Recreational versus technical diving

[MikeS]

To add to my confusion over where recreational diving ends and technical begins, I found the following quoted in the TDI “Understanding Nitrox” book used as the text for Nitrox training; “In any case the end result is a breathing gas for our use in recreation technical diving that has a higher concentration of oxygen.”

Is this different than technical recreational diving?

Mike

 

[O-ring]

Someone told me once that they defined technical diving as being in an overhead environment (whether through mandadory deco or actually being in a cave/wreck) where one cannot go to the surface to resolve any problems that may arise. Some people also define it as being deeper than 130'.

The mixed gas stuff just compounds the confusion...IMHO, one should be using the best gas for the dive planned and gases shouldn't be tied as much to "technical" vs "recreational"...the DIRF book mentions that one day diving air will be an historical curiosity...I guess we will see...

I am actively trying to curtail my usage of air right now and I know some people that are using 30/30 trimix for anything over 60'. Let's just say that 30/30 was the best gas for an 80' dive...I couldn't use it because I have to jump through 400 hoops before I can get trimix certified and the fills are hard as hell to get unless you do your own blending. IMHO, if the gas is the *best* choice for a certain dive plan it should be used (as long as one is trained in its use) rather than certain gasses being labeled for "technical" use and not recreational use. Why do I need to be trained in "extended range" technical diving and deco procedures to use a different gas on an 80' recreational open water dive conducted within NDLs? Why are the gasses tied to the "technical" dives?

It is the same deal with nitrox. If we can agree that nitrox is the preferred gas for "recreational" diving at depths less than 130', why is it not taught in open water class? Why are AOW classes teaching people to dive to 100'+ on air? IMHO, the educational agencies have not caught up with the science of mixed gas diving yet...or, they think the math will blow people's mind and they will have fewer people certified and less $$ for the shop/agency. If one cannot understand how to figure out the best gas for the dive and how to use the tables, etc. to figure out how to safely conduct a dive on the best gas, should they really be in the water in the first place?

Aside from the gas stuff, we were talking about this same topic the other day...at what point does a dive become technical and since we are not "technical divers" we should not do the dive. This came up in the context of 4 of us sitting around talking about doing some NC wreck dives (no penetration, 100-115'). It's too damn confusing for me...the way I see it myself is that if I am not doing deco and not penetrating the wreck to a meaningful degree (i.e. the degree that would require a line), it is not technical.

 

[MikeS]

I’m not sure that Nitrox will ever be, or should be, integrated into OW. The reason being that the depth limits based on O2 content adds another layer of complexity, and Oxygen toxicity is thrown into the mix.. I’m glad that I didn’t have to worry about this during OW where refraining from being a yoyo was a full time job. Now that I can swim following a compass and remain at a constant depth (walk and chew gum?), or hover and read my computer at the same time, I think this is something I’m ready for it.

I don’t think that diving air will be an historic curiosity until technology provides us with SCUBA that maintains a constant Oxygen and Nitrogen partial pressures. The closest I’ve seen is an Inspiration Rebreather that maintains a constant O2 partial pressure, but even it is very cost prohibitive.

Mike

 

[O-ring]

Admittedly, I don't know much about rebreathers although we messed around with a Drager the other day at the LDS. I fear rebreathers, but that may be just because I don't understand them or they kill a much higher percentage of their user base than open circuit systems do.

 

[Walter]

Does it matter what definition is being used for technical diving? I've heard many different conflicting definations, but the bottom line is it doesn't matter.

If the dive is outside your training, it doesn't matter if it's a technical dive or not. You shouldn't make the dive. There are "technical" divers who shouldn't make some "recreational" dives. I know there are types of diving for which I am not qualified. I do not care if those dives are defines as technical or recreational.

The entire concept of "technical" diving seems ridiculous to me. If you are trained in mixed gas, or cave or whatever, that's what your training covers, there's no need to throw another term at it.

 

[Rick Murchison]

Originally posted by Walter
The entire concept of "technical" diving seems ridiculous to me. If you are trained in mixed gas, or cave or whatever, that's what your training covers, there's no need to throw another term at it.

But... but Walter... how can we swagger and strut, bluster & blow & look down our noses at the peons if we don't know what it is???
Huh? Huh?
HHHhhhaaarrrr!
Rick

 

[Uncle Pug]

... but the demarcation is more of a gray area that a discreet line...

And perhaps the recreational limit of 130' is an artificial limit... but then again perhaps not when one considers the useful bottom time available within the NDL at that depth.

Education, equipment and logistical requirements are exponentially greater for technical diving and perhaps they could be used to discern a cross-over boundary from recreational into technical diving.

Does it matter?... yes... IMO... it does... for to embark upon a technial dive with only recreational level training and equipment is foolhardy and potentially a fatal endeavour.

I would say that a good working definition of recreational diving would be *less that 130', no ceiling, within the NDLs and using air or EAN.* Anything involving greater depths greater than 130' or overheads or staged decompression or mixed gases is into the realm of technical diving.

As for the confusion of terms... we do technical dives for recreation... same word, just different usage.

 

[Rick Murchison]

Originally posted by Uncle Pug
Does it matter?... yes... IMO... it does... for to embark upon a technial dive with only recreational level training and equipment is foolhardy and potentially a fatal endeavour.

Whew! Thanks, Uncle... I was afraid we might be on the verge of losin' braggin' rights!
-----------------------------
Seriously - I personally draw the line at the point beyond which you can no longer safely perform a controlled emergency swimming ascent. Too deep, too long, physical overhead - whatever the reason. And that dictates redundancy and an order of magnitude increase in training and planning to execute the dive safely. If you're not spending more time planning the dive than you are doing the dive, it ain't technical. It is possible that it *should be* technical, but without the planning it just simply isn't. (Yes, there are exceptions, when you're on the same profile with the same gasses on the same site with the same objective with the same buddy for the umpteenth time.. but even then a technical dive dictates a formal briefing covering specific points)
And it is still recreation. The recreational/technical division is a poor one, for technical isn't the "other kind of diving" from recreational - that's commercial - and a different animal entirely.
Rick

 

[Walter]

OK Pug, let's use your definition, and forget the others for now.

"for to embark upon a technial dive with only recreational level training and equipment is foolhardy and potentially a fatal endeavour"

To embark upon any dive without the proper level training and equipment is foolhardy and potentially a fatal endeavour, it does not matter if the dive is recreational or technical, if you don't have the training and experience, you shouldn't make the dive.

You can be an expert caver (technical by your definition), but if you've never been in the ocean you'll need additional training to safely dive in rough seas (recreational by your defination).

Deep requires different training than cave, which requires different training than mixed gases, which requires different training than wreck, which requires different training than ice etc. My point is training for the type of dive is what is important, not the artificial division of technical/recreational. That is exactly as Rick mentioned - entirely for the bragging rights.

BTW, your defination is far from universally accepted.

 

[roakey]

The problem is not with the word "technical" it's with the word "recreational" or more correctly how we're applying it.

If Pug's at 250 on a shipwreck or I'm 2,000 back in a cave we're both doing it for fun and not getting paid for it, so the word "recreational" applies to both of those dives.

We need a better word for the 60-foot warm water Cozumel type dives. Besides "weenie" I mean.

And yes, I do that kind of diving too, which is why I can poke fun at it

Roak