What does "Tech" mean to you?

[Kern]

Mark & his friends just fall in the water & flop around. They rarely see a DM do funny kicks & if they did they wouldn't know if he was doing them right or wrong. They just live for the day that an elite diver comes on the charter with them so they can see how it should be done. With any luck they may also pick up some of his arcane knowledge.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Who cares what it is called but there is a big difference in a 50' reef dive and a 250' wreck dive. There is also a big difference in a 90' dive on the Cedarville and a 90' dive inside the Cedarville.

There's also a big diff between a 50 foot reef dive and a 50 foot dive in a cold, dark, silty pond or quarry; or a 250 foot dive in warm, clear water versus a 250 foot dive in cold, not-very-clear water.

Recreational, technical, or tech-reational skills and such in one environment do not always equal success in a completely different environment.

Lastly, a friend of mine once told me "Unless you are being paid, it's all recreational."

 

[rigdiver]

There's also a big diff between a 50 foot reef dive and a 50 foot dive in a cold, dark, silty pond or quarry; or a 250 foot dive in warm, clear water versus a 250 foot dive in cold, not-very-clear water.

Recreational, technical, or tech-reational skills and such in one environment do not always equal success in a completely different environment.

Lastly, a friend of mine once told me "Unless you are being paid, it's all recreational."

Then you call it "commercial."

 

[mempilot]

Only on SB would you see a multi page discussion on whether or not the term 'technical' should be used in front of the word diving to classify a type of diving and what it actually means.

 

[AndyNZ]

I'm reminded somewhat of the discussion of "Quality" in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance... we know it exists, you just can't quite put your finger on it.

I tend to agree with those that have suggested that "recreational" vs "technical" is not a rational split... recreational sits along side commercial, military, scientific etc. Recreational diving is when you dive for fun.

Limiting the following to when people are diving for fun!

Nearly every definition that you could put forward for "technical diving" is flawed... so you could suggest that it's dives where the perceived risk of the dive is such that it requires additional planning, equipment and so forth.... well, a new OW diver can have a pretty serious risk of running out of gas, so that should be technical diving, right?

You can suggest that technical diving is when you can't make a direct ascent to the surface... well, I recently did a dive in a lake that is used for water skiing so you couldn't make a direct ascent to the surface... so it's technical, right?

You could think that cave diving is technical diving, but does that make technical diving just cave diving? I don't think so.

Trying to define it is, IMHO, rather pointless. What I might consider a "technical dive" (say a 55m dive, for 25 minutes BT, using at least two gas mixes) is probably routine for many - so it probably wouldn't be "that" technical for them.

I'm fairly comfortable having an amorphous, indefinable term. It's very individual, anyway. But, for me, a dive is a technical dive if I am really thinking about who I'm doing it with and why.

 

[jvevea]

You might as well call someone a groovy diver.

Cool. Does PADI offer a specialty in that?

 

[Walter]

I think my point is that our language has many terms that are categorical in nature, and it helps us in the way we organize our thinking.

True, but "technical" diving doesn't fit with that concept.

 

[Blackwood]

True, but "technical" diving doesn't fit with that concept.

It fits no worse than "recreational" diving, "commercial" diving, "professional" diving, "military" diving, etc..

Any one of those terms can be parsed into a multitude of activities.

While I follow your complaint with broad categorizing (e.g. "___" diving), I can't seem to figure out why you only ever comment on it when "___" = "technical".

 

[mikemill]

Lastly, a friend of mine once told me "Unless you are being paid, it's all recreational."

So, how many times in this thread alone does that phrase have to be stated and debunked?

 

[lamont]

I'm reminded somewhat of the discussion of "Quality" in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance... we know it exists, you just can't quite put your finger on it.

I tend to agree with those that have suggested that "recreational" vs "technical" is not a rational split... recreational sits along side commercial, military, scientific etc. Recreational diving is when you dive for fun.

Limiting the following to when people are diving for fun!

Nearly every definition that you could put forward for "technical diving" is flawed... so you could suggest that it's dives where the perceived risk of the dive is such that it requires additional planning, equipment and so forth.... well, a new OW diver can have a pretty serious risk of running out of gas, so that should be technical diving, right?

You can suggest that technical diving is when you can't make a direct ascent to the surface... well, I recently did a dive in a lake that is used for water skiing so you couldn't make a direct ascent to the surface... so it's technical, right?

You could think that cave diving is technical diving, but does that make technical diving just cave diving? I don't think so.

Trying to define it is, IMHO, rather pointless. What I might consider a "technical dive" (say a 55m dive, for 25 minutes BT, using at least two gas mixes) is probably routine for many - so it probably wouldn't be "that" technical for them.

I'm fairly comfortable having an amorphous, indefinable term. It's very individual, anyway. But, for me, a dive is a technical dive if I am really thinking about who I'm doing it with and why.

I already pointed out the utility of the term 'technical diving', but I guess I need to state it a little more bluntly... It is diving with a soft or hard overhead that your average OW diver with no advanced training should not be doing...

The recreational OW limits are pretty clear, and anything beyond that is in the technical realm...

And that doesn't mean that normal OW diving isn't fairly technical... In fact, my first post-OW-certification dive was in a BP/W, long hose, etc because I took to heart someone on scubaboard saying "all diving is technical diving"... So there is clearly flaws in the utility of the term -- at the same time the definition seems obvious, and the positive benefit of it seems obvious, and I don't understand the confusion over it in this thread...

It means what it means, and most language is flawed when you put it under a microscope...

The fact that you can state "all diving is technical diving" and a clueless newbie can figure out what is trying to be communicated, actually indicates to me that the flaws do not exceed the utility... not vice versa...