What Defines a "Tech" Diver

[boulderjohn]

When referring to overhead environment, I've done a couple wreck dives and the last thing I would consider myself is a tech diver. It wasn't a complicated wreck but I penetrated and went through 3 levels in a vertical exhaust stack. I know there's a difference between a cavern and cave (certain# of feet to accessing vertical ascent?). Does the same distinction apply when classifying a wreck a technical dive?

I can answer that definitively for PADI, since I wrote the new language on this which they will publish in the future. They previewed it in the professional journal two years ago.

Start by differentiating between a swim-through and a penetration. In a swim-through, you enter at one point and exit at another. In a penetration, you exit at the same point where you entered. In each case, especially swim-throughs, the range of difficulty and risk begins with such an easy situation that even the most beginning of divers can do it safely. In fact, simple swim throughs can be done on OW training dives.

A simple swim through might be only a few feet long, with bright sunlight and no complications. They can then be more complicated, with greater length, darkness, obstacles, silt, etc. The presence of these complications creates greater risk, and greater risk calls for greater training, skill, and/or equipment. It is up to the diver to determine the level of risk the swim-through presents and use good judgment about his or her ability to manage it. In general, the same kind of criteria that differentiate between a cavern and a cave apply to the line between recreational and technical.

The same sort of progression applies to penetrations. Many penetrations are only a few feet into brightly lit areas. Anyone can do them. Eventually you reach the point of laying line to guarantee that you can find the opening again, and if you do that, you should have good training for that. In general, the same kind of criteria that differentiate between a cavern and a cave apply to the line between recreational and technical.

The old PADI wreck course (which is very poorly done) does not even mention swim-throughs. They are considered open water. The failure to mention them fools people into thinking that their descriptions of penetrations refers to every possible entry, and that is not true. You don't need to lay line to swim through the wheel house.

I go to South Florida every winter, and the area around Pompano Beach is littered with shallow wrecks that can be entered without any technical training.

 

[NW Dive Dawg]

Actual dives from my boat... 3 divers, all with 120hp steels and back mounted fully redundant and fully charged 19cf Pony's. Shell trilam drysuits. Back inflate BC's. Other tools and safety gear. Vis varied between crappy and 10ft. Water temp 49-50F. Surface conditions calm. Current - mild but only due to precise timing at a high slack. Depth Plan - 90ft max. Agreed that if we split up, back to the boat in an hour max. Wreck tagged with marker buoy. Wife and boat flagged and hovering nearby for planned live boat pick-ups. Typical NW recreational dive.

The Dives: Myself and two other divers salvaged a good sized (approx 50 lbs) Stainless Lewmar anchor and 400ft of 1/2in chain (not mine) from a shallow wreck (80fsw) off of Possession Point up here on Puget Sound. Total weight of anchor and chain approximately 1000lbs.

The Story: On a normal Lingcod hunting dive to this wreck we spotted the anchor hopelessly snagged on the wreck and we salvaged it that first day. Looked like it had been down there only a day or two max. Simple salvage op but it did involve a bounce by me back to the boat for a crescent wrench and one of my lift bags. I'd consider this a typical recreational dive that involved just a bit of tech and netted a real nice anchor! .

Completed our dive with no issues and no deco. Got the anchor and our three Lings. We then went home and started planning to go back the next day to retrieve the approximate 400ft of chain (worth approx $8 to $10 per foot). That chain was basically wrapped multiple times back and forth across the wreck in what was obviously a failed attempt by the boat that lost it to free it. No hope so they obviously had needed to cut it free. The planning for the chain salvage involved some precise timing due to high tidal exchanges up here. Also we planned and agreed on various signals, max dive times, defined roles and responsibilities, emergency procedures, etc. The equipment involved multiple more lift bags, buoy marker, lines, DSMB's, slates, strobes, etc, etc........basic stuff.

This wreck is pretty much dilapidated and collapsed....so no penetration per say......but there are lots of snags and entanglement opportunities especially in extremely low vis. What I'm getting at is that there can be potentially be an entanglement or snag hazard directly above you and in your direct path to the surface and you may not know it. SOP is to clear the wreck horizontally out onto the designated compass side to the sand flats, locate the marker buoy line with strobe attached, ascend to SS then surface.

My point is that this salvage dive required detailed planning, specialized equipment and involved some challenging conditions..... Was it a "tech" dive?..... who knows and who cares. But I do know that it did have technical aspects and I would consider it challenging, if not potentially hazardous and not what I'd consider appropriate for a typical recreational diver.

Last but not least....... As the OP of this thread, I think that a lot of folks have completely lost track of my original question. The question was not...... "What defines a technical dive?".... The question was "What defines a technical diver?"

Bottom line is that I don't personally identify or define myself as a "Tech Diver". I consider myself a high level recreational diver that has performed and is capable of performing technical dives....... (Planned Deco, Wreck Penetration......etc...... but I don't at all feel the need to put... "Technical Diver" in my signature line.

I actually am probably better defined as a "Micky Mouse" diver....

 

[Alaskan Scuba Dude]

Start by differentiating between a swim-through and a penetration. In a swim-through, you enter at one point and exit at another. In a penetration, you exit at the same point where you entered. In each case, especially swim-throughs, the range of difficulty and risk begins with such an easy situation that even the most beginning of divers can do it safely. In fact, simple swim throughs can be done on OW training dives.

Wreck penetrations can also be in one way and out the other; what matters is depth. Anyone with good buoyancy skills can swim through light penetrations. How else are you going to gain experience?

 

[formernuke]

It seems yet again we need to visit basic English.

A technical diver is one who performs technical dives. That simple, so in order to define technical diver you MUST define technical dives.

Being certified to performs said dives however you define them is not relevant. If you do technical dives you are a technical diver. If you do them without proper training your also an idiot.

 

[EL1]

Thats another matter of disagreement, is a technical dive a dive where advanced techniques and technologies and special care and mindfulness ARE used, or one where not using them would be irresponsible? Does being irresponsible or stupid make you join the tech club?

It seems yet again we need to visit basic English.

A technical diver is one who performs technical dives. That simple, so in order to define technical diver you MUST define technical dives.

Being certified to performs said dives however you define them is not relevant. If you do technical dives you are a technical diver. If you do them without proper training your also an idiot.

If we define the diver over the dive instead of the other way around, then going solo with an al80 and no training into a cave makes you a tech diver.

 

[formernuke]

If we define the diver over the dive instead of the other way around, then going solo with an al80 and no training into a cave makes you a tech diver.

It does, and also a idiot

 

[grantctobin]

It seems yet again we need to visit basic English.

…

your also an idiot.

:/

 

[100days-a-year]

Apparently " tech diver " may also be used to describe one who is an arrogant pontificating boor
I follow the live and let dive philosophy for the most part. If someone wants to put on a Ranger and wear a pony in an x bracket diving incidental deco and call themselves a technical diver then fine.

My tri-mix instructor told me hiw to figure out which one of a group of tech divers was the instructor. The fat quiet guy or the loudmouth in old gear.

 

[tursiops]

There are recreational dives, i.e. not especially deep, no real or virtual overhead, that need no special equipment, training, planning, or experience.
There are technical dives, i.e. dives that really need the additional equipment, training, planning, and experience, typically involving depth, deco, multiple gases/cylinders, and overheads.

There are recreational divers, i.e. divers with no special equipment, training, or experience.
There are technical divers, i.e. divers that have the additional equipment, training and experience.

There are recreational dives done by technical divers; this does not make them technical dives.
There are recreational dives done by recreational divers; this is good.
There are technical dives done by technical divers; this is good.
There are technical dives done by recreational divers; this is stupid.

 

[J-Vo]

Wow, 240 posts for this thread to evolve to the Ops point. "diver" not "dive".

In my opinion the difference is mindset. Cert cards do not guarantee it either. Neither does a technical diver throw it away when not doing a "technical dive".

I think big box entry level classes have accentuated mindset devide.