Philosophical question on tech diving.

[topflowerrubberforever]

hey guys. i was told today that technical diving is just a waste of time. after 30m depths, there is nothing to see down there. i was also told that 10 extra minutes of bottom time with nitrox isn't worth it. maybe i misunderstood the diver but i decided there and then to post this philosophical question:
" Why technical? "

i hope no one replies with the "why-not"

Jalal

 

[chickdiver]

There are a LOT of things to see below 30m. Most of the better wrecks (as opposed to artificail reefs) I have seen have been significantly deeper than that. As for the comment about "10 extra minutes on nitrox" .... well, that's just plain wrong. We routinely do much longer bottom times in depths ranging in the 200'-300' range. There is also great satisfaction for many of us in the planning and execution of the dive itself.

I think your guy is full of crap, and probably downing something he knows nothing about and has never experienced.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

Part to the appeal is the technical side of it- the planning of the dive, the execution of the dive, the extra demands that you must meet. And I think for many tech divers another part of the appeal is just doing something that not all that many divers are capable of doing and at its best, going somewhere or being someplace where few if any other divers have been.

Besides, after a while run of the mill rec diving gets to be just plain boring and I find a new challenge helps keep things fresh. Very few other sports offer that possibility for continued growth.

 

[Snowbear]

What chickdiver said.
What DA said, too.

Maybe I'm whacko, but I enjoy technical diving for the reasons they both said. Especially with a buddy I completely trust who has the same training I do.

 

[jbd]

hey guys. i was told today that technical diving is just a waste of time. after 30m depths, there is nothing to see down there.

Complete load of hogwash. There is different stuff to see. One just needs to know what to look for if interested in creatures and critters. What chickdiver said about wrecks is also noteworthy. Track down CurtBowen and look at some of the dives he has done in the Gulf of Mexico. There is stuff to see and do well beyond 30m.

 

[Keysdrifter454]

hey guys. i was told today that technical diving is just a waste of time. after 30m depths, there is nothing to see down there. i was also told that 10 extra minutes of bottom time with nitrox isn't worth it. maybe i misunderstood the diver but i decided there and then to post this philosophical question:
" Why technical? "

i hope no one replies with the "why-not"

Jalal

Tell your source of information to lay off the pipe.

I'd say that the majority of my dives -are- at or above 90 ft, but this is mainly due to logistics, gas availability, willing charters, ect.

But there's a whole lot more ocean under 90 ft than there is above it.

Tech diving isn't yes/no or pass/fail.

There are a lot of different ways to begin that trail, you investigate them.

As for the ten extra nitrox minutes, for me at this point that would be 10,000 extra career minutes, and many more for others here (I know a score of divers in the 3-5000 range).

 

[Quarrior]

I've been working toward technical diving since the day I got my C card. I never purchased and rarely rented/used a standard rec configured rig. I have always used tech configured gear so that I do not have to learn how to use it when I start my tech training.

As for why? Simple, I love wrecks. I am totally enthralled with the history, research, and the hunt. Of course there is the best part, diving on them and I can't wait until I am qualified. Sadly, that's still about 6 months to a year away. I'm taking my time.

As for the person that says there is nothing to see below 30m, all I can say is bunk. As previously stated, most of the best wrecks are below that depth. But, even if they are within the rec depth limits, you cannot spend enough time on them to enjoy them using standard rec practices and gear.

Using rec gear and training you cannot/should not enter a wreck, you can only swim around the outside. Nice the first time or two, after that, BORING on the same wreck.

My .02 worth.

 

[Hyper-limits]

hey guys. i was told today that technical diving is just a waste of time. after 30m depths, there is nothing to see down there. i was also told that 10 extra minutes of bottom time with nitrox isn't worth it. maybe i misunderstood the diver but i decided there and then to post this philosophical question:
" Why technical? "

i hope no one replies with the "why-not"

Jalal

The people who told you that there is nothing to see under 30m are divers that never been under a 30m. Of course there is tons to see from 30m to 100m depending where you diving. Let say you drive for 2 hours and pay 100$ for the charter to do a dive on a shipwreck in about a 30-40msw. You could dive for 10-15 minutes or 40 minutes with about 20 mins of deco. The 40 mins sound better it gives you enough time to explore the entire wreck(depending of the size). Technical diving I also feel make you a much better/safer diver.

cheers

 

[DepartureDiver]

. . . i was also told that 10 extra minutes of bottom time with nitrox isn't worth it.

I think this part of the question was that diving on nitrox within the "recreational limits" will only give an extra 10 minutes as compared to air and it's not worth it. Nitrox can give more than 10 minutes of extra bottom time, depending on the depth. As an example, it can double the allowed no-stop time at 90 feet. Putting this aside, even if a diver stays within the air limits, it can result in a significanlty safer dive. It sounds like the person giving the advice simply isn't educated on the subject as everyone else has pointed out.

 

[mania]

Not only wrecks - which as it was already said - are often deeper than 30m. Also even in the Red Sea the big animals - sharks, mantas and so on are usually deeper than 30 meters. So there is a lot to see. I agree - this guy probably never were there or is too scared to do so and he made up this philosophy to cover his own limitations.
Mania