Why did you go Tech, or not?

[danvolker]

We might try defining tech, as "the point at which a poorly trained diver, prone to panic, is no longer likely ( statistically) to make it to the surface without severe injury, if they run OOA and attempt an emergency buoyant ascent"...

While 100 feet is an easy free ascent for any of us who ever practiced it, even swimming without the assistance of a bc ( provided weighting is reasonable), 100 is pretty close to beyond possible for a non-skilled panicked diver to free ascend from. For this panicked, non-skilled diver, 40 to 60 feet should be survivable, or they should not have received their OW certification ( my opinion). Because an air failure is assumed survivable for them--that they "could" make it to the surface, fear is controllable......This dove tails pretty well into PADi's OW diver designation, and then their "Advanced Diver" designation, which we would hope might allow them to survive an emergency down to almost 100 feet..

The reality, is that in each case here, the diver "should" be aware enough to find their buddy, and manage the problem solving required to reach the surface, even if that only means enough presence of mind to ask or demand an alternate reg/octo , and to buddy breathe on an immediate path to the surface. Without the training, which also includes a lack of screening for people who will always panic, the free emergency ascent is the instinctive first response...and typically the WRONG ONE. The fear that is common to those without the training and practice in the emergency situation, is what will drive the flight to the surface, and prevent the diver from problem solving and looking for alternate air. I think that with the right training, most students can manage the amount of fear, and the level of risk they are exposed to ( which is fear producing) down to 100 feet, given enough training....
When you start getting deeper than 100, the difficulty of the free ascent goes up a great deal, causing an exponential increase in FEAR response, to the point that even training will not help a large percentage of the diver population. This increase in fear -- due to much greater threat, can easily prevent them from functional buddy breathing, or other problem solving..... I believe this is why the major training agencies have "wisely" labeled anything deeper than 130 to be a technical dive.

 

[danvolker]

Bantha po-du ... Peter and Joe dove the Andrea Doria in wetsuits with double/doubles: double tanks (old LP steels) and a single double hose regulator each, no BC, no Octopus, no lift bag, no computer, no helium, no training, no certification cards, but plenty of skill, knowledge and practice. Anyone what to say that was not a "technical dive" because he was not sporting all the requisite gear?

"As we swam down . . . we were stunned and awestruck at the immensity of the ship as she took form beneath us."—Peter Gimbel, 1956

View attachment 108014
At 160 feet, Peter took this extraordinary photograph of Joe Fox clinging to the stern of a lifeboat tethered by lines, but floating upended on the buoyancy of air chambers, bearing the name of home port to which the Andrea Doria would never return.

Thal,
This gets back to the population involved....back in the 60's, and even into the mid 70's to a lesser degree, the only people that wanted to become divers, were adventurers....they were often fast snow skiiers, whitewater paddlers, rock climbers, adventure sports type people before anyone called this adventure sports..
This was a population of people that found diving very easy.....many made plenty of mistakes in the beginning of their diving, but LEARNED QUICKLY from their mistakes....and these divers had the correct mental "wiring" for dealing with multiple events that were conspiring to kill them
My guess is that for you it was similar to the way it was for me....as a child, I had watched so many episodes of Sea Hunt, and read the Silent World so many times, and everything else on diving, to the point that my first day of NAUI open water training, it was like I already knew ALL OF THIS, and there was almost nothing to learn...what there was available to learn, we soaked up instantly.

When Peter and Joe were doing these dives, no one needed BC's, because everyone knew to weight themselves so that they could easily swim up from the deepest point in a dive....and the double 72's were beautiful tanks for this, as they added essentially no weight to swim up. Back when I got certified in 72, many of the divers to emulate were fond of saying "anyone who needs a bc deserves to drown"

 

[Peter Guy]

[Somewhat OT]
Dan wrote

Back when I got certified in 72, many of the divers to emulate were fond of saying "anyone who needs a bc deserves to drown"

And this, I believe, perhaps shows, once again, that what is "true" one place is not "true" another place. I don't know where Dan was diving, but where I was diving, just about that same period, the divers who HAD "BCs" (in particular, a Fenzi) were the "top" divers. Why? Because if we didn't have something to compensate for our wetsuit's loss of buoyancy we were rocks.

[Back OT] I certainly agree with Thal that there is no line, bright or otherwise, that separates "technical" from "recreational" diving -- it merely seques from "clearly one" to "clearly the other." Let's face it, as we go deeper, stay longer and/or go into darker spaces, the need for "preparation, planning and practice" increases since the "fear factor" (Dan V) or merely risk of injury/death increases.

 

[danvolker]

[Somewhat OT]
Dan wrote
And this, I believe, perhaps shows, once again, that what is "true" one place is not "true" another place. I don't know where Dan was diving, but where I was diving, just about that same period, the divers who HAD "BCs" (in particular, a Fenzi) were the "top" divers. Why? Because if we didn't have something to compensate for our wetsuit's loss of buoyancy we were rocks.

[Back OT] I certainly agree with Thal that there is no line, bright or otherwise, that separates "technical" from "recreational" diving -- it merely seques from "clearly one" to "clearly the other." Let's face it, as we go deeper, stay longer and/or go into darker spaces, the need for "preparation, planning and practice" increases since the "fear factor" (Dan V) or merely risk of injury/death increases.

I think I first heard this from a Marine Geology professor who had formerly been a Navy frogman.....Taylor Loop, a professor from New England colleges who led a January term project to Tobago, to study the marine geology of Bucco Reef...circa 1976. This was 30 days of intense diving, where I as a freshman, was only allowed because I had assured Taylor that when the research projects required someone to get into a challenging situation, he could have me do it, rather than the typically "less physical" seniors and grad students.

This was diving with skin suits, not even wetsuits. Taylor was a very strong diver, and was a big early influence on my ideas regarding diving....the next to be Frank Hammett, of Palm Beach ( also warm, and also not a guy that cared whether he had a BC on or not..) , and then George Irvine, who definitely pushed me toward using a bp/wing to achieve "perfect" buoyancy--something that had never been considered in the past by me, or Frank, or Taylor

I did not mean this could have any bearing whatsoever on cold water diving, where this attitude could not have been functional.

 

[Thalassamania]

Dan, it's one of those what was, what is, what should be, what could be problems.

 

[robbcayman]

I don't really understand the current idea of, "going tech." Tech is not a thing, it is not a set of rules, it is not a uniform, it is not a gear configuration, it is not a philosophy, nor is it a curriculum. It is simply and solely diving in any situation that does not permit a normal direct ascent to the surface, thus most cave diving, and most wreck penetration, and all decompression diving, is technical diving. I have been diving, routinely, below 130 feet since at least 1972 (maybe earlier). Back then, there was neither a concept of a 130 foot recreational limit nor of technical diving. Going deeper than 130 was possible, within the no-D limits, it just meant short dives and we dove down to 190 fsw, carefully avoiding decompression. When we had to stay longer it meant significant planning, preparation and practice, but had nothing to do with black drysuits and blue drygloves, it had everything to do with the aforementioned planning, preparation and practice. It had nothing do with some separate and/or unique codex that is passed from apostle to acolyte that alters the diver's state of consciousness and suddenly solves the deadly problems encountered by the uninitiated at 131 fsw.

I hope you stay on this board for a long time. Seriously, you always have the most captivating stories/ideas of any diver on here.

 

[Thalassamania]

...
When you start getting deeper than 100, the difficulty of the free ascent goes up a great deal, causing an exponential increase in FEAR response, to the point that even training will not help a large percentage of the diver population. This increase in fear -- due to much greater threat, can easily prevent them from functional buddy breathing, or other problem solving..... I believe this is why the major training agencies have "wisely" labeled anything deeper than 130 to be a technical dive.

I don't disagree with you here, but do think it incredible hubris on the part of the agencies to co-opt a term that the folks who developed aquaCorps (especially M²) and defined to have a completely different meaning and basis. Had they said that any diving you do that you are not comfortable making a free ascent from should be handled as technical diving because you had a skill ceiling, I could have bought that, but not a blanket, "130 feet" that is just lifted from the US Navy where it is naught but an operational mode change. I guess there is no honor amongst thieves.

I hope you stay on this board for a long time. Seriously, you always have the most captivating stories/ideas of any diver on here.

Thanks, flattery will get you everywhere.

 

[Rhone Man]

For me, it was purely to become a better diver. It worked, and I am glad that I did it.

I rarely do "tech" dives (although I certainly do them occasionally - glad I didn't miss the San Francisco Maru in Truk Lagoon). But even if I never went below 130 feet again, I am very glad of the training I received.

 

[CamG]

Great thread with even better dialog.
What or why did I choose advanced dives?
To be able to safely execute the dives I wished to do.
The advanced training goes with the more challenging environments cave or beyond NDL.
It was just that simple for me.

What draws me farther into the realm is the focus, planning, and intensity of the dives.
Goal oriented activities I enjoy very much not just diving.
The feeling I get when I am inside a wreck that sank in the 1800's or 1000+ inside a cave when the floor and ceiling open into a huge hall and the awe striking reality of where I am suspended.
Nothing, speed (MPH), drugs, alcohol, hunting, fishing, any other bobbie or sport comes close to this feeling!

CamG Keep Diving....Keep Training....Keep Learning!

 

[captain]

Although I have made dives that would be considered tech by today's divers they were before the term or the preoccupation of what is or isn't tech was even thought of. So in the tech sense I have never "gone tech".