of doubles. We did air-sharing and mask off ascents. We were supposed to practice light failures and backup deployment (which I did when my light failed, although we didn't actually get to this in class). We did "simulator" dives where we were thrown failures, sometimes in multiples.

All of this is what I read about in technical diving classes.

But it "gave me furiously to think". When I took my original OW training, and the classes beyond that, it seemed that there was a clear and sharp distinction between recreational diving and technical diving. Even here on SB, you see that question posed, and it's almost always answered, "Technical diving begins where a direct ascent to the surface is no longer an option." But is there, in fact, a sharp dividing line (other than overhead)? If you are OOA at 20 fsw, go to the surface. It's easy and clear, and no major decision-making is required. If you are at 100 feet, in poor viz, diving off an anchored boat and needing to come up the anchor line if at all possible, and you go OOA, is a direct ascent really the best strategy? At some point, solving problems underwater becomes increasingly attractive or even necessary. If you are five minutes over the NDLs, but have a severe problem, is a direct ascent not an option? It's an option -- It has a downside, which is the risk of DCS, but an upside, which is the certainty of not drowning.

As I have learned more, it seems that there is no sharp dividing line between recreational and technical diving -- not in skills, not in knowledge, and not in concept. What there is is a gradation, where the surface (and DCS) becomes less and less attractive, and the risks and stresses of solving problems underwater become more and more desirable. And as that occurs, the need for the skills and the knowledge and the mindset of solving things underwater become more and more necessary.

And as I learn more, it seems to me that anybody who is expanding their limitations by diving deeper should be thinking about these issues -- the surface gets more and more distant, and the effort and risk required to get there increase; the issues that determine how long you can breathe (the critical factor) become more complicated, and the skills needed to solve problems underwater become more and more necessary. And how many of us get the training to be sure we have this all covered?

 

[ArcticDiver]

Just installed IE7 and playing a bit when I came across this post.

Frankly I think all this talk about "recreational" vs "technical" diving is largely a lot of nonsense. Unless a person is getting paid for their diving it is for fun, i.e. recreational.

So, to me, the proper attitude is what you imply in your post. That is to learn enough that you can match your skills and attitude to the particular recreational diving you undertake.

But one must not follow the crowd blindly. Mixed in with good advice and training is a very large dose of selling a particular diving style, mixed with unsupported fears of equipment failure and needs for particular skills. So, it is incumbent upon the diver to do a good job of sorting through all the chaff to find the golden kernals.

I'm not saying any diver should stop learning. I am always learning and practicing what I learn. But, I advocate a diver very clearly differentiate between what is being done as a result of preference and what is being done for safety. That distinction is seldom made in the diving industry.

In that regard; from dive one I have always believed, and science will support, that all diving is decompression diving. It is just that some dives are less limiting than others. So, bolting to the surface to solve a problem, even though that is what is implied in many training classes, has never been and is not an optionl. It is acceptance of this fact that differentiates the serious diver from the dabbling diver.

 

[Mr.X]

Personally, I think that diving requires proper attitude foremost. As suggested, the first stage in minting a new diver is to get them to become lifelong, choice-conscious learners. That's the first step in the learning process. Next, a skilled guide (instructor/mentor) and student would try to scaffold their next learning steps.

While many of the skills of OW transfer to tech...this area of diving is a whole 'nother banana with regards to risk, mindset, gear, support and physical conditioning etc.. There is a difference. If anything, I would ask a prospective student to do is to read some of the books like Shadow divers, get back copies of Aquacorp to get a historical handle on how this aspect of diving emerged. The accounts are enligthening, amusing as new pioneers broke into uncharted territory...sometimes with tragic results.


My two cents as a technical instructor.

 

[spectrum]

I don't think I have published it on my website but I have drafted a feature that speaks to absolutes in this sport. Very few if any topics have an absolute answer. Part of this is the diversity of divers. You can have the warm water diver that always goes out with a DM and you have the cold water low visibility diver that is diving with peers from the first dive. Add to that the varried terrain and conditions and it's clear that in a blink of an eye we can be going places that the garden varriety OW cert has not dealt with.

With the exception of perhaps dealing with doubles what you describe sounds like what I wish AOW was. All of the topics you describe sound like things that I could certainly make use of in my diving. Many I have explored and practiced to some extent but like anything else a professional presentation and supervised practice should always be a more rounded foundation. I'd take such a course if offered locally.

Pete

 

[grazie42]

I think the terms recreational and technical can be somewhat misleading and may contribute to getting people in trouble.

I think part of the problem is that when people consider whether they should do a dive, the answer they come up with is "I have OW, AOW and a deepspecialty so I must be ok, agency X,Y, Z and my nice instructor A said so". I don´t want to beat the "diver training issue" to death again but this seems to be the attitude of the majority of divers I see on boats in the real world. We have regular posts here on SB that are basically divers asking for approval and "cheerleading" for entering wrecks or diving deep without training.

The things you mention like gas management, deco theory and bouyancy control are some of the most "basic" skills in scubadiving but I think they also account for 90% of the threads on SB. Whether that´s a reflection of the way the agencies/instructors are teaching this stuff or because divers aren´t "doing their part" is not a productive discussion.

IMV, it´s clear that most divers don´t know what they need to and don´t know that they don´t.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

...it seems that there is no sharp dividing line between recreational and technical diving -- not in skills, not in knowledge, and not in concept. What there is is a gradation, where the surface (and DCS) becomes less and less attractive, and the risks and stresses of solving problems underwater become more and more desirable. And as that occurs, the need for the skills and the knowledge and the mindset of solving things underater become more and more necessary.

And how many of us get the training to be sure we have this all covered?

I would agree that, aside from overhead - which can be either physical or intangible such as a decompression obligation - diving is diving and more technically oriented diving is in fact recreational diving that requires more equipment, planning, knowledge, and experience. It's the last requirement listed that I often have concerns about.

Divers rushing too deep too fast is nothing new, it's been happening since the sport began. But newer divers may not understand that, while much about diving hasn't really changed over the past twenty years or so, one thing that has changed is the definition of a category of diving called "tech" diving, and the way this is marketed.

In the mid-1980s there was no such category as "technical diving". There was no (broad scale) "mixed gas diving", no trimix, ...the only nitrox tables published were in a relatively obscure NOAA manual. While certainly divers routinely went too deep and died from the usual consequences, none of them were routinely conducting staged decompression dives to 300' on helium mixes.

So while new divers then and now still want to progress as far as possible as quickly as possible, the difference today is that at it's upper end "deeper recreational diving" is significantly more complex today than it was 20 years ago. Plus, today this is marketed to newer divers: think about DSAT's breathless hyperbole "She's seen what few women have. The belly of the Andrea Doria. The 110' deep home of the Frontenac. And she's a TEC DEEP DIVER" etc. etc. Hmmmmm...

Now as it was then, newer divers need to recognize that deeper recreational diving demands (as the other posters noted) a commitment to developing the proper attitude and situational awareness to be able to plan to avoid issues and/or resolve them underwater when they occur. This still requires experience, which newer divers ought to be encouraged to gain before they seek "technical" training.

I become concerned when I see posts on SB from newer divers with fewer than 20 dives who start looking into doubles and mixed gas training. You can still go too deep too fast. It's just that with the current focus on and marketing of 'technical diving', newer divers can go WAY too deep WAY too fast.

The onus is to an even greater extent on the technical instructor to ensure that their students have the proper mindset, attitude, knowledge base, and experience, to be eligible to move safely into more complex diving.

 

[Peter Guy]

Doc I -- Your comment about being concerned with newer divers trying to go too fast was something that was discussed at length at our last debrief. One of the classmates had been planning on taking Tech 1 in the near future, but Joe T. (our teacher/mentor) suggested NOT taking it until the diver became bored with doing what he is now doing. What's wrong with going down to 90' and swimming around pretty wrecks, taking pictures of pretty fishes or doing somersaults down a wall? Until that becomes trivial, why not just enjoy that part of recreational diving? That was the point Joe was trying to make -- and I think he did it well.

 

[TSandM]

I get the feeling from your post, Doc, that you're worried I'm saying that technical diving is just a little step from recreational so don't worry . . . I'm saying the opposite. My point was that deeper diving in the recreational range OUGHT to involve more of the skills and knowledge that are frequently viewed as belonging to technical training, because the simple answer of "The surface is always an option" becomes less and less valid, the deeper you go.

 

[fire_diver]

I become concerned when I see posts on SB from newer divers with fewer than 20 dives who start looking into doubles and mixed gas training. You can still go too deep too fast. It's just that with the current focus on and marketing of 'technical diving', newer divers can go WAY too deep WAY too fast.

The onus is to an even greater extent on the technical instructor to ensure that their students have the proper mindset, attitude, knowledge base, and experience, to be eligible to move safely into more complex diving.

This is the crux of "certified" diving. Most new divers today have the mentality that they can take a class for XYZ diving and are automatically good to go. There are cert cards for everything imaginable. Long gone are the days of mentored diving. Back when many people started diving without ever seeing an instructor. When they wanted to do the deeper, harder diving; WALL! No one would take them. Someone already "accepted" had to speak up and say, "yeah, I dive with this guy and he's good enough."

 

[Mo2vation]

Doc I -- Your comment about being concerned with newer divers trying to go too fast was something that was discussed at length at our last debrief. One of the classmates had been planning on taking Tech 1 in the near future, but Joe T. (our teacher/mentor) suggested NOT taking it until the diver became bored with doing what he is now doing. What's wrong with going down to 90' and swimming around pretty wrecks, taking pictures of pretty fishes or doing somersaults down a wall? Until that becomes trivial, why not just enjoy that part of recreational diving? That was the point Joe was trying to make -- and I think he did it well.

Yeah yeah yeah.

Next time, secure clearance before you publish my story, bub.



Friggen Osborne Banks. I'm gonna need a 20 pound tail weight, as my wallet sure is lighter from all of this....

---
Ken