Recreational diving versus Technical? diving

[MikeFerrara]

intersting thread as I am presenting a topic to our club "Things we can learn from the Technical Diver" and trying to keep it simple. and in the 1 hour time frame; but also to show what the diver can do/purchase to do some of the same things - however, the biggest difference is the mental approach - safety, redundancy, maintenance, vigilance

I remember reading something that Tom Mount wrote (maybe in the tech diver encyclopedia), where he suggested that maybe the "tech" in "tech diver" should be thought of as standing for "technique" rather than "technical".

While, on the average, "technical divers" learn basic technique to a higher level than many "recreational divers", that higher level of technique applies very well to shallower and non-overhead diving also. So, a shallow, non-overhead diver might do just fine without some "technical" aspects, but the technique would still serve them pretty well. Once we start looking at some specific techniques that "technical divers" commonly learn and apply, it becomes pretty clear how those techniques can apply to and improve any diving.

 

[doole]

I have seen various references in my agency (PADI) noting that technical diving requires far better equipment and far more extensive training compared to so called recreational diving, i'm sure other agencies express this view too.

What are peoples (recreationals) view points of the differences between [rec] and [tec] diving? About what they think is needed in terms of extra equipment aswell as what extra training they deem neccessery.

I'm not sure what difference it makes. I dive within the limits of my training and experience. Whether somebody else wants to call it a 'tech' dive or a 'rec' dive, I'm not very concerned.

Also, I think you might find that there are many who might take issue with the notion that any particular type of diving might require 'better' equipment. If the equipment isn't of life support quality, it ain't gonna splash with me, regardless of what kind of dive it is. I'm kinda cowardly, that way.

 

[Meng_Tze]

I did not explain myself very well.
As I want to have an extended time on the wrecks at depths between 150 to 200 ft. I believe it would be best to dive trimix for the following reasons

I will be taught to use mixed gasses including O2 of > 50% thus reducing deco stops and increasing safety
The use of helium means I will not be as narced when I am at depth
Reduced O2 at depth will reduce the chance of Oxygen toxiciy

While I could do a bounce dive on air to 160 / 180 ft I would have a very limited bottom time on a 1 tank air dive.
I could use twins and sling an 80 all with air and risk being narced at depth, use my old deco tables to guestimate my deco stops and just wing it. :shakehead

Instead I will be trained to dive doubles, use mixed gases, learn how to plan my gas consumption, learn which gasses are suitable at what depths.
Or I won't do the dives.

Higher PPo2 gasses for faster deco is also taught in deco procedures. Training in doubles I would advise to do before you start deco procedures/Trimix.... by that time you should be well versed in doubles, maintaining trim and depth. Especially when doing trimix, where deco hang time can be long compared to BT.....

But overall yes, Trimix has its benefits the depths you mention, but not per se longer BT, there is more to it than that.

 

[TheHobster]

While, on the average, "technical divers" learn basic technique to a higher level than many "recreational divers", that higher level of technique applies very well to shallower and non-overhead diving also. So, a shallow, non-overhead diver might do just fine without some "technical" aspects, but the technique would still serve them pretty well. Once we start looking at some specific techniques that "technical divers" commonly learn and apply, it becomes pretty clear how those techniques can apply to and improve any diving.

ANd that is the approach; attitudinal approach, equipment and technique and the reasons for it - the approach is kinda like OK, passenger cars borrowed rear view morrors from Indy 500 cars; what can we learn from tech divers

So far, we are trying to keep it simple, and to an hour with examples of gear and techniques they can use and will give them a shot for pool night as well to try back mounted BC's as well as BP/wings; long hose, buoyancy drills, etc

 

[Thalassamania]

We had much the same problem creating a usable legal tool to divide research divers from commercial divers. It is real easy to sort rec/tec or research/commercial into their proper bins at the end points, but there is always some in the middle where they bleed into each other.

I've always used a rather simple test to make the tec/rec division, is it comfortable to make a free ascent to the surface? To my way of thinking it is a technical/technique dive (thanks for remembering Mount) whenever there's a ceiling (physical or decompression) or when you've gone deeper than you're comfortable making a free ascent from.

 

[Rick Murchison]

I've always used a rather simple test to make the tec/rec division, is it comfortable to make a free ascent to the surface? To my way of thinking it is a technical/technique dive (thanks for remembering Mount) whenever there's a ceiling (physical or decompression) or when you've gone deeper than you're comfortable making a free ascent from.

Technique... which brings to mind another area of "technical expertise" -
In contemplating the "degree of difficulty" on a dive, there are certainly cases when a strictly recreational dive is far more difficult to do well than a fairly technical - from an equipment/gas management/planning/decompression point of view - dive might be. One that leaps to mind is the old Kowaliga bridge rubble in Lake Martin, Alabama. Not deep, no overhead per-se, but extremely silty bottom, low visibility and big old pilings lying like a pile of pick-up-sticks on the bottom. Diving that site isn't "technical" and it's low in the real hazard category, 'cause one can always just pop to the surface if/when things turn to worms (well, boats above can be a problem, but that's another issue entirely). But to make a "good" dive on that site without mucking it up or losing team integrity or fouling the float line or getting hung up in the pilings - though decidedly not "technical" - is a feat of great diving skill (and a wonderful feeling having done one, by the way. The difficult challenge is part... well, most... of this site's attraction. That and the grouper sandwich waiting at Sinclair's after the dive).
Rick