The world doesn’t revolve around the US. Recreation has been in use for years to separate it from commercial. However, I’ll bow to your superior knowledge.
What Defines a "Tech" Diver
- Thread starter NW Dive Dawg
- 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
MichaelMc
Working toward Cenotes
I think it is not a black and white line, but this does not seem to work:
The following are all past the AOW base line, increase diver risk unless skill and/or equipment is added, yet are not (US) technical: cavern, ice, solo, altitude, blue water, high current, river with tree limbs, plus even rescue, search and recovery.
Kay Dee
Contributor
How true. I guess I misinterpreted your sentence I referred to then, as we seem to be more in 'agreement' than not re what constitutes a 'tech dives'. As I said in one of my earlier posts, I did my fair share and more of dives around 40m and below on the GBR and Coral Sea walls on a single cylinder when making fish and coral photos (before I new better and uped my game) but I would not call any of them a tech dive.
I thought that was part of the original question in this thread: what do WE believe the term means? If the OP had wanted to know what Wikipedia had to say, there would be no need for this discussion. “Reinventing,” no, but sharing our individual understandings of the meaning, yes. And as pointed out in a post above, the meaning of words can shift over time, driven by how people use them. Debate away! The disagreement in this thread has been interesting.
That's how language works. If we all made up our own definitions for all our words, we would just be babbling at each other with no understanding, like Humpty Dumpty in the section I quoted.Now at 166 posts, and the current answer is it means what other people believe it means.
One of the most powerful books I ever read was Howard Gardner's Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership. He says a key factor in effective leadership is the ability to communicate effectively with the community being led. He differentiates between societies in which everyone has a common interest and a diverse society that does not have such common understandings. J. Robert Oppenheimer was an effective leader of the Manhattan Project in part because he was a physicist talking to other physicists, and they shared a common language. When he later tried to lead the Atomic Energy Commission, he was not successful in large part because he did not speak the political language required there.
The community of scuba divers has generally come to agreement on the definitions of certain terms, and by and large that community is able to communicate among itself because of those common definitions. I don't see the point in standing defiantly, arms crossed, demanding that everyone stop using common definitions and start using yours.
The community of scuba divers has generally come to agreement on the definitions of certain terms, and by and large that community is able to communicate among itself because of those common definitions. I don't see the point in standing defiantly, arms crossed, demanding that everyone stop using common definitions and start using yours.
I don't care for, believe in, or teach solo technical diving. Others feel differently.
Technical diving to me is inherently technical. I don't do the dives with a random instabuddy. I don't do them alone. I prefer a trusted team to plan and execute. Things occasionally go wrong and a second or third brain is a great asset.
You want to go for a quick bimble around open water by yourself, no problem. Why not?
You want to do a multi hour miles back cave dive with multiple jumps? I want a team.
L13
Contributor
@boulderjohn made the definitive post on this thread last night #166. There is not one "right" definition, while still being a useful term.
scubaboard.com
The rest of you are just making noise and beating your chests now. "Tech diver" is a useful (though not very precise) shorthand for talking about a subclass of divers that do "Tech dives." "Tech dive" is a useful (though not very precise) shorthand for talking about a subclass of dives that outside the envelope of "normal" recreational dives or are on the fuzzy border. For 90% of conversations a more precise definition doesn't add value. For the remaining conversations, it is probably a good idea to supplement the shorthand with addition details since the other people in the conversation may not understand it exactly as you do.
Being pedantic, especially with a personal definition, reduces the usefulness in a conversation (though probably not its usefulness for chest beating).
See the following for how useless personal definitions are for communicating:
scubaboard.com
What Defines a "Tech" Diver
Re the origins and motivations, Wikipedia says this: Origin The popular use of the term technical diving can be traced back to the cover story of the first issue of "aquaCorps" magazine (1991 through 1995), in early 1990, titled call it "High-Tech" Diving by Bill Hamilton, describing the current...
The rest of you are just making noise and beating your chests now. "Tech diver" is a useful (though not very precise) shorthand for talking about a subclass of divers that do "Tech dives." "Tech dive" is a useful (though not very precise) shorthand for talking about a subclass of dives that outside the envelope of "normal" recreational dives or are on the fuzzy border. For 90% of conversations a more precise definition doesn't add value. For the remaining conversations, it is probably a good idea to supplement the shorthand with addition details since the other people in the conversation may not understand it exactly as you do.
Being pedantic, especially with a personal definition, reduces the usefulness in a conversation (though probably not its usefulness for chest beating).
See the following for how useless personal definitions are for communicating:
What Defines a "Tech" Diver
:bicker: Those who argue that depth is irrelevant are living in a fantasy past. No one is making that claim Mel. Myself and others are stating it is a gray area. I do understand that some agencies prefer to teach at the lowest common denominator. I would hope those of us participating here...
Similar threads
