The Tec - Rec Split: Who Did It?

[MXGratefulDiver]

I can’t recall any Navy tables, as printed in the manual rather than reprints, that stopped at 140. Standard Air table goes to 190' and the extreme exposure tables go to 300' on air. They have been combined in some manual revisions, but they are back to 190' now.

TDI Advanced Nitrox manual ... page 89 ...

US Navy No Decompression Limit Air Table

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Akimbo]

Akimbo, do you know when the changes happened, and any details about when, why, and who did it? Was it a gradual thing or sudden? It had to be an industry-wide decision, since everybody apparently agreed to it.

I had not paid much attention to the recreational part of the diving business until a few years ago. I don’t think many of my old diving buddies know anything about the "tech" sector even now. With the exception of Oceanic/Hollis, I don’t see any large manufacturers catering to the tech market. They all seam to be the newer ventures with a smaller international footprint.

 

[Akimbo]

TDI Advanced Nitrox manual ... page 89 ...

US Navy No Decompression Limit Air Table

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Table 9-7 No-Decompression Limits and Repetitive Group Designators for No-Decompression Air Dives, Page 9-62, U.S. Navy Diving Manual — Volume 2, goes to 190' with Repetitive Group Designations A-Z. Like I said, you need to look at Navy tables as printed in the manual rather than reprints, which may have been edited down.

 

[Akimbo]

Ain't it kinda the same in any maturing recreational activity? I've been skiing a lot longer than diving, and I can remember the days when you'd see another car on the road with skis on the roof and you'd honk and wave at 'em (and they'd wave back). It was a brotherhood.

Nowadays ... sheesh ... you'd cut them off trying to get to the lift before they do. And don't even talk about the division between skiers and snowboarders ... OMG!

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Do they have a merit badge hierarchy too? Do you need some kind of c-card to rent gear and get on a bunny slope, ski lift, or a chopper? This is not facetious or argumentative; I just don’t know anything about skiing.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Do they have a merit badge hierarchy too? Do you need some kind of c-card to rent gear and get on a bunny slope, ski lift, or a chopper? This is not facetious or argumentative; I just don’t know anything about skiing.

Not in the same sense ... but they do have a distinction between recreational skiers and "racing" skiers ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[drrich2]

Since people addressed the history, I hope it's not too badly off-topic (and dove-tails in with why such a split happened to begin with) to ask what folks think about the practical usefulness of the rec./tech. divide.

Granted, it's an artificial division, but then, a lot of things in life are, such as that a 17 year, 11 month old guy is a minor but an 18 year and 1 day old guy is a legal adult. These categories can be criticized if you're a splitter, but often serve a purpose in society.

I'm PADI OW, AOW, Nitrox & Deep. Haven't done a Tech. course. No real plans to. To me, grouping some types of diving into the 'Tech. Realm' cordons them off & categorizes them in a way that tells me they're likely more technically complex (e.g.: equipment such as rebreathers, gas mixes like tri-mix, staged decompression) or a higher risk of death or serious injury if procedure isn't meticulously followed (I'm guessing a rapid ascent without a safety stop from 200' is more dangerous than from 130', though I'm not suggesting the latter is 'safe'). So I knew Nitrox was probably practical for me but I suspect Tri-mix may not be.

And those specialties that aren't in the Tech. Realm would then seem more potentially attainable for a person with my present diving experience. So if I want to pursue, say, Cavern Diving so I can look at the eels if I make it back to Vortex Springs, that might be doable.

This is particularly an issue considering some of the recent threads debating changes in diver education over the years, with some mainstream open water agencies producing large numbers of basic OW students who (according to some) aren't as seasoned and capable as was allegedly typical in days of yore (an argument we need not rehash here; I'm just referencing it!).

Richard.

 

[Shcubasteve]

Tec-Rec, its all perception. Even after 'tec' training, im sure not every tec diver will make a tec dive on EVERY dive. There is a mindset that divers with advanced training seem to exibit- a good example:

...walk[ing] around with his black mask on backwards....

proper trim and redundancy where appropriate also come to mind

...divers with less experience may perceive these and other common traits as something that only overhead environment training brings- not necessarily true. Does proper liftbag technique make you a tec diver? probably not but if someone knows how to shoot a bag and you don't then maybe you will find value in the opinion of that person- Plenty of so-called recreational, no-stop divers can hold a safety stop just as accurately as someone who has been trained to do so.

So, Id argue that the dividing line between tec and rec is not clearly defined and is infact only a preception held by divers with either too much or too little experience

 

[sschlesi]

Do they have a merit badge hierarchy too? Do you need some kind of c-card to rent gear and get on a bunny slope, ski lift, or a chopper? This is not facetious or argumentative; I just don’t know anything about skiing.

They sure do, it's called $$$cash$$$.

In skiing most dangerous things look scary, in fact learning what is really dangerous and what merely looks dangerous is a big part of getting over the mental hurdles in becoming an advanced skier. The fear reflex keeps most skiers reasonably safe with no need for training.

In diving, staying down too long, or ascending too fast, or ignoring your SPG doesn't incite the fear reflex in the same way, hence training to recognize and manage the dangers is necessary.

Note: Avalanches are the one serious danger in skiing that is not readily visible to the casual observer. Training to recognize avalanche conditions and perform a rescue is heavily promoted (but not required) for people travelling in the back country.

 

[RJP]

I've yet to hear a good or agreed definition of technical diving - which essentially makes the term meaningless.

Think it's less a problem with the term, but rather a problem with the people you're listening to trying to define it.

 

[laurin]

Plenty of so-called recreational, no-stop divers can hold a safety stop just as accurately as someone who has been trained to do so.

This is IMO one of the drivers that have been fueling the tech / rec divide - diver training can be and has been simplified and dumbed down to a point that while there certainly are "plenty" of capable rec divers out there, the other end of the spectrum is also well-populated. And a big part of this crowd doesn't ever realize how badly they've been let down by the diver training industry because "you don't know what you don't know". But I don't think it's that much about the divers than about the way the industry wants to position itself.

OK, so while you can survive and maybe even enjoy diving with marginal fundamental skills, and unfortunately even proceed to divemaster/OWSI/IT ranks without seeing how high the bar can really be, things DO get increasingly unforgiving if your diving progresses closer to the currently acknowledged limits of recreational diving - 30/40m, NDLs/limited deco, overhead/cavern. Incidentally, these limits are made up by the rec diver training industry - in my view it's been the big agencies that have been playing CYA - it's more profitable to lower the training bar, make training accessible to just about anyone and their dog and impose "safe" limits.

I'm not saying that the limits aren't reasonable - avoiding overhead, deco obligation or excessive depth when you don't have access to the training, proper gases and equipment is the smart thing to do. Where the let-down by the traditional agencies happened is that they pretended that there wasn't anything beyond those limits - they haven't offered any appropriate training and a big portion of divers trained by them weren't really ready to start to explore beyond those limits. It's not that long ago that nitrox was considered a dangerous "voodoo" gas and the early tech agencies offering nitrox training were actually banned from participating in DEMA ('91 IIRC). It's been the rec industry that has been pushing divers interested in tech diving away, not the other way. Probably a bit of elitism on the "tech" divers' part was also involved, but my take is that mostly it was just people wanting to do their thing.

All this eventually led to tech agencies being formed and as a more recent development, the fundamentals workshops and classes by GUE, which have now been adopted by other agencies as well in some form or another - the assumption being that the very basic skills of most recreational divers are really not up to what's required to safely go beyond those rec limits.

However, now that there actually is a fledgling tech diving industry forming, the big agencies are taking an interest too. Remember, nitrox hasn't been the devil gas for a long time. And while I don't have that long perspective myself it seems that even GUE fundamentals is nowadays more about refining skills than breaking down the diver and building them back up. Which might have something to do with the good stuff from tech divers getting adopted by rec divers and instructors, and maybe even the internet and youtube (really!).

//LN