What is tec diving?

[TSandM]

I think Dive-aholic gave the most commonly accepted definition: Technical diving is diving under a virtual or real overhead. That means cave diving, wreck penetration, or incurring sufficient decompression obligation that a direct ascent to the surface is no longer an option.

Because of the risks incurred in putting yourself in a position where you CAN'T surface if you have a problem, most technical diving is done with some kind of redundant system, which most commonly means double tanks connected by some kind of manifold. Double tanks are generally used by bolting them to a rigid plate with a harness attached to it, rather than a soft, fabric BC. In addition, people who dive in overhead environments usually have a long hose attached to one of their regulators, so that they can exit through a narrow space while sharing gas. I assume this is the setup the guys in your LDS showed you.

 

[Meng_Tze]

Recreational diving is generally within: 130ft depth, NDL, and generally no special gasses and/or equipment used.

Tech diving is everything else from overhead (real/virtual) to DPV's, doubles, stages, greater depth, different gases and switches, deco, rebreathers, salvage, limited visibility etc, etc

Tech diving is more than just an overhead environment beyond recreational.


Some of these are just the beginning of tech diving, others are way advanced and require dedication, meticulous planning and execution.

 

[Bismark]

The SB member did not state whether they wanted someone to copy a technical explanation out of a wiki or to have the excerpt of an article with the complete article shown on someones experience. If you think telling a non technical diver that technical diving means"usually involves diving beyond recreational and no decompression limits utilizing multiple gases and decompression strategies" then go ahead.

I did.

 

[Bismark]

BTW, TravelDive I did not copy that from Wikkipedia but I did copy it from the Powerpoint I made for teaching technical diving.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

I know that's most likely not what you meant, but this statement (or the two statements in combination rather) may be understood as suggesting that it would be more advisable to dive deep (as in deeper than recreational depths) on EAN than on air - which of course is not the case (oxtox). Incidentally, I have heard many a "newbie" say "I want to use nitrox so that I can dive deeper", so it seems to be a common misconception.

I see what you mean. Thanks. I should have said while not advisable there are those who dive deep on air rather than on the preferred method which usually involves mixtures other than air or nitrox. This being the use of other gasses, in most cases helium in the mix. Hence the term Trimix. But I too have heard newbs saying they want nitrox so they can dive deeper. It's why in my OW classes I discuss the differences between all three.

 

[4sak3n]

I think the problem that people are having with the answers that you gave, TravelDive, is that they didn't answer the OP's question ... at all.

All you did was introduce one of the tools that tech divers use: oxygen enriched air. And you made it sound like rec diving nitrox, not the very rich blends that tech divers use for deco.

If it was your desire to use the passage as in an intro to your article about tech diving then you should have used a passage more relevant to it. If you didn't have a more relevant passage in your article, then it clearly wasn't about tech diving (or wasn't an accurate article about tech diving).

My first thought when I read your posts was: "Buh?!? " because they appeared to have no connection to the OP's question. At least, _I_ couldn't see any connection.

 

[TravelDive]

I am sorry, I did not realise that there was a procedure involved, I was the first to respond, initially I added a link to the complete article, but thought that was rude to SB, so I added the excerpt for the article with a link to the rest. I assumed that people would read it before casting judgement.

What I was surprised at was the aggression that followed, since I am in now way an aggressive person, and just wanted to help a fellow SB member out. If people want to dis me on the fact I answered a request about Tec Diving with a personal account that is fine by me. I assumed that my view whether it was entirely right or wrong may have added some value. Can you explain how I absolultely did not answer the question or are we arguing for the sake of arguing?

Though I must say I was surprised at the way an innocent question has been jumped on my people on this thread, I am new to the board so I don't want to ruffle feathers an respond to the naked aggression. To be honest it is great article fodder for how the technical diving world interacts, I will ask one of our TD writers Mark Ellyatt to comment on the posts made in this thread in an article since I am obviously not qualified to do so.

 

[4sak3n]

I'm sorry if you were offended TravelDive. I didn't mean to be harsh but was trying to clarify why I thought others had posted about you what they posted.

And there is a procedure involved: to answer the question. The thing is, to those of us that questioned your posts you DIDN'T answer the question.

Surely you know how lazy people can be on the internet. If you post something unrelated and then post a link to something (in this case your article) expecting the link to clarify your point ... your post will be misinterpreted.

Imagine some newbie reading the thread, seeing your post, not reading the article provided (internet = lazy remember?) and taking away from the thread the incorrect information that tech diving == nitrox.

The people posting after you were just trying to highlight that this was not the case. I don't think that they meant to attack you, just point out that you could have handled the linking to your article better.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have an article to go and read.

P.S. The saying is 'test your mettle' NOT 'test your metal'.

 

[rongoodman]

will ask one of our TD writers Mark Ellyatt to comment on the posts made in this thread in an article since I am obviously not qualified to do so.

 

[4sak3n]

If, by dropping names, your goal is to impress people you might not want one of those names to be Mark Ellyatt. It might have the opposite effect for some people.

Edit: Finished the article and it was interesting reading. I'm not sure if it was meant to be objective or not but the writer did let a certain level of bitterness and negative connotations seep into it.

Nevertheless it was a good read. I think it impresses upon the reader just how serious an undertaking even basic tech courses can be. Thank you for posting it.