What Defines a "Tech" Diver

[tursiops]

I remember a incident report from a long time ago.

Gas, air
Depth, 130 feet
Time, 30 minutes.

I would define that as a tech dive. The guy was a well breathing moron as he did it single tank and didn't even do the 3 min stop at 15 feet.

You would say should have been a tech dive since it was done without training equipment etc.

Someone else would define it differently.

We are all right and all wrong about the definition.

For the record he spent just enough time on the surface to switch tanks and then repeated the same dive, and then got surprised when he surfaced the second time and wound up taking a helicopter to the chamber.

I would define that as it should have been a tech dive, but that isn't how he did it, so it wasn't.

 

[EFX]

Webster only reports what is the common definition; it is not proscriptive. And we don't have a common definition tht Webster can repeat back to us!
We are swirling around whether a dive is defined by who does it, or how it is done.

Right. There is a gray area between what delineates a recreational and technical dive or diver. For example, a recreational diver doing a dive to 100 ft but stays beyond the NDL and assumes a deco obligation, is she not doing a technical dive? And what about the technical diver who bounces to 140 ft and stays within the NDL. Could this still be considered a recreational dive?

No need to rehash all this (we've got 25 pages of arguments already) but there will probably be no satisfactory dictionary definition. Dictionaries provide concise definitions that don't coincide with gray area subjects -- you need somewhat lengthy descriptions similar to what @boulderjohn offered in post #209, and that post is not definitive enough to describe specific exceptional scenarios.

All inclusive definitions will probably need:
A technical dive has this and this and this or this and this .....

A technical diver needs this and this training, this and this equipment, and these skills.

 

[formernuke]

I would define that as it should have been a tech dive, but that isn't how he did it, so it wasn't.

Pretty sure we 100 percent agree he is an idiot though.

 

[tursiops]

For example, a recreational diver doing a dive to 100 ft but stays beyond the NDL and assumes a deco obligation, is she not doing a technical dive?

No, they are doing a dive that should be done as a technical dive, but isn't being done as a technical dive. The depth is irrelevant if the deco is mandatory.

And what about the technical diver who bounces to 140 ft and stays within the NDL. Could this still be considered a recreational dive?

Barely....the depth is in the gray area.

 

[boulderjohn]

No need to rehash all this (we've got 25 pages of arguments already) but there will probably be no satisfactory dictionary definition.

It is not our job to make a dictionary definition, and we don't have to, because it is already done. I wrote this countless pages ago. If you google Technical Dive, Technical Diving, Technical Diver, etc., you will find countless websites from authoritative sources providing definitions. Those definitions are probably 90% in agreement. That means there is a reasonable consensus on a definition.

The fact that your definition is different from that consensus does not make everyone else wrong.

 

[grantctobin]

should-of-been-a-technical-dive.

Doing it without the training gear etc means your also an idiot

Arguing value of acute definitions (whether Webster or other) while spelling in such a manner impairs the argument, no?

 

[tursiops]

Arguing value of acute definitions (whether Webster or other) while spelling in such a manner impairs the argument, no?

No

ADDED after receiving a "disagree" from @grantctobin.
Proper spelling is nice, and preferable, but when misspelling doesn't hinder the communication -- which it clearly didn't in this case in questions -- then it is irrelevant. And who is to say which spelling is correct....color or colour? There is no stylebook for SB.

 

[EFX]

It is not our job to make a dictionary definition, and we don't have to, because it is already done. I wrote this countless pages ago. If you google Technical Dive, Technical Diving, Technical Diver, etc., you will find countless websites from authoritative sources providing definitions. Those definitions are probably 90% in agreement. That means there is a reasonable consensus on a definition.

Yes. Agreed. I googled and read a few of those definitions and none of them provided a concise dictionary definition. My post you refer to was not about providing definitions but providing concise definitions that would fit in a dictionary which some posters were asking for.

 

[grantctobin]

No

Is 'Could Of' an Accepted Form of 'Could Have'?

The verb sense of 'of' is in the dictionary, but not endorsed.

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[tursiops]

Is 'Could Of' an Accepted Form of 'Could Have'?

The verb sense of 'of' is in the dictionary, but not endorsed.

www.merriam-webster.com

Note it was in italics.....to suggest the colloquial form.