The Tec - Rec Split: Who Did It?

[fire_diver]

Well, you are wrong. OSHA does regulate all diving, and offers an exemption for recreational diving. If you think OSHA compliance is voluntary, ask a company who is found in violation. Regulations posted in the CFR are just that, regulations. OSHA's are better than many in that they are relatively straightforward, not too much to interpret.

List the reg number that applies to sport diving.

 

[Wookie]

You can google it as well as I can. 49 CFR 1910 subpart T applies to employers who employ divers. If you are getting paid to dive, you are a commercial diver according to the subpart. If you are a scientific diver, or a scuba instructor diving air, less than 130 feet, no deco, you get an exemption.

So, instructors who teach "sport diving" (I thought the terms in this thread were recreational and technical) are subject to OSHA because they are employees, and are exempt from commercial dive regulations. This does not mean that they are exempt from other OSHA regulations, like safe workplace, etc. An employer who assigns his instructor to conduct a class at the quarry is responsible to ensure that the quarry is a safe workplace with appropriate signage posted. It is stretching the regs, but is true nonetheless.

 

[Darnold9999]

Just thought I would add something. I find that my solo card is probably the most useful card I have. Show up on a boat, pass over the card and I have no trouble getting air, Nitrox and or diving solo, and I have only had one operator ever give me a hard time about diving solo. Which gave everyone on the boat a chuckle at the time. It seems to be read by most as - this is a relatively experienced diver who knows what they are doing. Some will want do do a check out dive, most have not. (I have no issues with someone wanting to do a checkout dive with me.)

I am sure that some of these same operators would not allow me to dive solo without the card. Mike Ball is Australia comes immediately to mind. I am pretty sure PH is another.

By the way it is not an SDI card. ANDI also has a solo card, and they consider it a tec certification. Personally I don't, my solo diving is less than 130 feet and I am rarely even close to NDL limits. I just dive alone with some extra gas and spare bits in my pockets.

 

[FritzCat66]

By the way it is not an SDI card. ANDI also has a solo card, and they consider it a tec certification.

This is good news! I was unaware that any other agency was issuing Solo cards; however, the fact that they consider it a technical certification just furthers my point that Solo is one of those grey areas between rec and tech.

Nevertheless, I think that, if the agencies are going to issue solo cards, they should probably separate out rec solo from tech solo.

 

[FritzCat66]

We're going down there on EAN32, and planning to have some deco obligation before we begin our ascent ... typically in the 5 to 15 minute range. We bring plenty of gas, and those on single cylinders will bring some form of bailout. Because the return is up a slope, rather than a direct ascent, any accumulated deco obligation is typically cleared before we reach our safety stop depth ... and we'll hang out at between 15-20 fsw for several minutes just to enhance offgassing. These dives typically go in the 80-90 minute range.

Are we doing tech dives? No ... I don't think so. We're doing profiles that any reasonably competent recreational diver could do, with adequate gas and thermal protection.

I don't know, Bob - For one thing, that still sounds to me like a planned deco dive, even if the plan is to satisfy the deco obligation via a slow, sloping ascent as opposed to distinct, staged stops. So that dive violates rec's "no deco" parameter. :shocked2:

For another, if something happened towards the end of your deep time after a diver's computer indicated a deco obligation, that diver might not be able to ascend directly (i.e. at maximum ascent rate allowed) without violating their computer. So that dive also violates rec's "direct access to the surface" rule. :shocked2:

I'll leave final judgement up to Scuba Court (), but two strikes against rec makes those tech dives in my book. If the dive only violated, say, the depth parameter, I might consider it - although honestly that alone makes it iffy for me - but much as I would like to see the octopus, and even knowing I carry enough gas and a bailout, being just a rec diver, with those two strikes I probably wouldn't do the dive. :frown:

Only once have I accidentally slipped into deco, and even though that turned out to be trivial, I don't want it to happen again and certainly wouldn't plan for it. Some of us really like the playground defined by the rec limits and are happy to confine our play within it - while sure, that means I might not get to see this octopus or a deep North Carolina wreck, nevertheless that doesn't concern me unless and until I have seen everything there is to see on shallower reefs and other dives easily within rec limits; and I'll bet I could dive four tanks a day every day for the rest of my life and not even get close to hitting that!

I want to absolutely minimize all the technical details I have to pay attention to in order to dive and consequently I love the relatively carefree diving the recreational limits provide, which is why I strongly hesitate exceeding them.

In fact, it might be that attitude alone, more than any of the arbitrary parameters, that really differentiates between a recreational diver and a technical diver.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I don't know, Bob - For one thing, that still sounds to me like a planned deco dive, even if the plan is to satisfy the deco obligation via a slow, sloping ascent as opposed to distinct, staged stops. So that dive violates rec's "no deco" parameter. :shocked2:

For another, if something happened towards the end of your deep time after a diver's computer indicated a deco obligation, that diver might not be able to ascend directly (i.e. at maximum ascent rate allowed) without violating their computer. So that dive also violates rec's "direct access to the surface" rule. :shocked2:

I'll leave final judgement up to Scuba Court (), but two strikes against rec makes those tech dives in my book. If the dive only violated, say, the depth parameter, I might consider it - although honestly that alone makes it iffy for me - but much as I would like to see the octopus, and even knowing I carry enough gas and a bailout, being just a rec diver, with those two strikes I probably wouldn't do the dive. :frown:

Only once have I accidentally slipped into deco, and even though that turned out to be trivial, I don't want it to happen again and certainly wouldn't plan for it. Some of us really like the playground defined by the rec limits and are happy to confine our play within it - while sure, that means I might not get to see this octopus or a deep North Carolina wreck, nevertheless that doesn't concern me unless and until I have seen everything there is to see on shallower reefs and other dives easily within rec limits; and I'll bet I could dive four tanks a day every day for the rest of my life and not even get close to hitting that!

I want to absolutely minimize all the technical details I have to pay attention to in order to dive and consequently I love the relatively carefree diving the recreational limits provide, which is why I strongly hesitate exceeding them.

In fact, it might be that attitude alone, more than any of the arbitrary parameters, that really differentiates between a recreational diver and a technical diver.

Well, there are no scuba police ... and there are no scuba courts ... and judgment is ultimately the responsibility of the diver.

I would not do this dive with someone I felt wasn't prepared in terms of their experience, ability, attitude and equipment. On the other hand, I wouldn't ... and don't ... require that my dive buddy have technical training to do the dive either. And the last time I looked, even the recreational dive tables have entries ... and rules ... for exceeding no-decompression limits. That isn't to say that anyone should take NDL lightly ... but they are not inviolate limits. One simply has to recognize the obligation that exceeding those limits introduces to the dive, and be prepared to honor those obligations.

As is usually the case in scuba, the only meaningful answer to the question is "it depends" ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[padiscubapro]

This is good news! I was unaware that any other agency was issuing Solo cards; however, the fact that they consider it a technical certification just furthers my point that Solo is one of those grey areas between rec and tech.

Nevertheless, I think that, if the agencies are going to issue solo cards, they should probably separate out rec solo from tech solo.

ANDI has been issuing SOLO cards for probably 10 years.. Its always been under our technical training because we feel to do it safely you need the experience, and the redundant gear.. IMHO solo diving on a single 80 with 1 first stage is generally not safe.. Having a set of twins with independent first and second stages, and the availability of alot of gas increases the safety and gives the diver more time and options to fix things when they go wrong..

IMHO most tech divers I know are superior divers to the average OWSI and DM and that most of these professionals that solo dive really should not be doing so..

 

[scjoe]

List the reg number that applies to sport diving.

1910.401(a)(2)

“This standard applies to diving and related support operations conducted in connection with all types of work and employments..”

OSHA does not use the term commercial or sport, nor does it use the term "technical>" It does have definitions for recreational and scientific because of the exemptions it provides in those settings.

The instructor at the LDS is employed in a commercial dive operation that is subject to OSHA rules regarding dive operations conducted in connection with all types of work and employment, unless the operation meets the OSHA exemptions. Having to meeting the terms of the exemption is a form of regulation.

 

[Walter]

I think there needs to be an additional split to distinguish between basic divers that need supervision and advanced divers that don't.

There is already such a split. Certified divers don't need supervision. Students do.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

There is already such a split. Certified divers don't need supervision. Students do.

Well, it's a nice theory ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)