What is exact outcome of AOW courses?

[bradlw]

No idea where you did your "technical training" but Deco isn't considered technical diving by some agencies.

I think that brings up a good question. Where is the line actually, between recrational and technical?

I don't recall ever seeing it defined clearly. In my mind I've thought that deco is sort of the defining difference of technical diving
but as I type this it comes to mind that overhead environments might be considered technical too.

 

[rx7diver]

I think that brings up a good question. Where is the line actually, between recrational and technical?

I don't recall ever seeing it defined clearly. In my mind I've thought that deco is sort of the defining difference of technical diving
but as I type this it comes to mind that overhead environments might be considered technical too.

At one time, some people reserved "technical" (when referring to open circuit diving) for dives that use more than one gas--that is, for dives that involve a gas switch. However, people were doing deco dives using air as a bottom gas and 100% oxygen for accelerated deco long before the term "technical diving" was invented. So, there's that ...

rx7diver

 

[scubadada]

I've been doing light back gas deco for 20 years, most less the 130 feet, recreational or technical? Who cares?

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

Recreational ends and tech starts as soon as you plan and execute a decompression dive with a deco ceiling.
Accidental deco incurred during a recreational NDL dive doesn't count, it's not very smart either.

 

[lizardland]

I think that brings up a good question. Where is the line actually, between recrational and technical?

I don't recall ever seeing it defined clearly. In my mind I've thought that deco is sort of the defining difference of technical diving
but as I type this it comes to mind that overhead environments might be considered technical too.

There was no official definition of "technical diving". Michael Menduno (who sadly had a stroke this week) coined the phrase and he took it from "technical climbing" which was climbing outside the norms of traditional climbing. Climbers have exactly the same arguments about what when climbing becomes technical climbing too.

I was lucky enough to get into technical diving in the early 90's at a fairly young age. At the time it was generally considered anything outside of "standard" recreational diving eg. beyond 40m, outside the NDL and/or using gases other than air. You could also include using equipment other than open-circuit scuba. There were discussions even back then as to whether or not basic nitrox use was considered technical. For context, the recreational dive industry was extremely hostile towards things like decompression and particularly nitrox. At one point DEMA banned anyone who was involved in the nitrox industry so nitrox divers were outsiders too.

To add to the confusion, outside the sphere of influence of organisations like PADI, air decompression diving was fairly standard practice for recreational divers. It was part of BSAC, ScotSAC and SAA training here in the UK if I remember right and I'm pretty sure it was the same for the European agencies too. Does that mean deco dives are not technical dives?

At the end of the day, "technical diving" is an arbitrary phrase that's kind of morphed into a commercialised marketing term now. It really only matters if you're selling something. People did what is considered technical diving long before it had a name. They just called it "diving".

As to whether OHE diving is "technical"... I'm a British Cave Diving Group member and the logo on my hoodie says "technical divers since 1946" so I'd give it a yes. So much of what fed into open-water technical diving came originally from cave diving that it seems silly not to include it in the "technical" category. But then I think these days "technical diving" is a silly term itself because the whole thing is so normalised. If you weren't involved in the 90's then it's hard to appreciate how much of an outsider sport it was whereas today it really is nothing special to hold a trimix cert.

 

[rx7diver]

Couple of things:

1. I did my YMCA/NAUI-based open water training in 1986. Like a lot of divers at that time, we used "The New Science of Skin and Scuba Diving" as one of our textbooks. (We used the 6th Edition, which had gone out of print a year earlier, in 1985.) We learned how to do air consumption calculations and how to plan and conduct deco dives using the U.S. Navy Air Tables, topics covered in this textbook. (We were NOT allowed to do deco dives during our training, however.)

2. I did my NSS-CDS/NACD Cavern and Basic Cave training in 1988 in Ginnie Springs FL. At that time, garden-variety cave diving was NOT referred to as "Technical Diving" (obviously, since the term hadn't been coined/popularized yet). At that time, some (Florida) Full Cave divers were diving quite deep using air as a bottom gas and deco-ing using 100% oxygen.

3. Only when I did my IANTD Nitrox training (in 1993, in SE MI), and my IANTD Deep Air and Advanced Deep Air training (beginning in 1994) did the term "Technical Diving" loom large, coined by M2 a few years earlier. I understood at that time that Great Lakes wreck divers had already been diving quite deep using air as a bottom gas and deco-ing using 100% oxygen long before the term "Technical Diving" had been coined.

I agree with @lizardland: "At the end of the day, 'technical diving' is an arbitrary phrase that's kind of morphed... ."

FWIW,
rx7diver

 

[pelagic_one]

Did you learn what you wanted to know from the 7 pages of discussion?

I'm gathering a few things. The difference between OW and AOW starts with the depths at which the courses can be taught. If you have your own equipment, your own compressor, your own oxygen mixing facility and a boat to get you to where it's deep (Florida Keys an example), then there's no one stopping you from diving anywhere at any depth and percentage you want. But when third parties get involved, they don't want to share any responsibility by filling your tank, filling nitrox, giving you a boat ride or knowing how deep the dive is, unless they have some assurance that you've done something like this before. The OW card gets you air fills. The AOW card should get you on a boat to a deep dive. The nitrox card gets you nitrox fills. The AOW course gets you classroom and four supervised dives for the price of about three two-tank dives on your own. The AOW card should get you on a boat to dive whatever depth you want. That appeals to me.

My confusion was hearing nitrox was included in AOW. I just paid for my nitrox card, you mean it was included in AOW? No, you get to experience nitrox and not get certified. Deep dive certification? No, you go on a deep dive. Wreck certification? No, you get to look at a wreck.

Depending on you and your instructors, much more than the certification can be gained doing the AOW course. I'll report my findings hopefully in October.

 

[tursiops]

The AOW course gets you classroom and four supervised dives

Five supervised dives, actually. Deep, Navigation, and three electives, which often include things like Buoyancy, Night, Wreck, DSMB, and/or Search&Recovery.

 

[Blackcrusader]

I think that brings up a good question. Where is the line actually, between recrational and technical?

I don't recall ever seeing it defined clearly. In my mind I've thought that deco is sort of the defining difference of technical diving
but as I type this it comes to mind that overhead environments might be considered technical too.

For me I went from Padi OW in Jan 1986 too BSAC Sports diving in July 1986 with regular training classes over the next 18 months with regular deco dives. Only air as no Nitrox back then. Also on tables as DC were pretty new back then. J Valves were still used by some even though SPG's were common.

So when I did the BSAC Deco courses for me it was just diving with a different set of rules if you planned a deco dive. No one ever mentioned it being technical diving. My instructor was also the commercial diving instructor at Shell Oil in Brunei. So he certainly was a technical diver.

Well seeing as that Deco diving is certainly done in the recreational diving depths and it is quite standard with other agencies to teach deco courses that do not exceed recreational depth in training I myself accept it as not being technical diving if using standard nitrox certification. For me the boundary would be trained using Nitrox greater than 40 and Helium etc.

@tursiops thanks for your comments on the Padi Tec 40 I accept that you need more than OW for that. As you noted crosses the boundary on Nitrox being "techincal" but the rest is still in recreational depth limits.

@scubadada Yeah I don't think anyone really cares we just want to enjoy our dives. I was surprised in Fuvamulah Maldives when guides would simply tell customers all the dives you do including depth limits / deco are on you. One crew all had Garmins so we compared GF settings and off we went.

For @pelagic_one there are options other than Advanced if BSAC or CMAS Deco courses are available.

 

[Blackcrusader]

As to where I did my technical training... with one of the founding directors of IANTD and my cert numbers are in double digits.