Question When do we speak of technical diving ?

[JMarc]

May I question that the division between rec/sport/tech divers has any inherent meaning?

A beginner may learn diving in a dry suit. There is no fundamental objection to learn diving with Nitrox excepted customs entrenched in some places as law. Yet _Technical diving, an introduction_ is using those two as characteristic of technical diving.

It is not even a question of arbitrary limit in a continuum (which seems in fact to be position of M. Powell). There is no single axis along which a progression is made and you could divide arbitrarily in named area. There is just a bunch of things to learn, a bunch of skill to master and they may depend more or less strongly on others but you can progress far without even to learn them. I've seen experienced divers freaking out by conditions for them unusual in which other are making there first dive. Be it the visibility, currents, temperature, need navigation skills,... eh, there is even a thread on this site where people are arguing if diving in caves is safer or not than in open water.

The division may make sense locally, depending on the local conditions and customs. But thinking it has to apply universally and that those who aren't putting the boundaries at the same place among the various axis to consider are timorous or careless is just ignoring that other points of view than your own are valid.

 

[steinbil]

May I question that the division between rec/sport/tech divers has any inherent meaning?

A beginner may learn diving in a dry suit. There is no fundamental objection to learn diving with Nitrox excepted customs entrenched in some places as law. Yet _Technical diving, an introduction_ is using those two as characteristic of technical diving.

It is not even a question of arbitrary limit in a continuum (which seems in fact to be position of M. Powell). There is no single axis along which a progression is made and you could divide arbitrarily in named area. There is just a bunch of things to learn, a bunch of skill to master and they may depend more or less strongly on others but you can progress far without even to learn them. I've seen experienced divers freaking out by conditions for them unusual in which other are making there first dive. Be it the visibility, currents, temperature, need navigation skills,... eh, there is even a thread on this site where people are arguing if diving in caves is safer or not than in open water.

The division may make sense locally, depending on the local conditions and customs. But thinking it has to apply universally and that those who aren't putting the boundaries at the same place among the various axis to consider are timorous or careless is just ignoring that other points of view than your own are valid.

When we're talking about the "meaning" or purpose of defining different levels of diving with labels such as "technical", I think it's worth considering the signal it sends to newer or less experienced divers.

In my mind there are a few important defining moments that separate different kinds of non-commercial diving:

- Can you do a direct ascent?
- Are you restricted by a physical ceiling?
- Is that ceiling a cave or a wreck?
- Do you need mixed gas?
- How many gas switches are required?
- Are you breathing a gas that is not life-sustaining at the surface?

All of these require specific and thorough training. Some are similar in skill set, but they are all much more dangerous to pursue without training.

The most important distinction, in my opinion, is from the basic recreational NDL dive to any sort of diving that requires much more planning, attention to detail, gear, skills etc. For that reason alone I think it's helpful to call this "technical diving", to dissuade inexperienced divers from crossing that line without more experience, knowledge and training. Once you're in the technical realm, at least people should have an idea of the fact that different environments require different training and experience and hopefully respect their own limits.

In short: there is a big difference between having the surface as a viable option in an emergency, and being forced to deal with problems underwater. That's why it's sensible to draw the line there, to avoid inexperienced divers doing things they shouldn't.

 

[MrVegas]

I thought it depended on how many accessories you have hanging off of your D-rings.

 

[JMarc]

I thought it depended on how many accessories you have hanging off of your D-rings.

You've found a rationale for me to reconsider my position.

 

[JMarc]

That's why it's sensible to draw the line there, to avoid inexperienced divers doing things they shouldn't.

Put the line where it make sense for you. I don't dispute the usefulness of one or several of them. Just, wherever you put lines, be aware that your way is not universal and don't assume that those who put a line at some other place are stupid, timorous or reckless.

 

[LFMarm]

To me it's simple. It's considered a tech dive if you
a. have a ceiling above your head, physical or virtual or
b. dive beyond the recreational depth limit of 40 meters / 130 feet.

How about a CC dive with no deco and shallower than 30m? Is that rec diving?

I think this divide between rec and tec is not very useful. Everyone should stick to the limits of their training regardless of how that diving is classified as.

 

[Angelo Farina]

How about a CC dive with no deco and shallower than 30m? Is that rec diving?

My fully recreational certification includes using the ARO (pure oxygen CC rebreather) down to 10m max.
That is exactly the equipment I was mostly trained on during my first diving course in 1975.
Great for learning buoyancy, trim and breathing control...
Later I used, for a short period, SC recreational rebreathers, but I was never certified for them.
They are indeed recreational systems: light, simple, no additional bailout tanks, no deco stops.

 

[steinbil]

Put the line where it make sense for you. I don't dispute the usefulness of one or several of them. Just, wherever you put lines, be aware that your way is not universal and don't assume that those who put a line at some other place are stupid, timorous or reckless.

Thank you, I just learned a new word! I have nothing against timorous divers, in fact I think being nervous is a good thing (at least up to a certain point) as it means you respect the risk of what you're doing and it can make you keep focus and not suffer from complacency. I think overconfident divers is a bigger issue, but I digress.

I also don't care where people draw the line of "technical diving", but I reserve the right to think people are reckless. Especially if they dive outside the limits of their training. Or if they dive deeper than 40m on air, regardless of their training.

 

[lowwall]

May I question that the division between rec/sport/tech divers has any inherent meaning?

A beginner may learn diving in a dry suit. There is no fundamental objection to learn diving with Nitrox excepted customs entrenched in some places as law. Yet _Technical diving, an introduction_ is using those two as characteristic of technical diving.

It is not even a question of arbitrary limit in a continuum (which seems in fact to be position of M. Powell). There is no single axis along which a progression is made and you could divide arbitrarily in named area. There is just a bunch of things to learn, a bunch of skill to master and they may depend more or less strongly on others but you can progress far without even to learn them. I've seen experienced divers freaking out by conditions for them unusual in which other are making there first dive. Be it the visibility, currents, temperature, need navigation skills,... eh, there is even a thread on this site where people are arguing if diving in caves is safer or not than in open water.

The division may make sense locally, depending on the local conditions and customs. But thinking it has to apply universally and that those who aren't putting the boundaries at the same place among the various axis to consider are timorous or careless is just ignoring that other points of view than your own are valid.

I concur. But I'm really posting to let you know how much I enjoy your courtly use of English

 

[JMarc]

I have nothing against timorous divers,

I've nothing against them either. (At least while they aren't in position of power and aren't trying to impose their notion of safe on everybody).

We are practicing an activity which incurs risk. How much risk depend on your training, the way you plan the dive, the external conditions, your buddy's,... Being aware of the risks you are taking is a necessity. Being aware that in the water you'll eventually find an unplanned situation as well.

Or if they dive deeper than 40m on air, regardless of their training.

I admit that I sometimes do such dives. But for those dives I'm more careful with a lot of things. But I tend to adapt my behavior to the dive and circumstances far more finely than just having a "rec" and a "tech" way and a single criteria like depth. It is the combination of risk factor that I'm considering. Diving quite often with insta buddies for instance, there are things I won't do with them (and deeper than 40m on air with just your back gaz with a buddy that neither me nor the operator know is indeed firmly in that set). And cave diving under 40m on air is also a combination I'm not ready to do, independently of the buddy and the equipment we'd take.

BTW, Do you dive up to 40m on air? If you do, you are keeping a far smaller limit than me between what you practice and what you consider reckless.